The hon. the Prime Minister told us yesterday that it was impossible for a multi-racial society to decide on their future together. In other words, he told us that it was impossible for different races to share in the government, different races such as we have here in South Africa. On the other hand the hon. the Prime Minister also rejects racial discrimination. He says each race must have an opportunity to govern himself. If these two principles which the Prime Minister believes in are to be reconciled one cannot have a multi-racial society at all. What is the position in South Africa? When this Government came into power we had a multi-racial society. After 15 years we are still a multiracial society. So how can the Prime Minister possibly state that these are his political beliefs and how can he reconcile them as long as we remain a multi-racial society? Surely the only context in which the policy of apartheid will make sense will be a policy in which we undo our multi-racialism; in which we reverse the processes of the past 300 years; a policy under which we give each of the four racial groups their own homeland where they can govern themselves and run their own economies. This policy of the Prime Minister’s makes no sense; it is a completely impractical policy and we might just as well stop pretending that we have a policy to solve our problems in this country.

As far as the Coloureds and the Asians are concerned, surely the prerequisite for a policy of apartheid is that each group must have his own homeland. We have not even got an indication of the homelands of the Coloureds and the Asians. How can we go on pretending that we have a constructive policy as far as they are concerned? They are two racial groups who, by the end of the century, will out-number the Whites. Let us leave the Coloureds and the Asians there and come back to the problem of the Bantu.

The hon. the Prime Minister told us yesterday how he thought the bulk of the Bantu could be removed from the White Republic back to their homelands. The Prime Minister told us that it was intended to create 500,000 jobs in industry on the border of the reserves. The Prime Minister did not tell us how he intended to create those jobs but let us assume for a moment that it will be done; that 500,000 industrial jobs will be created within the next 50 years. The Prime Minister then told us that those 500,000 workers would be able to support directly and indirectly 12,500,000 Bantu. As far as I could follow the Prime Minister he argued along these lines: He said that he had read somewhere in a publication by a Japanese sociologist …

I did not say a Japanese sociologist; I said it was also applicable to Japan.

I am sorry; I misunderstood the Prime Minister. Let us see how it applies to South Africa. The Prime Minister said that he had seen in a publication by some sociologist that if you had one worker in primary industry—and this also applied to Japan—he supported a family of five including himself and that that family of five gave rise to service requirements which in turn provided employment to a further five workers with their families. With this snowballing effect, the net result is that one worker in secondary industry directly and indirectly supports 25 people. I hope I understood the Prime Minister correctly as far as that is concerned. The Prime Minister did not give us the authority on whom he relied, except that he said he had read it in a Japanese publication. We have what is called occupational censuses in this country. We had an occupational census in 1951 and we had another one in 1960. Unfortunately the full results of the 1960 one are not available in the parliamentary library so I had to turn to the 1951 census. I find that in 1951 we had a total population of about 12,750,000 people in the Union, as it was then called. Our total number of workers at that time was about 4,500,000. That is a ratio of about three to one. So it would appear that one worker in South Africa supports three people including himself. We find that of those 4,500,000 workers 2,750,000 were employed in primary and secondary occupations such as agriculture, fishing, forestry, secondary industry, construction, mining and so forth. The number of workers in the tertiary occupations amounted to about 1,800,000. If we take our own statistics, and not what sociologists in other countries write, we have the position that our census figures show that one productive worker and his family require the services not of five tertiary workers but one two-thirds of a tertiary worker. The ratio is not five to one but only one to two-thirds. That is the situation in South Africa.

Of this total population of 12,500,000, 2,750,000 were employed in primary and secondary industry. Here again the ratio is not 25 to 1 but approximately five to one. So at least as far as the facts in South Africa are concerned, one productive worker supports, directly and indirectly, five other people including himself instead of 25. If we use these ratios, which, as I say, I got from the occupational census and not from sociological writings from other countries, we find, if we assume—and that is already a big assumption—that the Prime Minister will succeed in creating those 500,000 jobs over the next 50 years, that those 500,000 workers wil be able to support, directly and indirectly, a total Native population of only 2,500,000 and not 12,500,000. And according to all the forecasts of population growth in this country the Native population, 50 years hence, will be over 30,000,000. So those 500,000 jobs will provide a means of livelihood to only 2,500,000 out of a total of 30,000,000.

I would ask the Prime Minister whether he does not now realize that, even if he succeeds in creating all these jobs, his policy as it relates to the Bantu is just as impractical as it relates to the Indians and the Coloureds; that it is equally impossible of being carried out. The Prime Minister suggested, as far as I could understand him, that we on this side of the House should have more of the faith which Winston Churchill showed in the dark days of 1940, that we should not be so much concerned about the practicalities of what can be done and what cannot be done. He said we must show faith. I am pleased that hon. member says that is correct, but I should like to suggest that Winston Churchill did not only win the war because of his indomitable courage and his unshakeable courage but he also won the war because his policies in persecuting the war were based on realities, the realities that if England could hold out long enough the whole world would sooner or later turn against Nazi Germany. I suggest that a better analogy would be Herr Hitler himself. He had the same indomitable courage and the same unshakeable faith which Winston Churchill had but look what happened to him. Why did it happen? It happened because he followed an unreal policy in thinking that Germany could dominate the world on the basis of exclusive racialistic policies. [Time limit.]

It is really tiring to listen to the attacks of the Opposition hour after hour. The argument they raise has been used by them ad nauseam from the commencement of the Session. It was raised in the discussion on the motion of no-confidence; it was repeated during the discussion on the language question, and during the discussion of the Transkei constitution. The Opposition consistently refuses to deal with the crux of the question. They refuse to examine and analyse the substance of the origin of these subversive organizations. They do not do it because they are afraid that if they were to analyse the problem, and then have to attack the Government with the actual finding, they will hopelessly fail in the conflict. The Opposition refuse to come to the reality of the problem. They scratch around in the superficial mud. I should like to refer to the attack of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on the hon. the Prime Minister. He says that it is the Prime Minister and the Government who have created by their policy the fertile bed for the emergence and growth of the subversive organizations such as the A.N.C., P.A.C. and Poqo. Then the Opposition goes further and says: “We can easily undo it. Just let us take over the government, then the desert will be converted into fertile grazing land; then the position will be like after a fine soft rain that soothes the feelings of the farmers in the drought-stricken areas; then the feelings of the subversive leaders and the outside world will be soothed.” But surely that is not true. They know it is not true. That makes it so difficult for me to follow their reasoning. They refuse to admit that their statement that our policy is the cause of the rise of subversive organizations is hopelessly wrong. These subversive organizations have their roots much deeper in a greater and mightier organization that has been in existence for centuries in the minds of the Afro-Asiatic peoples of Africa and Asia to liberate themselves from the White man. These organizations are only very thin branches of that mighty tree that has its roots deep within the lives and in the hearts of our own Bantu as well as the Afro-Asiatic peoples of the world. They want to shake off the yoke of the White man for ever and ever. That is the basic cause. The basic cause is not apartheid.

Mr. Chairman in the early ’forties when I was a missionary in Pretoria, I often attended the soap box speeches of the I.C.U., the A.N.C. and the Kotani supporters in the afternoons after my hours of duty. I remember well what one of those inciters had to say at a great gathering in Marabastad. He was referring to the attacks of the police at Vereeniging and said: “Look, the police are carrying pistols and revolvers and they have put many of our comrades six feet under the ground. You, my comrades, do not have pistols and revolvers, but you will be taught and we shall see to it that you will know, on the great day of liberation, how to put the police under six feet of earth also.” Now I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Was there a National Party in power at that time which with its policy created the fertile seedbed for the rise of those ideas that at that time resulted in the same incitement to murder and homicide? If we come to the truth and to reality, surely we cannot argue so stupidly as to say that this Government has created the seedbed. Who created the fertile seedbed for similar organizations in the Congo and in Kenya when the Mau Mau was in its prime? The Mau Mau committed much crueller crimes than Poqo have committed so far or can hope to perpetrate in the future. Was there a National Government with an apartheid policy that created a fertile bed? To hear such charges over and over again from a responsible Leader of the Opposition makes one fed-up. It is only a smokescreen that is being thrown up. But a smokescreen is thrown up in time of war for various reasons. It is done to hide one for an attack on one’s enemy, but it is also thrown up to enable your men to retreat. This smokescreen is a symbol for the future when the public will, during an election, cause this Opposition to disappear in a haze.

The second argument used here is that if the nation were to put the Opposition in power there will be peace in this country. The Opposition says: “If we come into power and we apply our policy of race federation (it really is a policy of racial discrimination) there will be a feeling of contentment among the leaders of the subversive organizations: then Luthuli will smile in a friendly manner, he will perhaps be liberated; then Sobukwe and his accessories will return; they will be friendly and be disposed to state that they are completely satisfied with the eight White representatives that will represent the masses of 11,000,000 and more in this Government; then U Thant and other representatives of the UNO countries will come and pay us a goodwill visit, for the U.P. is in power with a wonderful policy, and are giving satisfactory representation and making promises; this country will then be a wonder country; they will come to this country with palm branches symbolizing peace.” What pure nonsense!

Mr. Chairman, when one analyses the arguments of the Opposition one finds that all of them are hollow and unfounded. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) enlisted the aid of Pieter Lessing yesterday. He says Lessing says we must remove the causes for the existence of subversive organizations, and then they will not be able to continue. But surely these are not organizations that have arisen for economic reasons. They are not organizations that complain about poor housing, inadequate school and hospital facilities, etc. The leaders of these organizations have a different motive. Their motive is a completely plain political one. They want to wipe the White man from the face of Africa. [Time limit]

Mr. Chairman, may I avail myself of the second half-hour? I am sure the hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) will forgive me if I do not immediately follow his line of argument. I promise him I shall come back to him in due course.

I feel that we have been making progress with the hon. the Prime Minister in this debate. We have made progress because it is quite clear that in respect of internal security the solution which he offers is police action, greater administrative power, more police action and the advice to the Opposition not to criticize the Government for fear that it may be misunderstood by other people. It is a dictatorial approach. Sir, an approach that has been so evident in the speeches by hon. members opposite. We must not even refer to it if the warnings which we have given in the past have been proved to be correct.

In the field of external security the hon. the Prime Minister has offered us no remedy for the improvement of the present situation. Of course, he has the difficulty that he can offer no remedy because he has failed entirely to establish a moral basis for his treatment of the Cape Coloured people and for his treatment of the Asiatic people, whom, he seems to imply, are very lucky indeed to be allowed to remain in South Africa despite the use he has made of them over the years. He can offer no solution because he cannot get the world to understand the fiction which he believes in respect of the urban Bantu.

There are two other matters which one should raise in connection with external security. The one in respect of Basutoland was raised last night. Perhaps the hon. the Prime Minister will deal with that in due course. There is another one that should be raised and that is the question of our relation-ships with the disintegrating Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. That Federation was in a sense in the past a buffer state. It secured our northern boundaries and our relationships with it were of a very friendly kind. It seems clear that that Federation is disintegrating and the question we have to ask is what the future relationship is going to be. I wonder whether the hon. the Prime Minister is able to tell us whether any approaches have been made, what his plans are and what he believes the future relationships should be with the individual states of that Federation?

There is something else, Sir. Our only railway link with those northern territories at the moment is through a Protectorate which may in due course obtain its independence. Does the hon. the Prime Minister feel that that means of communication will be safe under those circumstances? Has he considered any alternative? What has the Government in view for proper means of communication with those territories in future? I think we all would like to know whether this Government has considered the possibility of defence arrangements with one or other of those states and what it feels the right relationship should be.

There is another point and that is this: The Federation was, without any doubt, one of our best customers in respect of the export of industrial goods from South Africa. We exported to them R97,300,000 worth of goods in 1961 as opposed to a total of R130,600,000 worth of all kinds of goods to the whole of the African continent. We remember, Sir, that before Federation we had a customs union with Northern Rhodesia and a customs agreement with Southern Rhodesia. When Federation came into being there was delay about coming to any agreement because the Minister at the time wanted to know what the economic policy of the Federation was going to be, and as a result there was no customs union, there was no agreement comparable to what we had had in the past, and we finished up with a number of agreements with the Federal Government. What is going to happen if that Government disintegrates? Has that matter been considered? What are the views of the Government in respect of that matter? What steps are being taken to protect the interests of our industrialists in what up to now has been one of our best markets for the export of industrial goods on the African Continent?

There is another matter concerned with external policy and that has to do with South West Africa. I do not propose to raise this issue at this stage for reasons that may be well understandable. There is, however, one matter of shall I say a domestic nature which may improve the image of South Africa’s administration of that territory and that is the question of the appointment of a new Adminisstrator to South West Africa. One knows of course that it is within the Government’s gift. One remembers that when Dr. Malan as Prime Minister arranged for the closer relationship between South West Africa and the then Union of South Africa, he saw the members of both the Nationalist Party in South West Africa and the United South West African Party and he indicated to them that it was his desire as soon as possible to see as Administrator of South West Africa someone who was of South West origin. So strong was his conviction that he incorporated into the South West African Affairs Amendment Act of 1949 a sub-section in Section 3 of the Act—

In the appointment of the Administrator of the Territory, the Governor-General shall as far as practical give preference to persons who reside or have resided in the Territory and have special knowledge of the circumstances prevailing therein.

Of course one cannot read the mind of the hon. Prime Minister or of the Government on this issue, but I think it is fair at this stage to ask whether in view of the possible difficulties which are developing, the Government intends to give due consideration to that sub-section of the South West African Affairs Amendment Act for which they were responsible, with the support of the Opposition. I think we should like to know that.

Do you want Japie?

There are certain other questions we want to put to the hon. the Prime Minister, one concerning the economic situation and the effect of the policies of the Government on the economic situation of South Africa. I raised that matter yesterday, but was not able to complete what I wanted to say last night. The point I was coming to was: In view of the now accepted number of unemployed amongst the Bantu population and the acceptance of the fact that we appear to be offering employment for only 42,000 of the 75,000 Bantu becoming available for employment each year, what the policies of the Government are in respect of that situation. I will not labour that point. I think I made that point last night. But I would like to come back to the agricultural position and say that under this Government we have seen a departure from the principles of the Marketing Act. We have seen, so far as we interpret it, a departure from the generally accepted principle of all Governments to try and keep as large a percentage of our population as possible on the land, as large a percentage as could reasonably be expected because of the recognized stabilizing influences of rural employment and rural background. What have we seen so far? We have seen steps taken by this Government which in a sense endanger the future of large sections of that industry because the stability ensured under the Marketing Act has been departed from. We have had statements from both Ministers responsible for the agricultural industry indicating that they stand for the clearing up of small economic units, supported by the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday, and the rehousing of them or the transferring of them to units which are economic, in other words, the consolidation of uneconomic units. Sir. if you consolidate uneconomic units, just as if you consolidate uneconomic farms, somebody gets left out. Who is it going to be. Sir? The hon. member for Cradock or me? Which of us are going to have to move to the town?

I think you will have to go.

I think the hon. member is right. I think I stand a better chance of making a living than he has. Perhaps that won’t be the criteria.

What about all the other State-owned land that is going to come under irrigation?

I agree that that is a possibility. Has the Government ever told us that that is going to be available for unsuccessful sheep-farmers, unsuccessful foresters who know nothing about that sort of farming? Has the Government ever suggested that it will be available for retired politicians? We would like to know what the policy of the Government is, because irrigation-farming is a specialized form of farming, a type of farming which needs a great deal of training and a great deal of energy and on the whole is not suitable for people who have failed in other forms of farming. And there is something else: Our population is growing, and the Orange River scheme is not going to be available overnight. It is going to take many years before we can settle even our surplus agricultural population at the present time, on that scheme, let alone the natural increase of the farming community in South Africa. As it is we have a feeling that there is a complete slackness amongst members of this Government in looking for new markets for our agricultural products, our surplus products. I have here a publication called Austral News. This is the journal of the Australian Trade Commission. There it tells you how Australia is exporting dairy products and dairy skills to Japan, how it is exporting Australian citrus to Manilla, how the West Indies are buying Friesland cattle from Australia, and so we go on: “Food for the world from Australia”, telling about the sales of meat and fish, prawns and crayfish (comparing with our South African rock lobster) in the markets of the world. What are we doing to compete? They speak here of markets that most of our people have never heard of. What are we doing to compete with these people? The interesting thing is that they are able to compete with us despite the fact that they use White labour, far more expensive than the labour which we have available on our farms. Is it that we cannot compete? It is that our farmers are so incompetent that they cannot compete in those markets? Or is it that our Government has done nothing to open up those markets for the South African agricultural community? I could go on, but I would like a reply from the hon. the Prime Minister on this issue, as I would like a reply from him again on the arithmetic of his border industries.

I must be very frank, Sir, I do not understand it yet and I believe that that is one of the fundamental difficulties in dealing with the differences between the hon. Prime Minister and ourselves when it comes to non-European policy. You see, Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Prime Minister is trying very hard to discredit the alternative policies which we are offering to South Africa. Sometimes he cannot read them and sometimes when he reads them, he does not understand them, and sometimes he tries to make comparisons between the other states in Africa and the Republic of South Africa which cannot hold water when you look into the facts. And here we had the hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) falling into the same trap. The hon. gentleman has been telling us of his difficulties with the I.C.U. in 1940, I believe. I wonder if he realizes that the A.N.C. was founded in South Africa in 1912 and if he knows that it has been in existence ever since then. Has he ever taken the trouble to go to the Library and read its history? It is a banned book, but he can get it out.

But you say that we have created the seed-beds for Poqo.

Let us get this clear. He says that I am accusing him of creating the seed-beds for the spread of those moments. Of course I am, for the very simple reason that that organization has been in existence for over 50 years. And when did it become a danger? When this Government created conditions in which it could get support and could spread.

Why has it been banned in Rhodesia?

Because it is a different organization in Rhodesia, as he ought to know, under different leadership and following different principles. I believe the hon. member could argue with me about the policies of the various churches, but until he has read the history, I think he should not argue with me about this matter. He is trying to tell us that we suggest that if we came into power, things would change. Of course they would. They could not change just overnight, because when you have created increasing bad feeling over the years, you reach the top of a graph.

It is like the Prime Minister’s graph and before you can reverse the process it takes a little time. He suggested that when we would come into power U Thant might visit South Africa on the basis of friendship. U Thant has not visited South Africa, but the last Secretary-General of the UNO did. So what is so surprising about that? Let us get away from that nonsense. The hon. member can possibly think back to Clements Kadali and the difficulties there were in the ’twenties, or does he not remember those things?

I do.

Let us come back to the hon. Prime Minister. He tried to compare South Africa with a state like Southern Rhodesia where there is one White man to 12 Bantu, or a state like Northern Rhodesia where there is 1:20, or a state like Nyasaland where there is 1:312, or the Congo where there is one White man to 124 Black men.

The principle remains the same.

And Kenya where it is 1:94. And my talkative friend has never tried to mention Ghana where the ratio is one White man to 1,000 Bantu. How can you make a comparison? Here your ratio is 1:4 and if you can get the Cape Coloured people into the civilized group, it is 1:2½ at worst. Here we have the greatest chance of any state on the African Continent of maintaining Western civilized standards and maintaining one integral state as opposed to the divisions which are being proposed by the hon. Prime Minister. No other state has ever had this opportunity and it is being thrown away by the “vreesbevangenheid” (there is no English word for that) of members on that side of the House because they have not got the courage or the confidence or the belief that they can maintain their position or Western standards in such a favourable relationship under any other scheme except complete separation which will dismember our country and ruin our economy. The hon. the Prime Minister, because he was so upset by our proposals apparently, not only had difficulty in reading them—in fact he started talking about them before he had read them through, or he would not have made the mistakes he did make.

Are you still looking for the third phase?

I hate to be rude to the hon. the Prime Minister, but how any man of any intelligence could take the trouble to read that article and then be faced with the difficulties with which the Prime Minister was faced last night, quite frankly is beyond my understanding. In kindness, I want to say that I believe it was handed to him and that he started speaking about it before he had read it. I am sure that now that he has done his homework and has perhaps read the article …

1 read it before I spoke. Have you found the third phase?

Then I want to say very simply and very clearly that the hon. gentlemen must have read it with half a mind and no concentration or attention, because he missed not only where the third phase began, which was so simple, because there was a red mark, but he missed something else: He missed that the various phases could overlap. He started his childish argument that before anything was done we would consider this and consider that and the position would deteriorate.

What is the meaning of “phase”? One thing after the other.

When the Prime Minister tries to make a statement like that I am sorry. Surely he knows something about electrical phases and how they connect with each other? Surely he has learned a little about those things in his time? Surely he realizes that one phase, one period can overlap with another and that it is very difficult in human relations to draw sharp lines, and I think the only lines you can draw in South Africa which are sharp is when this Government makes itself so foolish once again with the sort of legislation it puts on the Statute Book and the Opposition has to oppose them and show that we are reaching the parting of the ways.

One party is overlapping the other.

Quite right, the Nationalist Party is losing support daily to the United Party. And it is losing support daily to Fritz Smit and his people. Go and read the Sunday Times.

I believe that the policy which we offer has certain advantages over that which the Prime Minister offers. The first thing is that we stand for responsible citizenship for everybody in South Africa, and we want each person to have a responsibility to the members of his own group in respect of those matters which most intimately concern them. We are not so arrogant as to stand up like the Prime Minister and his party and say that they can dictate the most intimate affairs of every single race group and every person in South Africa. We believe that it would lead to greater harmony if they were allowed to decide those things for themselves, and we believe, therefore, that every man should have rights within his own community and that those rights should be secure from invasion and interference by the other groups. We believe that the various groups cannot work together unless you have proper consultation. That is why we think it so vital that there should be democratic institutions throughout the fabric of our society.

Now you are starting to overlap with apartheid.

I believe that the best of the thinking of apartheid is incorporated in the race federation scheme. The only grain of real intelligence in it, the only good ideas in it, are incororated in this scheme. But our difficulties lie here that where the hon. the Prime Minister speaks of consultation between the various groups we have a very shrewd idea of what that consultation is. It is like consultation with the Coloured Council, over half of whom are nominated by the Government, and the other half were elected unopposed because there was so little interest taken in the election. It is like consultation with the Indians who have not even got a council yet. It is like consultation with so many of the Bantu Authorities, the majority of whom according to the Prime Minister’s own publication “Bantu Affairs” were nominated and therefore need have no regard to the views of the people whom they are ruling. That was published in Bantu Affairs in respect of the authorities established by the hon. the Prime Minister, and therefore they would not be worried by changes in public opinion, and they can go ahead with Government policy. That is the sort of consultation the Government wants. We do not stand for that sort of consultation. We stand for consultation with representatives of the mass of the people, and we would like to see them elected by the people so that we know they represent their point of view.

The Sobukwes and the Luthulis.

I am quite prepared to consult with them, I am not prepared to agree with them. But my friends are afraid to consult with them. They are terrified that if they talk to them they may get tainted. Look at them! If they are the elected representatives of their people, I am prepared to talk to them, I am not prepared to agree with them. I am prepared to consult with them, and then I know what line I must take. But these people just ignore them, and what is the result? You push them into hostility and you have got them in the position where you have them to-day. I do not say they are blameless. I believe they have done many stupid things. But I believe that a great part of the trouble to-day is the frustration of people who would like to talk to the Government and would like to meet them man to man and consult on the issues which affect the whole population in South Africa.

Are you prepared to be governed by them?

No, but the hon. Prime Minister must not be in a hurry again. He does not know where the third phase begins because he has not read the article yet. But there is another advantage that our scheme has over that of the Prime Minister: We keep South Africa as one integral whole. We do not divide it up and dismember it and hand it over to different groups who can combine and can combine with groups outside and destroy the very basis of Western civilization in South Africa, and probably destroy the White race itself if the Prime Minister remains in command of things. But we go further. The schemes we offer are fair to all, because the individual of whatever race will find advancement for himself in the administration of the affairs of his own group.

It has one other advantage. It offers an immediate solution for our most pressing problems. You could start to-morrow releasing racial tensions; you could give people a say not only in advising but in the administration of their own groups. You could give them a sense of belonging and to place them in a position where they know that they are part of the Republic of South Africa; they would want to fight for it and defend it and they would not want to attack it with assistance from outside. We do not have to wait till 1978 or some other miracle date before you reverse the process and start reaping dividends. You reap them now and you can see the effects the moment you put that policy into operation. It gives you an immediate release from racial tension because once you have people participating administratively in the machinery of the government of their own group, they develop a sense of responsibility and they understand what it all entails.

We differ so much from the hon. Prime Minister in that respect. He is prepared to give them a sense of participation in the reserves, but not in the urban areas. And he is not prepared to give the Indians a sense of participation or the Coloured people. The Bantu in the reserves should have a sense of participation according to the Prime Minister. There he recognizes how important it is. There they should carry some responsibility and having some sense of belonging, but in the urban areas, what is the Bantu given? A suggestion that he can help in governing a homeland somewhere else which he probably does not know, has no say in. [Time limit.]

I am anxious to come to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said, but before doing so I should like to deal briefly with another matter. I should like to call attention to a report that appeared in the Sunday Times this week-end of the findings of the Press Board in connection with complaints made against the Sunday Times by the Chief Secretary of the National Party of the Transvaal. I should like to state the facts very briefly. On the basis of the evidence submitted to it, the Press Board found that the report published by the Sunday Times on what was supposed to have happened at a meeting of the Head Council of the National Party of the Transvaal was untrue. That is one finding But thereafter three findings were given, and two of those really amount to the Sunday Times being excused. It has found that the Sunday Times published the report completely in good faith, because it is supposed to have received it from three National Party members of the House of Assembly from the Transvaal, and that the Sunday Times averred that it usually had obtained reliable information from these people, and therefore had reason to publish the report in that form. This is the result of the findings: that the Sunday Times, which disseminated a false and untrue report, is really presented to the world in a very tactful manner as a newspaper that has made a mistake, but made a mistake because it was misled by three members of the Transvaal Head Council of the National Party. Among the documents submitted to the Press Board, there were 40 affidavits by National Party members of the House of Assembly who are members of the Head Council, and who had attended the meeting, and who stated under oath that they did not furnish the information to the Sunday Times. Unfortunately the 41st member could not be found, and that is why his statement did not appear, but the circumstances will become known in due course.

Who was he?

That just shows how spiteful and mean you are.

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

I withdraw it.

This matter now having been laid before the Press Board, there was on the one hand the statement of the Sunday Times that it had obtained these data from three members of the House of Assembly who are members of the National Party. On the other hand there was the denial of that statement by the Chief Secretary of the National Party in that he had obtained affidavits from the people who could probably have furnished that information, and submitted those. Those were the two sides to the matter, and the Press Board found that the evidence of the Sunday Times that that information had been furnished to the newspaper by three National Party members of the House of Assembly was true, for the finding reads as follows—

Now just this: If that was the Board’s finding, then it is a terribly strange finding in the light of the evidence to which reference is made in the judgment; a very strange kind of finding. I want to put it very clearly: The Sunday Times says it obtained the information from three sources that had usually been reliable sources of information to it. Now on one occasion those three alleged reliable sources of information, and the three of them individually and separately from one another, decide not only to lie to the Sunday Times but they decide. separately and individually, to tell the Sunday Times the same lie. In the light of that, one certainly would like to know what kind of evidence there was before the Press Board to enable it to convert such a complete impossibility. I do not call it an improbability even, into a probability that was then elevated to a finding. I do not wish to dilate upon that, but I should like to submit that if that is the full information upon which the finding was based, as it appears in this report of the Press Board, then I should like to put this to the Prime Minister: What value should we attach to this judgment of that Board, and to the Press Board as such? I leave it at that.

Who appointed them?

The Newspaper Press Union.

The Judge also?

Yes. The Board is a body established and whose constitution was drafted by the Newspaper Press Union, and the members thereof are appointed by the Newspaper Press Union, and if the hon. member does not know that, it surprises me.

I should like to refer to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had to say. He referred to the disintegration of the Federation. It really surprised me that he did not attribute that also to this Government, as so many of those who think as he does do. Many of them have said so already, have they not? That is the whole strategy of the United Party. We are living in a dangerous world. Yesterday they asked why things have changed and become so dangerous for South Africa, but what about America? Was there a communist base 90 miles from America a few years ago? What about France and Britain? We are living in dangerous times, and now the tactics of the United Party are to present these dangers as dangers resulting from the policy of this Government, and then to excuse themselves on that basis from fighting with the Government against those dangers. And then it is not sufficient to refrain from combating these dangers together with us. No, they turn it round and it becomes a reason for them to hamper this Government in its fight against those dangers. The Leader of the Opposition said yesterday that they are not the champions of Poqo, but what have they been doing all these years? They have suggested one thing, and they suggested it again to-day, that if this Government would go, those people would be satisfied and according to Poqo and their kindred spirits it can be done in one way only. In 1960, during the debate on the banning of the P.A.C., the Leader of the Opposition used these words. He said: “Iam afraid that if this Government remains in power, irrespective of any powers we may give it, there may be yet another repetition of these incidents.”

And I was right.

When was there a repetition of Sharpeville and Langa?

At Paarl the other day.

Is that the same? But he went further and said—

Hear, hear!

That is exactly what they are suggesting to these subversive organizations, that the United Party want this Government to be got rid of, and those organizations also desire that, and therefore they have to co-operate. The attitude of the United Party is to give co-operation to those movements to bring about the downfall of this Government. No other interpretation of the attitude of the United Party is possible. The last time I spoke I referred to the attitude of the United Party and the English newspapers in South Africa in 1961 when the communists organized a coup d’état, and then the hon. member for Yeoville said that the United Party had issued a statement against it, and he said it is untrue that the English Press had participated, but now I challenge him: Bring me the statement issued by the United Party disapproving of Mandela’s communist organization, supported by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell). [Time limit.]

Sir, I have listened to this debate with interest, and as far as I can make out all that has now become absolutely clear is that it is admitted on both sides of the House that South Africa is heading for trouble, and when we on this side expected the Prime Minister to give us some message of hope, to tell us how he and his Government are going to get South Africa out of these difficulties, we saw one attack after the other challenging our policies. Sir, we are not in power; the Prime Minister and his party are in power and they must get us out of the difficulties in which they have landed us. When I got up to speak I heard a remark that now the level of the debate would drop. Let me say that I was surprised that the level of the debate dropped right from the outset to such an extent that when the Leader of the Opposition got up and criticized the Government and suggested that there may be Natives with legitimate grievances, the Prime Minister by implication and other members frankly stated that we were aiding and abetting Poqo because we say that the Bantu also have grievances. I want to ask the Prime Minister this: In 1960 when we had this march on the Houses of Parliament and people were worried about the future of South Africa, a group of very responsible organizations started to work. They were not members of this party alone. It was the Chamber of Commerce, the Handelsinstituut, the Chamber of Mines and various other organizations. They submitted a memorandum to the Prime Minister, and what did they say? They said—

Who signed it?

I will read the names of the people who signed it. There were Mr. J. G. van der Merwe. President of the Handels-instituut, and Mr. A. J. Visser, the Vice-Chairman, the Economic Affairs Committee of Assacom, for whom Mr. Berry and Mr. Bradlow signed, as well as Mr. Lulofs and Mr. Atkinson, and the representatives of the Steel and Engineering Industries Federation of South Africa and the Chamber of Mines. What did these people suggest? And they said this must be done immediately to relieve the tension that existed. If it was true that tension could be relieved by doing away with those irritants at that time, then the same thing is true to-day. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he has ever even considered the suggestions submitted to him by very responsible people, some of them Government supporters. In their memorandum they say—

Were these people aiding and abetting Poqo? Was Mr. van der Merwe aiding Poqo? They went on to say—

They made ten recommendations. I do not want to labour it, because the Prime Minister must remember this important document. Does he treat recommendations by so important a group of bodies so lightly that only three years later, when the same suggestions are made, he accuses the persons who make these suggestions of aiding and abetting Poqo? This is a tragic state of affairs. I believe that the police have been doing an excellent job in curbing the activities of Poqo, but now that there is a certain amount of safety, for the moment, the hand of friendship which has been extended continuously from this side of the House when South Africa was in danger is just swept away and they say, “We will go it alone.” Let the Prime Minister have no illusions about this.

He is heading for bigger trouble than we have had in the past. I am sorry to say so, but that is the position. He himself and the Minister of Foreign Affairs warn South Africa every time they speak of the dangers ahead, and we do not want to add to his difficulties, but I think it is only right and fair that we should expect from the Prime Minister that sense of responsibility that when genuine offers of help are made and advice is offered to him, he should accept it in the same good spirit. I hope that when in future we meet these difficulties there will be a sense of responsibility among the back-benchers of the Nationalist Party, and I hope that the Prime Minister will have the courage to get up and to put those back-benchers in their place when they insult my Leader as he was insulted yesterday afternoon by calling him a Poqo.

But he is a very irresponsible Leader.

Sir, I have served my Leader long enough to know that he is an exceedingly loyal South African with a sense of responsibility second to none in this House. His whole past has proved his love for South Africa and his preparedness to make sacrifices for South Africa. I do not think we will get very far along these lines, the one accusing the other. When the Prime Minister calls upon the people of South Africa to unite, he must understand that we on this side have a right, and a duty, to bring to the notice of the Government the genuine and legitimate grievances set out in this document, and we shall continue to do so and we shall not allow ourselves to be stampeded into a position where we will just be silent “agterryers.”

The hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) has taken advantage of one of these rare opportunities to refrain from using extravagant language. We do not say that the Opposition cannot criticize the Government because of specific measures, but what we do object to is their general criticism that it is the fact that the National Party governs the country that is responsible for this opposition on the part of the non-Whites. The well-meaning words of the hon. member for Sea Point were most effectively contradicted by the interjections of the hon. member for Yeoville and others in reply to the hon. member for Innesdale, in which they confirmed that Poqo would grow as long as the National Party Government remained in power. But I leave it at that because they stand condemned out of their own mouths.

Before I really deal with the race federation plan of the Leader of the Opposition, I want to refer just briefly to a question which has been raised previously: Why has this crisis arisen internally and externally? The Leader of the Opposition persists in suggesting that it is primarily due to the actions of this Government. May I remind him that the number of independent African states has increased in the past decade from three to 33. There we have 30 additional reasons for certain international attitudes. Thirty new states have been created, all of which are potential enemies. May I remind him that in October 1956 America intervened in the Suez crisis and humiliated the two leading Western powers before the United Arab Republic and thus provided an incentive for the whole of the Pan-Africanist movement to become aggressive internationally. And may I remind him that at about the same time, with the occupation of Cuba, the communists issued a statement of policy which affects South Africa just as much as the U.S.A. is affected by Cuba. In April 1962 Khrushsev made a statement in which he said the following, according to the Star of 25 April—

And this is what he said about “national liberation wars”—

A year ago one of the major powers of the world stated that they would support war action in South Africa. In the light of these incontrovertible facts I say that it not only passes one’s comprehension that the Opposition should seek to lay the blame for our present serious problem at the door of the Government but that it borders on unpatriotic conduct.

But I want to deal with the race federation plan of the Leader of the Opposition as he has again propounded it here. He says that there will be three phases “which will in practice overlap”. I want to put it to the Leader of the Opposition that what he means there is that Phase No. 2, which involves giving the non-Whites representation in this House, will definitely overlap the first phase which involves the undermining of the whole legal structure of the separate co-existence of White and Black in this country. When they come to revise the pass laws and the Suppression of Communism Act they will not hesitate to put the Coloureds back on the Common Voters’ Roll, to bring eight Bantu representatives to this House and to give Senators to the Coloureds in the northern provinces. I agree that the various phases of their plan will overlap, because their ardent desire is to go and fetch allies from behind the colour line to strengthen their depleted ranks in this House. When the hon. member says that the purpose of his federation plan is to protect the one group from an invasion of its rights by other groups, that is the meaning of his federation plan, but all that he says specifically in this regard in connection with his conception of federation is that “inter-race relations” will be a subject for the federal parliament. In other words, the federal parliament consisting of representatives of the Indians, the urbanized Bantu, the rural Bantu and the White man will have to safeguard the interests of the various groups, and what guarantee is that? Any invasion of rights will in fact be initiated by the federal parliament, but the hon. member advances that as the aim of his federation plan. The Leader of the Opposition states that his statement of policy sets out the details of his race federation. May I ask him for a few details? On what basis are the various races going to be represented in his federal parliament? Will the geographical element also be introduced; will the reserves also be represented as geographical units? On what basis will the franchise be exercised, and on what basis will the delimitation of constituencies take place? Will it still be on the basis of the number of White voters? No, now he sits there laughing. He tried to safeguard himself in advance against questions of this kind so that he would not become bogged down in detail. The essence of this plan is its details, and in the absence of details there is simply no plan.

I want to make this charge: This federation plan consists of two phases which, as he says, will overlap, and these two phases consist firstly of repealing the laws which regulate the pattern of the separate co-existence of the races in the country. Those laws will be gone into and altered in an unspecified way, and, secondly, the non-Whites will be given representation in this House in a specified way. That is as far as the plan goes. The rest is just a vague picture, because if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to escape this charge of vagueness he will have to tell us how the provincial system fits in with his idea of separate group government for the various racial groups. Are they going to throw overboard the provincial system? How are the country’s finances going to be divided between these various groups? Is every group, irrespective of where it lives geographically, going to to tax itself and have a little Treasury of its own? What is going to be the position with regard to the Public Service? Will there be duplication; will there be four Public Services? The fact that they refuse to face these questions proves that they are not in earnest in putting forward their solution. No person would submit to the nation and seek to implement such a far-reaching constitutional plan without giving the details of that plan. That is why I say that this plan nut forward by the Leader of the Opposition is nothing more than his old traditional plan, which amounts to this that the United Party wishes to share the parliamentary control of South Africa with the non-Whites in a way which is specified in this plan of theirs, because they believe that by dividing the control in that way they will get sufficient allies to put this side of the House in permanent bondage. That is their sole aim with this plan.

As far as the policy of this Government is concerned and the problems that we have to cope with, there is not a single member on the Government side who underestimates the situation in which we find ourselves to-day and which is characterized by the fact that international hostility takes shape through local rebelliousness and local opposition. What in the normal course of world history could only have led to an international war is converted, according to the modern recipe, into internal rebelliousness. [Time limit.]

It comes strange from a member of the Government to talk of detail in regard to the United Party’s racial policy, a member who belongs to a party which does not know whether he will have a commonwealth or a confederation, a member of a party which stands for the creation of seven separate states and yet is not prepared to tell South Africa what the boundaries of those states are, a party which is prepared to carve up the country in which we live and which has been built up over 300 years, to cut it up into separate states without having a clue as to what the boundaries of those states will be. I want to say publicly that when I asked the Minister of Bantu Administration for permission to photograph the Bantu areas of Natal, he said that the information would be misleading because there was no map in existence showing the exact boundaries of the Bantu areas in Natal, and that they therefore advised me to wait because the information which their records could give me would tend to be confusing and misleading. In other words, this Government, which is about to create a separate Zulu state, is not able to allow one of the Members of Parliament to see and to photograph the boundaries of the state they are going to create. But that member talks about details and vagueness, the same member who talks about a confederation when he does not know whether his party stands for a confederation or a commonwealth, a member whose Minister does not know what parts of South Africa will become separate states, and whose Prime Minister talks blithely of 500,000 jobs in border industries. But the Minister of Football Information …

Order! the hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw the “Football” and say the Minister of Information who is more accustomed to kicking a football around than to placing facts before the people. He issued a publication, a Digest of Information, in which he stated that in the last year R3,000,000 had been spent to put 1,239 Bantu into employment in border areas and that plans involving R 12,000,000 would place a further 900 Bantu in employment. This is not “Sap-propaganda”; this is the Minister of Information, who states that it will cost R12,000,000 to place 900 Bantu in employment in border areas. That is R13,000 per worker, of R6,000,000,000 to put these 500,000 into employment. And this is the party which talks about detail and knowing where it goes. This is the party which issued a pamphlet when the U.P. published a Bantustan map saying, “Die V.P. dink hy het ons uitoorlê.” And that member talks of detail! The policy of the United Party is clear and unequivocal. The policy of the United Party is based upon four fundamental principles.

Discrimination.

It moves forward along the road of ordered advance. But I am glad that the hon. member over there interjected “discrimination”. I would have expected the member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) to take a word out of a speech and present it to this House out of context, but not the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister took the word “discrimination” and deliberately left out the words which were tied to it, i.e. “where it is necessary for orderly government and the protection of backward people”. He left out those words deliberately when he used the word “discrimination” and tried to build a case on it. I say again that where discrimination is necessary for orderly government and the protection of backward people, a responsible government should be prepared to face the necessity of discrimination for maintaining a civilized government. This Prime Minister and this Government are to have no discrimination. I want to place that on record. That must apply then to the Coloured and the Asiatic. Either they stand as a party of discrimination in Coloured and Asiatic policy or there is no discrimination. But the United Party policy is perfectly clear. The United Party bases its policy upon four principles. It moves forward from the immediate position to its ultimate goal of a race federation, and only persons who are either unable or unwilling to face the realities of South African life, are not able to follow that policy. There is another group of people who may not understand it, a group of people whose object in life is to try so to confuse simple facts and simple issues so that they can mislead other people into not understanding our policy. We in the United Party have a policy which offers a solution which can work because it is based upon the facts of South African life; it is based upon the realities of events and facts as they exist, not as we would like them to be. We do not look to some Utopian future and say, “that is what we would like South Africa to be like”; we say. “this is how South Africa is, a country with different race groups living within the boundaries of one common state”, and it is therefore our task for the future of this country to create a pattern in which those different race groups can live together in harmony. It is no use our saying, as the Nationalist Government want to do, that these people are going to live in separate states when in fact they live amongst them. It is no use saying as the Liberal and Progressive Parties wish to do that these people are going to be civilized and therefore we do not need any discrimination or differentiation. You have to face the facts of the existence of different race groups within the borders of one state, and no matter what boundaries you are going to draw, no matter what states you are going to create, you are left with the cold, hard facts of the existence of different races living in the same area. Even if you create your Bantu states you are left with your Coloured and Asiatic population living amongst the White people of South Africa—a fact to which you cannot close your eyes and from which you cannot escape; and therefore the United Party policy is based upon that fact as it exists Sir, if you face that fact, then two things make our policy practicable as opposed to any other policy in South Africa. The first is the ratio of population which my Leader gave to this House a few minutes ago; I will not repeat it. The second is that in South Africa and in no other African state the majority of the Bantu people are directly concerned in the economy of the White man, dependent upon the wages which the White man pays and the direction which his skills give him. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) has now come along with the wisdom that he and his party no longer stand for discrimination. It is only discrimination when they wish to uplift the underdeveloped sections. If they want to eliminate discrimination and if, as he says, they want to find a solution for the problem of the four races living together, and if they seek that solution in the direction of one multi-racial nation …

One multi-racial country.

No, the hon. member over there must give me an opportunity now to make my speech. Not he but his party seeks the solution in one multi-racial nation, according to statements made repeatedly by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—one multi-racial nation. I should like to see what happens to that single multi-racial nation, that solution of theirs, in which it is proposed to dissolve these four elements. Which element is going to rise to the surface, which element is going to sink to the bottom and which element is going to disappear in that process? That is precisely what it amounts to. Sir. that brings me to their misrepresentation of the policy of the Government and of the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) has advanced the same argument on previous occasions that we have now departed from the policy of the National Party as it was adumbrated in the days of Dr. Malan because we have allegedly accepted total territorial apartheid as our policy while Dr. Malan allegedly stated in this House in 1950 that that policy was impracticable. that it was not the policy of the National Party. I want to repeat here to-day that that is not the policy of the National Party and I want to repeat what I said on a previous occasion, and that is that under the policy of the National Party it will always still be possible for future generations to introduce total territorial apartheid if the opportunity presents itself and if the circumstances justify it. That is still the position to-day. But hon. members over there do not understand the meaning of the term “total territorial apartheid”.

What does it mean?

I shall try to explain it to hon. members who have the intelligence to understand it. Surely total territorial apartheid means that you have a White state in which not a single Black man lives and that you have a Black state in which not a single White man lives. That is total territorial apartheid. What else is it?

What about the Coloureds?

No, in saying this sort of thing hon. members opposite are simply trying to put up something which does not exist. The hon. member for Durban (Point) and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other members on that side were very clever …

May I put a question to you?

No, my time is limited. That hon. member will have an opportunity to speak later on. The hon. member’s trouble is his garrulity. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition repeatedly talked about the immoral policy of the National Party in respect of the Coloureds and the Indians in South Africa. I want to deal now with the race federation policy of the Leader of the Opposition and of the United Party so far as the Indians are concerned. I want to ask them what their policy is in respect of the Indians.

What is your policy?

The policy of the National Party was set out very clearly yesterday by the hon. the Prime Minister.

Discrimination.

I know that the hon. member does not like us to discuss their policy, or their lack of policy, in respect of the Indians. Hon. members opposite say that as far as Indian representation is concerned they are going to consult the Indian leaders with regard to their political representation in this country and in this House. What does that statement mean? They know as well as anybody who has a certain amount of knowledge of the political history of this country what the attitude of the Indians is. In 1946 they also gave the Indians representation in this House through four Whites, and what was the result? The Indians cast that concession, that proposed franchise, back into their teeth with contempt. They simply did not want it, and that is why the United Party Government never promulgated the Act. and thanks to the National Party that Act simply lapsed. Sir, what do the Indians want? On 24 July 1961, 134 Indian political, educational, religious and ratepayers’ organizations held a conference in Natal, and there they adopted the following resolution—

Hon. members opposite now want to consult the Indian leaders, and, note well, they are not going to consult the Indian leaders who are in favour of separate development, because according to them those people are the “stooges” of the National Party. They will only consult the extremists amongst the Coloured groups. Let me put this to them: What is their reaction going to be if those leaders of the Indian community whom they wish to consult say, “We demand ‘one man one vote’ because you are giving it to the Coloureds; you are going to place the Coloureds on the Common Voters’ Roll: under your race federation policy you are going to give the Coloureds the right to be represented by Coloureds in this House; we as Indians are not underdeveloped; we have an ancient culture behind us; we are a developed nation; why should we be treated worse than the Coloureds?” The United Party want to implement this policy of theirs in order to win back friends abroad whom we have allegedly lost. They are not willing to tackle this question of the Indian franchise because they are afraid of the hon. members for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) and Durban (Point) If they were to apply this policy in respect of the Indians, according to the direction in which they are now moving, then those hon. members would walk out of their party and come and sit on this side. I can only say that they would be welcome. The hon. member for South Coast would be welcome because I know that in his heart of hearts he does not approve either of this mixed society, this multiracial nation that they propose to establish.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also adopts the attitude that the growth of Poqo and of these other subversive organizations is due to the Government’s policy. Is he not aware of the fact that the reason for the growth and for the origin of these organizations is something entirely different? Does he not know that the reasons are precisely the same as those which apply in other countries of Africa where there are Whites? Is the Opposition not aware of the fact that these organizations in South Africa are beginning to realize that they have little time left and that if they want to achieve their purpose they have to act very quickly, because as the National Party’s policy of separate development is implemented more and more in this country, there are more and more people, not only amongst the Whites and amongst United Party members, but also amongst the Bantu and the Coloureds and the Indians, who accept the National Party’s policy of separate development as the best for everybody in this country, and as one which is in their own interest too? [Time limit.]

I can only deduce from the last speaker’s speech that not only will all the Bantu but also in time all Coloured and Indians be removed from the White area of South Africa. It seems to me that he is announcing some form of subtractive theory by which the removal of one man will bring about a decrease in employment of five others as well. But, Sir, I want to refer to what the hon. the Prime Minister said yesterday, after consultation with a sociologist whom he said was not Japanese. He gave us two lectures on his version of the multiplier theory in Bantustan, through which he said one worker in primary and secondary industry would put to work five others in tertiary industry. I can understand why the hon. gentleman did not refer to a Japanese expert because the latest figures that I have here in regard to Japan indicate that for every three workers in productive industry there is only one service worker put to work. In other words, according to the figures which I am prepared to hand to the hon. the Prime Minister, the ratio in Japan under this multiplier theory is at the rate of one to one-third and not, as the hon. gentleman suggested, 1 to 5. I am sure that after making his researches into this multiplier theory, the hon. the Prime Minister will be pleased to know that inquiries have also been going on elsewhere. I hate to bring Professor Northcote Parkinson into the debate, but I think I should tell the House that that gentleman has been making investigations of his own and according to the report he has found an expert in bureaucracy. The report goes on to say this—

The writer then says that he does not quite know how this scientist arrived at the figure of 1,000, just as we do not know how the hon. the Prime Minister arrives at his figure of 100,000. The report then goes on to say—

It seems to me that if the hon. Prime Minister extends his investigations and gets this expert to give him advice, he will find that merely by bolstering up a civil service in Bantustans, he will be able to produce enough work without any trouble and without going in for any development of border industries.

Sir, having listened to speeches from this side of the House, I am reminded of the words of André Gide who said: “Everything has been said already, but because no one listens we must always begin again.” It is with that observation in mind that I enter into the debate under this Vote. Although everything has already been said as to the destiny of South Africa under the régime of this Government nevertheless for the reason which Gide gives it is necessary to dwell once again on some of the dangers inherent in the Government’s racial ideology. The Prime Minister is reported to have said only last week that he has received a good many messages of goodwill for his Government’s apartheid policy from individuals in all parts of South Africa. One accepts that without any further substantiation, but I ask myself as I ask this House is that really good enough? You see, having looked at the South African scene from abroad, as I did some eight months ago, I say quite emphatically to the hon. the Prime Minister and to this House that commendations of that kind are just not good enough, whatever purpose they may be intended to serve. The hon. gentleman will know perfectly well that praise comes lightly to those who are in power. What South Africa needs most at present is not personal goodwill, however comforting that may be in the present state of tension in internal affairs and also in external affairs. What South Africa wants to-day is goodwill from amongst the comity of nations such as South Africa could count upon only 15 years ago. Fifteen years ago goodwill was shown from the comity of nations, but under this Government that goodwill has been dissipated, and Government spokesmen now talk about a cold war and about how the cold war is going to become intensified. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs gives a desperate cry of “unite the Whites, regardless”. Regardless of what? I say regardless of the fact that this Government is presenting this country with a policy which is a myth and not a reality and that the Government itself and its supporters are living in a fool’s paradise. My hon. friend, the member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) made the point exceedingly well just now. But I also say that while that cry of “unite the Whites, regardless” is being made, the world will recognize the cry for what it really is. It will be seen as an open invitation to the rest of the community to unite itself against the Whites. I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will dissipate that suggestion as being in the mind of the Minister of Foreign Affairs when he gives this cry of “unite the Whites”. Sir, it is futile for the hon. the Prime Minister to seek reasons outside South Africa as to why there has been this deterioration in our international relations over the past 15 years. Admittedly one accepts that the difficulties elsewhere in Africa, in Angola and in the Rhodesias, may accentuate the problem here, but the fact is that the origin of the problem is a local one. And the origin of the problem in South Africa, of course, is the actions of this Government under this Prime Minister which have now finally created for South Africa two critical situations (a) explosive race relations internally and (b) frightening isolation externally. In the months that lie ahead there is the added dangers that these two critical situations may become inter-related in some way or other, probably through UNO or probably through the International Court of Justice. Sir, the London Observer has posed this question to its readers: What happens when the major Western nations find themselves isolated over the South African question at UNO? This paper, having regard to the 67 to 16 vote at UNO on the question of sanctions in November 1962, with 23 abstentions and four absentees suggested an answer in these terms … [Time limit.]

I just want to deal briefly with the arguments of the hon. member for Point (Mr. Raw), and I want to say that in regard to colour and race relations we are to-day practically standing on quite a new planet. A change has come about right throughout the world in regard to colour and race relations and we must take note of it; we must react to it, and any political party worth its salt must take note of it. I just briefly want to sketch the position on the Continent of Africa, of which we form part. In 1939 there were only three independent states on the Continent of Africa, two of which were self-governing, viz. Ethiopia and Egypt, which had a non-White Government, and South Africa, in the south, with a White Government. Just during the last few years—I think since 1960—more than two dozen of these states have become independent. In addition we have the fact that we are dealing here not only with the liberation of political colonies. This process went much deeper. We are faced also with a change of attitude in regard to the dignity of other races. Let me put it this way: We cannot assume that the White man will remain the master simply because he has a white skin. That old master and servant relationship is a thing of the past; it can no longer be accepted automatically, and every political party to-day must take cognizance of this because it is in this pattern that all political thinking is done to-day. I want to allege that the reaction and the reply of the United Party to this proposition is completely sterile. I want to prove it by means of two statements only.

To me there are two propositions which are true in this regard, the first being that the desire for freedom is basic to the Bantu. The Bantu would have had this desire for freedom even if he had had a white skin. It is the same desire one saw on the part of the Jew who did not want to be subordinate to the Egyptian, or the Hollander who did not want to be subordinate to the Frenchman, or the Frenchman to the Englishman. This is a basic urge one finds on the part of the Black man and we must bear it in mind. At the present time the United Party says that it will be able in this pattern, within the borders of the same fatherland, to entrench the position of the Whites, who are in the minority, vis-à-vis a large Black majority in terms of a paper formula.

That is simply unrealistic; it cannot be done. How can 3,000,000 people in the long run continue to govern 12,000,0000 Black people? For this situation the Government, in my opinion, has the only correct solution, the only arguable answer, namely the creation of a separate freedom for the Black man on the one hand to fulfil this basic urge he has, and on the other hand a separate freedom for the White man. In my opinion that is the only alternative, but in that pattern the United Party propagates a policy in this country of an undivided South Africa. And what is the result of it? The result is that in the minds of the Black politicians in this country the impression is created that they can bargain. It creates the idea in the mind of the Black man that he must not seek his freedom in his own traditional homeland where he can give expression to it, but that he should strive to attain his ideals within the borders of the homeland of the White man and that he should aim at governing the whole country. If one sets out from the standpoint that the freedom of the White man cannot be taken away from him without bloodshed, then I say that this is a dangerous and unrealistic policy.

I want to state a second proposition, which I think in our whole political argument to-day is axiomatic. One cannot get away from the fact that in the long run a White minority Government cannot continue to govern a large Black majority. That is something we cannot get past. The United Party sees an opportunity, in terms of the formula they propagate in South Africa, which is a false formula, to escape from this dilemma. I say that this formula is not worth the paper it is written on. Therefore, with reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Point, I want to say that the pattern for the future of South Africa, as seen by the United Party, is really sterile because it cannot cope with our difficulties. The only alternative for escaping from this dilemma is, as I have indicated, the policy of the National Party. This policy aims at a separate freedom for the White man on the one hand and a separate freedom for the Black man on the other. In the long run we cannot control this basic urge of the Black man within the White man’s country. We just cannot do it. In 1917 already General Smuts said in a speech he made at Oxford: “You cannot put a barrier to the development of a nation.” That is so. We cannot for a moment think that we can continue in this country along the old pattern. We are living in different times. We must meet the demands of the present time. We are living at a time when the United Party and the Nationalists can no longer fight each other in the same way that they did in the past. We are living in different times and we must meet the difficulties by means of new and progressive thinking.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) for the calm manner in which he has approached this subject. It is quite true that South Africa was a Union. The history of South Africa is a story of how through “storm en drang” the people of this country achieved Union in one South African country. We now have this new policy according to which we are going through the shadow of the Valley of Death to destroy what we have built up. We joined four colonies into one Union and decided to build on that. As the hon. member for Moorreesburg has said they were thinking ahead in 1917. We are now embarking upon the Bantustan policy and no one can see the end of it. That is the story of South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister’s policy is to break down that which has been built up by earlier generations.

I wish to raise with the Prime Minister a subject which I introduced by way of a private member’s motion last session. My motion read that in the opinion of this House Cabinet Ministers and Deputy Ministers should not hold directorships of public or private companies excepting when those companies are philanthropic companies or small family companies for the administration of family estates or assets belonging to some family trust. That was not the first time that this subject had been broached in Parliament. It was broached at an earlier stage by the Minister of Finance when he was in Opposition. He raised the matter with the Prime Minister of those days, General Smuts, and he chose an occasion similar to this occasion that I am choosing to-day. He chose the occasion of the Prime Minister’s Vote. When the hon. the Minister of Finance raised the subject at that time General Smuts said that he agreed with him that the time had come for a change in policy. That was the stage they had reached in those days. The whole question of directorships held by Cabinet Ministers and Deputy Ministers was raised pertinently two years ago by that committee which sat to discuss the emoluments of Members of Parliament and Cabinet Ministers. Hon. members will remember the report of those Three Wise Men under the chairmanship of Hon. Justice Ogilvie Thompson. In that report they made certain recommendations which were received, I think, readily, even eagerly, by members of this House. There was one paragraph which relates to the Prime Minister himself because it is he who decides policy in this country. I want to quote this paragraph; it is paragraph 46—

That was the question which confronted the hon. the Prime Minister. I have no doubt that he has ruminated on it and I think the time has arrived on this occasion for him to state what his policy is.

When I raised the matter last year the hon. the Minister of Justice took part in the debate and I assume that he spoke on behalf of the Prime Minister himself. The Minister of Justice on that occasion seemed to think that there was a veiled attack on the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet. That was not the case. There was no intention to impugn the honour of any Minister. It was a question of what system the Prime Minister was prepared to accept. I think the only contribution the Minister of Justice made to that debate was to give us a misquotation from Alexander Pope. He seemed to think that we were afraid to attack. There was no intention of attacking. What we were doing was to try to obtain a statement of policy on this very important question because this is a question which every democratic country in the world has considered over many years. There is an old convention in South Africa that a Cabinet Minister can become a director of a newspaper company or a mutual insurance company, as is stated in this report. That might have been true 40 or 50 years ago, even 30 years ago, but the whole situation has changed. To-day newspaper companies have become great publishing companies and our mutual insurance companies have become large investment companies, either directly or through their subsidiaries. Reference was made to one subsidiary company in the discussion last year, a subsidiary of a mutual insurance company, which had a capital framework of over R100,000,000. That is big money; that is the big class.

We come to the case of the publishing companies and I want to refer to a publishing company of which the hon. the Prime Minister is the chairman and certain members of the Cabinet are directors. I want to quote from Volkshandel which I think is a reliable source. They have this to say in writing about “Afrikaanse persreus Die grootste Afrikaanse persmaatskappy in die land, met ’n omset van tussen R9,000,000 en R 10,000,000 per jaar, het werklikheid geword 26 jaar na die stigting van die Vaderland, ’n dagblad, en 15 jaar na Dagbreek se eerste Sondag-uitgawe.

They go on to say—

I am going to give the names of the directors. As I have said the hon. the Prime Minister is chairman, three Ministers of the Cabinet and the Administrator of the Transvaal, who is the Administrator of a province which is the biggest buyer of school books in South Africa, are directors. [Interjections.] I am dealing with a very serious subject. The point I want to make is this: Has the time not arrived for the hon. the Prime Minister to say to the country that where a Cabinet Minister is a director of one of these publishing companies, there is a possibility—I do not say it always exists— of a conflict of interests; a conflict between his interests as a member of the Cabinet and his duty to the shareholders of the company of which he is a director. [Time limit.]

I hope the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) will forgive me if I do not follow him. I want to react to what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) said this afternoon. The hon. member said that the ratio according to which a person maintains his dependants in Japan is three to one and that this is in direct conflict with what the hon. the Prime Minister said. The hon. member knows as well as we do that there are many other relevant factors in connection with this matter. In South Africa we have the highest savings in the world: it is 30 per cent of our national income. Has he ascertained what the savings in Japan are? Has he ascertained how many Japanese work and how many do not? As the result of the larger number of workers there are greater savings. Because that is the position in Natal, he cannot generalize and say that the statement of the Prime Minister is wrong. It is quite wrong to do so. In America the savings are 14.7 per cent and in Britain 14.8 per cent. If he studies the statistics of those countries he will see that there is quite a different state of affairs there.

What does that prove?

It proves that one cannot simply rely on that one factor.

The Prime Minister did the same.

No, he did not. If four out of five persons work, those people have so much more income, and if one were to take away three of those four persons the one who remained over would still be able to care for the others, but when three of them work there will be much greater savings. I think the hon. member must bear that in mind.

I want to deal with one other point before I come back to the Leader of the Opposition, namely this argument in regard to the border industries. The United Party is continually saying that the Government does not want to allow White capital to develop the Bantu homelands. Now I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition this: What difference does it make to a border industry if that industry is situated ten miles on this side of the border in the White area, or whether it is on the other side of the border in the Bantu homelands?

The difference is that in the one case it is in a White area and in the other case it is in a Bantu area.

If the Leader of the Opposition wants the factory in the Bantu homeland to be developed by White capital, then he wants White people to be able to exploit that factory.

Why?

Because they do not want that factory which is established in the Bantu homeland to be owned and run by the non-Whites. They want to scrape off the cream. They have their opportunity to-day to develop the border industries with their capital. [Interjections.] Why are they not developing these factories to-day? It makes no difference whether that factory is inside the Bantu homeland or next to it. The Opposition knows that they do not have an argument. The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) is himself very interested in the border industries, but when he goes overseas he says he agrees that border industries are a good thing, but for political purposes he opposes it. I want the hon. member to deny that he did so. Does he deny it? Because there are people who would like to know what your reply will be.

You are talking nonsense.

I want to come back to the Leader of the Opposition. On 4 June 1959 he made a speech in Pretoria. According to the Transvaler, he said the following—

I now allege that the United Party has accepted equality together with their race federation. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will keep his word and resign as leader of that party. He said last night that the Prime Minister should resign. Now I want to ask him whether he will resign, or must we accept that he is not being consistent? I hope the Leader of the Opposition will react to this and tell us whether he is going to resign or not. Those were his words and I expect him to act honourably and to resign. The race federation policy definitely amounts to equality. Here I have one of the first pamphlets issued by the hon. member for Yeoville on 3 December 1961. The photograph appearing here is not that of General Smuts but of Mr. Marais Steyn. I should like to quote the following—

Here he says very clearly that it will be only for the foreseeable future, and we know they cannot see very far into the future. They agree that the Whites should be ousted by the non-Whites. They have already told us what laws they will repeal, like the Immorality Act. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) did her utmost to try to get the Immorality Act repealed. To think that a South African woman, and a mother, wants to do that! I would have thought that she should have protected the women of South Africa. The United Party supported it. They have already told us that they would repeal the Group Areas Act and job reservation, etc. They want to repeal all those Acts. Is that not equality? They want mixed universities, and if that is not equality I should like to know what it is. Therefore I say I hope the Leader of the Opposition will tell us what his standpoint is now and whether he will resign.

It is a very common practice on that side of the House of making their own assumptions and stating them as though they were facts and calling this side of the House to book for facts which do not really exist. I may say that the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) did try to put up a reasoned case for what he believed. I want to suggest to the new and inexperienced member for Sunnyside (Mr. van Zyl) that he will be well advised to learn a lesson from his colleague and to try to discuss a serious matter seriously in this House if he wishes to make any valuable contribution to a debate.

It so often happens that when we have a debate in this House in which the hon. the Prime Minister takes a leading part that he whisks us all away into his particular land of make-believe and he creates an aura which makes it rather difficult to discuss matters of practical economic importance because, when you do, you have the feeling all the time that while this suicidal racial policy of the Government is still in operation, it is almost futile to discuss the future development of the country.

There is one point I would like to take up with the hon. the Prime Minister and that is the question of the Orange River scheme. I raised the matter in the Budget debate but in his reply the hon. the Minister of Finance made no reference to it. The hon. the Minister of Water Affairs was present during the debate but he did not react or come into the debate at all. I notice that, in reply to a question on this subject this afternoon, he made the remark that the report from the Department had been fully discussed in this House. But he is wrong; I do not think it has been fully discussed in this House. I do not see how it could have been fully discussed as nobody has really had the time to study it thoroughly and to come to any conclusions last session. I want to suggest to the hon. the Prime Minister that we are dealing here with a major question of national policy and for once it is a matter of national importance which is non-contentious. There is no difference of opinion in this House as to the desirability of embarking upon this scheme to develop the Orange River. The implementation of that policy is, of course, the responsibility ultimately of the Prime Minister himself.

I do not know whether the hon. members as a whole have done much more than pay lip service to the idea of developing this Orange River scheme. When you come to think of it, what we are proposing to do is to create a new economy in a large and important part of the Republic. It is not just a question of building a dam. It is a scheme which is going to involve agriculture, industry, transport, perhaps mining, town-planning, health services and so on and so forth. In other words, what is really envisaged, as I see it, is the creation of a new little world with all its facets and aspects of human activity. The only information we have on the subject is the report which was laid on the Table last year. A further study of the report makes it perfectly clear that, whilst the report is an admirable one as far as it goes, the conception of the whole thing is quite clearly not a departmental matter. The report which, as the hon. the Prime Minister knows, talks about a tentative expenditure of R300,000,000—and when the Government talks about “tentative” we know what that means. It says that the supervision and the construction work would be in the hands of the Department of Water Affairs under whose energetic inspiration it is going to take 30 years to develop this scheme. The first question I want to ask the Prime Minister is why 30 years? If it is to be a good scheme to benefit the country surely it is not necessary to say at the outset that, with an expenditure of R300,000,000, it is going to take 30 years to complete the scheme. The report also says that on completion of the scheme the control and the maintenance will be in the hands of the Department of Water Affairs. I want to put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that the whole conception is far too big for any Government Department to hope to tackle properly. It seems to me that we are in danger of embarking on a big scheme in a small way. We on this side of the House believe that if we want to approach this scheme properly, if we want to make sure that it is developed on the broadest possible lines and with the greatest speed and efficiency, we should create a separate authority, an authority directed by the best brains in the world, wherever they may be. There are other schemes in the world which have been successfully introduced. Surely their experience can be useful to us. The separate authority should be the executive body for developing the whole scheme. I have no doubt that this new authority will be appointed by the Government; but that a separate authority should be appointed to take charge of the scheme, I have not the slightest doubt about that.

The question of parliamentary control has been raised. This side of the House frequently talks about the necessity of parliamentary control. Where we are suggesting the creation of a separate authority like this, will it be subject to parliamentary control? I am quite sure that if we put our heads together it will not be difficult to devise a way whereby that authority would be in proper contact with Parliament so that Parliament will have a proper opportunity to study its Budget proposals and of receiving reports from it as to how the work is progressing. I do not envisage the possibility of adverse criticism. But after all if Parliament is going to vote R4,000,000 or R5,000,000 or R6,000,000 next year for this scheme, it is quite essential that there should be a link-up between Parliament and this authority. I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will be able to indicate to the Committee that he has given serious consideration to this matter and that he agrees with us in principle that there must be a proper basis of administration if this great scheme is going to be brought to fruition successfully and is not to be subject to intolerable delays which it certainly will be if it is left to be run by one Government Department.

Before I reply to the statement made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he tried to refute my argument, I wish to refer to the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), a former teacher of mine, who expressed the feat that the present Government was destroying everything which was built up over 300 years, was destroying everything which was achieved in 1910 by the bringing together of the four provinces. I want to tell the hon. member that he need not worry, that we are trying to do the opposite. Bearing in mind the fate of the White man in Africa, we are forced, with our eyes open, to adopt an inevitable attitude. Having seriously studied the racial position and the race relations in our country we want to try to retain something of what our fore-fathers had built up over the years for the White man in Southern Africa and in our fatherland. We want to act according to the demands made by the circumstances prevailing in the era in which we are living. We want to judge the position as it is at the moment and not as the politicians of former years saw it.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also told me to read a little more about the origin of the A.N.C. and the activities of Kadali and Kotani. He alleges that in the days when they were active that organization was much less dangerous than it is to-day; that they really never constituted a threat but now that the National Party is in power it has developed into a dangerous organization. I suggest to the hon. member that that is a wrong approach; that it is wrong to argue that way because the actions and the origin of the subversive organizations which have blossomed forth and which have blossomed forth to an increasing extent in recent years, coincide with what is happening in the whole of Africa. There has been a change in the attitude of the Whites in the Western World towards the colour question which surprises me. There has been an intensification of the aspirations of Bantu nationalism in Africa. The fact that it manifests itself more strongly in our country coincides with that, and coincides incidentally with the period when we are in power. It has nothing to do with the fact that we are governing at the moment. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party had been in power there would have been similar action.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also alleges that the A.N.C. in the Federation, in the Rhodesias and generally beyond our borders is of a totally different character, has a completely different norm, that its objectives and aspirations are totally different from those in South Africa. I want to put it to him that that too is a completely wrong approach and that the expressions of opinion and statements of many Bantu leaders, of many leaders of nationalist organizations outside, are practically literally word for word the same as those inside our borders. If a Banda in Rhodesia says in a statement that if the God of the White man does not help them to free themselves of the White man he shall appeal to the spirits of the forefathers of the Bantu and that if he does not live to see the Black man free he will fight the White man from Hell and we compare these and other statements with those of Leballo, those of Sobukwe and other leaders of subversive organizations in our country, we find that they are noticeably similar. Their object and aspirations are the same.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition further alleged that the fact that I had said that they alleged that when they came into power there would be a particularly friendly relationship between the leaders of the subversive organizations and the leaders of the Blacks in general and their Government as well as a friendly relationship with the Afro-Asiatic bloc and the Western countries had led me to ask whether those countries would then pay friendly visits here. He says there will be nothing wrong with that because we invited Hammerskjoeld to come here and what will be wrong with it if they invited U Thant. I wish to say that Hammerskjoeld did not come here as a result of a change in the attitude towards South Africa on the part of UNO, but he came here in order to investigate the position and to see how we applied our colour policy and we cherished the hope that he would perhaps have made a favourable report to South Africa at the other end in respect of the real state of affairs as far as our policy towards the non-Whites was concerned.

I now come to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) who said that the reasons why there were subversive organizations should be removed. I could not dispose of that matter in my previous speech. The hon. member maintains that if the causes are removed such subversive organizations will not flourish and that we will not have any trouble with them. I then said that if they were economic reasons like the reasons which you get in connection with trade unions and employees’ organizations who complain about salary scales, housing or other social circumstances with which they are dissatisfied, it was possible to remove the causes and to give satisfaction but that where you were dealing with a political organization, like Poqo, like the A.N.C. and others who have a purely political objective, inspired by a desire to dominate, to be master in Africa of the Black man over the White man, it was no use talking about removing the causes because it would be fatal to the White man to remove the real causes. I am sometimes curious to know whether the Opposition is perhaps in liaison and consults with those leaders. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said a moment ago that they were strongly in favour of consultation. I wonder whether they have already been assured by those leaders that they will be satisfied with the race federation plan of the Opposition. If they do consult I should like to know with whom they have consulted. Is it Luthuli or Sebukwe or is there another category of Bantu leaders with whom they have a liaison to-day and who have given them the assurance that if the Opposition came into power and their system of government was applied, the Bantu would be satisfied. Have they been assured that there will then no longer be any racial friction, that there will be racial peace and that, as far as the future is concerned, there will no longer be any clashes? They must tell us whether they are in liaison with such leaders and who they are or how they have otherwise received those assurances.

I do not intend to go back to the Poqo and the other illegal movements. I want to deal with something else under the Prime Minister’s Vote, because the Prime Minister as the main architect of the Bantustan policy is the man who must take the full responsibility for the carrying out of this policy. Sir, the difficulty we are faced with here is, and in fact in the whole of Africa, is how to find a way of living together in a multiracial state. The hon. the Prime Minister has adopted the policy of the other colonial powers in Africa by trying to wipe out the problem altogether. They do not try and solve it. They dispose of it by disposing of colonies. Britain, France and Belgium, I submit, have done exactly the same as this Prime Minister is doing now, with this difference that he has not got the colonies to dispose of, but he creates the colonies and then he gets rid of them, and he hopes that by creating colonies, or homelands for the Africans, enticing them back into those territories, that by doing what Britain has done and France has done, by giving independence, he will rid himself of the Bantu problem, the African problem. Now, Sir, the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration has told us before that we handled the position out here much more efficiently than did Britain and the other colonial powers, and that we did it by consultation in a very short period; he pointed out that Britain had consulted for years and had still not come to a final conclusion. but he was proud of the fact that in less than a year his Government had consulted the Bantu in the Transkei and had come to an agreement I want to point out to the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and to the Prime Minister that why Britain has had to consult for years in Rhodesia and Kenya is because she was trying to get agreement between the White people and the Africans, and they have not succeeded yet in Rhodesia and that is why there is no solution.

Why did they not come to an agreement?

In favour of Britain must be said that the British Government did consult with the White people and it did try and get the Africans and the White people to agree. But what has happened in South Africa? The White people are not consulted at all on the establishment of the separate Bantustans and granting them independence, and I want to tell the hon. Minister of the Interior that when the Prime Minister was asked why he had not consulted the White people, his reply to me in this House was that it was not his duty to consult with the White people in the Transkei, but if the Bantu Recess Committee chose to consult the White people in the Transkei they could do so. The British Government certainly has not done that to the White people in Kenya or in Rhodesia. It has consulted them at all times. Sir, this policy of handing over territories in an endeavour to rid yourself of a problem, which has been adopted by the colonial powers and which I say has not been adopted by the Prime Minister, has its dangers, as everybody will admit. But I submit that the British Government and the French Government and the Belgian Government were in a much better position to hand over independence to these states than is our Government. After all those governments were thousands of miles away from the boundaries of these independent Black states which they were establishing, whereas under the policy of this Prime Minister we in South Africa are going to have these independent Black states forming our boundaries. Secondly, the British Government and the Belgian Government were not faced with this problem that the majority of the people living in their countries would in fact be citizens of foreign independent states, and that is a prospect which faces us here in South Africa. They were not faced with the problem that not only now but for ever, so far as we can see, the majority of the population in their countries would be citizens of these foreign states. The hon. the Prime Minister in East London resented the accusation that he was doing a Kenya on South Africa. He denied it and said that the people in Kenya, the Whites in Kenya, were despondent because their properties had depreciated in value, and they did not know whether the British Government would carry out its promise of compensation. Now if they did get a promise of compensation—I take it from the remarks of the hon. the Prime Minister that there must have been some promise—they at any rate had a promise, whereas the Whites in South Africa who are going to be affected by this policy, not only in the Transkei but everywhere, have had no promise at all. The hon. the Prime Minister appointed a commission to go into the position of the White people in the Transkei and they had to report to him. We tried to stop the passage of a Bill through this House in regard to the Transkei in an endeavour to get that report because we felt it would only be right that the members of this House should know what that commission recommended. After all what was the object of appointing that commission if we are not to hear its recommendations? I say that the Prime Minister and this Nationalist Government and every member of the Nationalist Party must take responsibility for this. They have betrayed the interests of the White people living in these reserved areas It is no good the hon. Prime Minister and the Minister of Bantu Administration telling the White people that they will look after them. How will they look after them? The only reply they have had to their request from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Bantu Administration is, in a letter to the Liaison Committee that those Whites living in the reserves will be foreigners in that country, and like all foreigners living in a country they would have to abide by the laws of that country. Do hon. members and their constituents realize that this Government which stands for the protection of the interests of the White man, which discriminates on the ground of colour at every possible turn, is putting White people living in the Transkei under a Black Government?

Nonsense!

That hon. member does not know what is in the Bill. He does not realize that those traders living in the Bantu areas will come under the control of this new government, and this is being done by this Nationalist Government. Not only is this Government betraying White people living in the reserves but it is also betraying all the moderate Africans living in the reserves, and it is betraying the moderate Africans living outside the reserves who are now going to fall under the provisions of the Transkeian Bill, and they are doing exactly what Welensky has accused the British Government of doing in Rhodesia. They have great joy in quoting what Welensky said about the British Government, but I say that everything that Welensky said about the British Government, the White people will say about this Government. I am certain the hon. the Prime Minister will get up now again and will say that the Whites in the Transkei will not have to worry, that he will look after them. We do not want him just to make promises of looking after them. I want him to realize this, as well as that grinning Minister of Information, that the property of the Whites in the Transkei has already depreciated, and I say again that we do not want to be looked after at the end, we want to be looked after now. We demand, the White people demand that this Government tells the country now what it is going to do for the White people living in the Transkei and those in the other reserves who are going to be affected by the Bantustan policy.

I intend to deal in succession with various points raised by hon. members which are more or less factual points; I do not want to follow the last hon. member in his strong exhibition of feeling, which I can partially understand, but which I know is also partially simulated. May I say that as far as the Transkei is concerned, it is not true to say that we are creating colonies in order to get rid of them. What can be said in truth is that long ago these areas were fully and solely controlled by the Bantu. If in the cause of morality as the world of to-day sees it, on which hon. members opposite are always basing their case, it has come to pass that people require that nations should be allowed to rule the countries which are theirs by right of inheritance, then we who always persisted in keeping these areas as Bantu areas must follow that moral outlook with regard to those areas if we wish to find ourselves in accord with this world-wide tendency, and to that extent that is possible.

In this particular case we are dealing with an area which during our period of history was always Bantu-occupied, which was settled by the Bantu, which in the course of time was ruled by the Bantu, which was placed under European rule in the course of only the last 100 to 150 years, in which the White Governments from stage to stage gave certain systems of self-control, and which, as far as this Government is concerned, has from the outset been declared to be an area in which self-government will lead to a State of their own, if and when they are capable of ruling it wisely. Nobody was under any illusion. No White people within that area could be under any illusion. Since this Government came into power, and in spite of the opposition of those supporting the other side, including very many of these White people in the Transkei who are still persisting to-day in the same political attack upon this Government and its policy that they made at that stage, we have done what we said right along would be our policy. In this we differ from what Great Britain has done. In the particular case of Kenya, that was mentioned here, new settlers were led to believe that the policy which was followed by the British Government when they were induced to settle would be continued.

Was that not said to the settlers in the Transkei?

As far as this Government is concerned, from the outset, when we asked the electorate, including them, to vote for us, they knew what our policy was.

No.

I, as the hon. gentleman very well knows, went as Minister of Native Affairs to Umtata myself and there met representatives of various kinds of interests and told them outright what the development would be in the course of time.

May I put a question?

No, I want to deal with all the matters that have been raised before sitting down and my time is limited. This matter has been dealt with over and over again in public and in this House and I am only repeating briefly that we are following the policy there which we said from the beginning would be our policy.

It was said that the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration stated that Britain had to consult for years over the granting of a constitution to various areas, whereas we came to an agreement in a short time, and the point was that the reason was that we did not consult with the White people. But surely that is not true. These White people are part of our electorate. They are represented in Parliament. They are represented by the very gentleman who made the attack, and the way in which the views of the White people in that area could be taken into consideration, and the way in which their attitude could be put before the Government, including their grievances and their worries, has been followed by the hon. gentleman himself time and time again. Representations were already made directly to me when I was Minister of Native Affairs. We know what their problems are. It is not correct when the hon. member says that there has been no consultation or that we had no knowledge of the problems of those people. Their position is very clear to us, But what the hon. gentleman wants us to do is not to follow the policy in which we believe, but to always do their policy, namely a policy dictated by the United Party of which a great number of them are members. That simply cannot happen. The difference between us and hon. members opposite is perfectly clear. It was also said that it was to Britain’s credit that her Government did consult the White people and that that caused all the time-lag. But there is a great difference in the situation between these two countries. It must not be forgotten that we are retaining all the White people as our citizens and electorate, whether in the White portions of the Transkei, like Umtata and the various White spots, or the traders within the Bantu area. We are retaining all of them as citizens and as part of the electorate of this Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. So there is a very great difference. They continue to be under the protection of this Government and to have a say, through whomever they vote for, in this Parliament. They have the fullest opportunity to continue to put their difficulties before this Parliament as these might develop from time to time.

What does it help them to make their difficulties known?

Of course they are on the side of a minority party under whose government …

Is that the reason?

No, I began to say they are part of a minority party whose policy if it became the government, would bring the whole of South Africa under black rule ultimately. The situation is now that a certain number of people object who have businessundertakings within a clearly delineated Black area, occupied mainly by Black people, and who found their business prospects good enough to remain there and who throughout all the years in which they knew what the policy of this side was, continued to remain there, and successfully operated there, and who, as far as we can see, can still serve those people very much in the same way as they always did, for a long time to come. Those people now object to coming partially under Black rule, although they remain part of this electorate, and although certain assurances have been given, of which the hon. gentlemen is very well aware. They want to dictate to us to what we should do in that area, even if that should endanger the whole White population of South Africa and bring all of us under ultimate Black rule under the policy of the United Party. If we have to choose, let us consider the following. If these worries are so terrible for these people, if it is such a disaster for them to be under Black rule to a very limited extent as far as they are concerned while retaining full participation in the Government of the White man’s country, very closely adjacent to them, and where their whole future can be rebuilt if need be, if that is so very terrible, how much more terrible would it be for them to find the whole of South Africa under Black rule? Therefore I say that no injustice is done to these people. They remain under very much the same type of circumstances which they chose, or under which, by inheritance of their businesses they have been living all these years. They are not in very parlous circumstances now. but if they had their way by voting for the United Party to bring the whole of South Africa under the policy which the Opposition dares to indulge in, then I say that I could not do for them what I can do now. We have in any case to consider first and foremost the feelings and the prosperity of the future of the large White population which lives in White South Africa. That is precisely what we are doing.

It was also said that in Kenya and elsewhere there was a promise of compensation by Great Britian which, if not fulfilled, was at least a promise. I do not believe in making promises and not fulfilling them. Any promise that I make I seek to fulfil. In this particular case we are having the real problems investigated by a committee which has not as yet presented a report. I am not in possession of any report. When that report is received, I have no doubt that it will be made public. That report does not affect the present Transkeian Constitution. The Transkeian Constitution is consistent with the announced policy throughout the years of this Government. The report on the other hand has to deal with any results flowing from the application of that policy and as such stands outside the deliberation in this Parliament on the constitutional issue but it is something which will be seriously taken into consideration when deciding what is the just thing to do for those who may be affected by a development which is in the interest of the country as a whole. More than that I need not say.

Will the hon. the Prime Minister allow me to put one question?

My time is too limited, and unfortunately I cannot give way. I must try and deal with the other points as well. I repeat that therefore I do not look upon what we are doing as a betrayal of the white people in the Transkei. What we are doing is done in the interest of all the White people of South Africa, including the White people in the Transkei, whom I would not leave in the lurch, but who would be accepted by the whole country and who, when they can no longer as a result of policy make a livelihood in that territory, must be the burden of the country as a whole. But this fact should not be accepted as an opportunity for a dodge by people whose businesses might be going bunkrupt of their own accord—if there are such—misuse cannot be made of announcement. That is why this committee has to go into the matter very carefully. We cannot abuse the money paid by the taxpayers but at the same time those who really suffer should have their burden alleviated by the rest of the taxpayers of South Africa whose interests are also involved.

The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) asked me about the Orange River Scheme and I agree with him that this scheme is much more than the construction of dams or the creation of an electricity supply. It is a very great undertaking which will recreate in the course of the next few years much of the southern portion of the Republic. It is something which must affect the whole life of the country, socially, industrially and agriculturally. It may put South Africa on the map in many ways. It may lead to the increase of our White population, and so it must have effects far beyond those resulting from the mere building of dams. While agreeing with him to that extent, I cannot agree that the Department of Water Affairs, with all the experience it has gained in the building of the best of our irrigation dams, is not capable of being the supreme supervisory authority over the construction work as far as the dam-building and canal-building are concerned. Consequently the Department of Water Affairs, which may and will make use of consulting engineers of both South Africa and international standing, should remain in control of the construction. In connection with the supply of electricity throughout the whole of the southern portion of the Republic at least, we have in Escom an organization of such experience and with so many links already in existence which can be utilized, that there is no doubt whatever as to the extent to which use can be made of the organization. But when we look at the further effects of the whole scheme and think in terms of all that has to be done to make the scheme successful, it is clear that already during the building period we have to add to the usefulness of these two big and experienced South African organizations, and the Government will do so, but not through the creation of a separate authority. The creation of a separate authority means handing over one of the biggest undertakings, which will involve the Government and the country in great decisions and financial expenditure. The scheme cannot be handed over to a separate authority not responsible to the public. Far less can it be handed over to a separate authority which would be partially an international authority, as was suggested by the hon. member for Constantia, through the inclusion of foreigners. It is however quite clear to me that the Government as a whole must take responsibility and that its various departments will have to be properly utilized and coordinated. We can create, under the control of the Government, an interdepartmental deal with much more than the mere construction of the dam. Therefore it is the intention of the Government to take fully into consideration the bigger issues involved, but at the same time not to set aside the valuable services of the Department of Water Affairs, which is the Department mainly involved at present since we are still mostly concerned in preparing for the construction stage.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) raised the point as to what the policy of the Government is with regard to Ministers remaining, as has always been customary, directors of mutual insurance organizations and certain Press organizations. I believe that we can retain that custom and it is the policy of the Government to allow it to continue. In spite of the recommendations of the committee mentioned. It is not so much a matter of income or directors’ fees, nor of much time being involved. What is of importance is that through the mutual organizations members of the public, including Ministers, can serve other people well. In so far as the Press organizations are concerned, we who have built up those organizations through which it was possible to defeat the United Party Government of the past and to show the people of South Africa what the correct policy is as far as we could see it, will certainly not relinquish the degree of control which we have over the Press which we built up ourselves.

What about trading concerns?

The hon. member knows that this does not mean that we are in any way corrupt. No such accusations have ever been made, and the hon. member also clearly said that he did not make that accusation. But should any form of corruption take place, I would set my face against it as strongly as anyone opposite. Generally, however, directors do not interfere in the daily running of these various organizations. As far as Dagbreek is concerned, I am chairman of the holding and controlling company, but I am not a member of the directorates running the various companies themselves. In that sense, therefore, it is possible for me to have a say and in fact with others a controlling voice in the policy, but that is the extent to which I can exercise control and I intend retaining it.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) raised a point with which I wish to deal briefly. He said that as the result of our policies we have both internal difficulties and external problems. I have already dealt with that, but I wish to add this. What will happen under any alternative set of conditions? Here again I must repeat what I myself have said so often, and also other hon. members on this side. What is the test for what will happen if the alternative policy is put into operation? Can one rightly suggest that, if the United Party’s federation policy were implemented, with the insistence on the White man retaining supremacy—because the word “leadership” really means supremacy, and supremacy is only another word for “baasskap” so what they seek is to retain White supremacy although they have all kinds of dodges by which they describe how they believe they can retain White supremacy—the reactions of Luthuli or Tambo or Sebukwe would be less antagonistic once that main objective is clearly understood? Whether the hon. members can succeed in attaining their objective, whether they will not be defeated in their object, is arguable. Personally, I am quite convinced that once they have slipped so far as to establish a multi-racial Government, they will lose control wholly. However, in the course of the process of trying to force them out of that position of supremacy which they seek to retain, these Bantu leaders will create much more internal difficulty than now. A United Party government will not be able to control or guide political developments as we do to-day where the Government is clearly giving the Bantu people their rights in their own areas and is clearly delineating the line between their rights and ours. Where we are not a minority seeking majority rights, but insist on being the rulers in areas which are ours, the position is unequivocal. The same is true where they are the rulers in the areas where they must enjoy their rights. It is clear that under this policy, whatever troubles there may be, those troubles must be less than they would be in terms of the policy of the United Party, where a minority wishes to rule a country which it says belongs to all alike.

To what extent can anyone honestly believe that the external troubles will be less when it becomes clearly understood that the policy of the United Party is one accepting a multi-racial Government but claiming all future supremacy rights for the Whites and granting only a very limited degree of the White representation to the Bantu? Will the outside world or the Afro-Asian nations accept that various Bantu communities can be formed, even self-governing communities, both in the White areas and in the Black areas, without them having direct Black representation in Parliament? Even if it is only intended to be the case during a phase (whether it is an overlapping phase or not) how can anyone believe that the world will be satisfied with that? Can we imagine the Afro-Asians saying: “This is at least something. After all, it is very nice for the Bantu to have eight White representatives in a Central Parliament to represent the 10 million Bantu and we are glad the White men retain control, very kind White men who will repeal certain repressive laws although they retain others”? Can one imagine for a single moment UNO, and therefore also those friendly Western nations who follow the lead of the non-White nations accepting such a policy as satisfactory to their demands. Our external troubles will sooner increase then, because there will be a less clear objective. They will expect such a multi-racial government to give way just a little more continuously. and if such a Cabinet were to resist it would all the more lose its support since no sacrifice of principle is then at stake. It will be said: But you have granted the principle of multi-racialism, how can you refuse the increasing demands of these partners? That will especially be so if their definition of civilized people, or of whom should get the vote, were to be different from that of the public of South Africa consulted at a referendum. Therefore it is quite clear to me that the internal and external difficulties will not be decreased if such a change to a race federation government were to be made. Testing it by this alternative shows that the country is right in retaining this Government.

The hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) asked whether I took any notice of a certain report drawn up by a number of industrialists after Sharpeville. I have told this House before, after it happened, that even while I was in hospital for well-known reasons I met these gentlemen and discussed their report with them. I think the Chairman was Dr. Busschau. We went through the report, and I showed them how certain of their arguments were wrong, being based on wrong information. The hon. member specially mentioned the exemption pass. Now, the exemption pass of the past was not a full exemption from all regulations or permits controlling the Bantu; it was an exemption from all but four matters. When we introduced the reference book, what we did in fact do was to replace the extensive pass control by control only over these four matters. In other words, the reference book actually was a universal exemption pass for the Bantu. (Laughter.) That is a fact which anyone can check. I have stated it here before and it has never yet been denied after proper analysis. But I did agree on two points. The one was that there were problems arising from the liqour control measures, and the other was that the police force had in the course of time made too much use of the reference book system in connection with their search for criminals. Consequently I said—and it has been done—that both with regard to the liquor measures and the way in which, to my mind, the reference book system had been used wrongly, great changes would have to be introduced. They have been introduced, and we have succeeded in thereby creating much satisfaction amongst the Bantu. In other words, I did not ignore this report. That was however something quite different from the form of justification which was given in this debate to something far worse than a sudden, unorganized uprising resulting from certain grievances, whether justified or not. We are now dealing with a group of murderers organized for political purposes to attack people, and when one seeks to justify that type of action one is on different ground altogether.

*The hon. member for Innesdale (Mr. J. A. Marais has asked me a question in connection with the finding of the Press Board. I want to state perfectly clearly that I myself have come across no newspaper which has published so many blatant untruths in its news columns from time to time with regard to matters in which I have been involved and of which I have first-hand knowledge therefore, as the Sunday Times. The Sunday Times has frequently published front-page reports, inter alia in the past year, about matters allegedly dealt with by me at ordinary meetings, such as the caucus of this Party in Parliament, or at meetings of the Executive Committee of the National Party in the Transvaal, reports which were entirely untrue either because I had not said at all what I was alleged to have stated or because in one case I was not even present at the meeting. Nevertheless there was a “full report” about everything that I had allegedly said! That is why I say that the Sunday Times is not a paper which I think the public of South Africa can read with any confidence that they are not perhaps reading something which the Sunday Times itself concocted in some way or other, instead of a genuine news report. I must say candidly that I do not believe either that it spoke the truth in this particular case when it claimed that it had received information from three National Party members of Parliament, independently of one another, about something which had not happened at all. I do not believe for a single moment that that is true. It is so impossible. I do not know what happened at the meeting of the Press Board and what induced them to arrive at their finding. I should very much like to see the minutes of the meeting of the Press Board, and I hope that they will be available because this hearing can be regarded as equivalent to the proceedings in a public court. I hope therefore that it will be possible to make its minutes available. In other words, I should like to see whether it is stated in those minutes that the Sunday Times revealed the names of the three persons who allegedly gave it this information; I should also very much like to know whether the Press Board called those three persons as witnesses to make sure that the Sunday Times was speaking the truth. Because I personally am convinced that if the Press Board did not do this and merely had the word of the Sunday Times for it, a paper which had published a blatant untruth in a particular case of which the Press Board knew, then the Press Board was not entitled to come to this conclusion and to announce that the allegation of the Sunday Times was true that there were three tell-tales among its National Party M.P.s who had given it this information. In the absence of further proof, the Press Board was in no position to say to the public that the Sunday Times had published an erroneous report but that the Press Board found it understandable because the poor Sunday Times had been misinformed by disloyal, untruthful tell-tales who have carried views to the opposing Party. I say that the Press Board was only entitled to make this finding if it had evidence as to who these three people were and had satisfied itself that they had in fact done this. But if the Press Board did not have this information, I say that it was not entitled to make this finding, and in that event I condemn that finding. What does the Press Board go on to say in that finding? It suggests that there must have been three National Party members of Parliament who were both tell-tales and liars. Everybody is under suspicion now although of the 41 who were present, 40 declared on oath that they had done no such thing. The forty-first was the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. M. C. van Niekerk) who could not be reached when the members were approached to give evidence and who was therefore not able to make a sworn affidavit but who himself came forward later on to say that he was prepared to make a similar sworn affidavit at any time because he had made no such statement and wished to testify that the report was untrue. In other words, all 41 who were present have testified on oath that the report was not true. If it is insinuated that there are others apart from those who were present who made this untrue statement to the Sunday Times on hearsay, then I want to say that all the other members of the Transvaal are also prepared to declare on oath that that is not the position. In one portion of the latest report about the finding of the Press Board the Sunday Times spoke about “Parliamentarians”, which also includes Senators, but in its heading it referred to M.P.s, so the accusation was directed against members of the House of Assembly only. My contention is that the Sunday Times, which published this untrue report about something which did not happen at all. has now been placed in the position by the finding of the Press Board that it has to lay the blame for its guilt in deliberately misleading the public on three unnamed persons although in doing so it impliedly makes a scandalous accusation against an entire section of this Parliament. I cannot express my disapproval of that conduct strongly enough and I hope that when I get the minutes of the Press Board I will find that the Press Board did try to acquaint itself with the facts by examining the alleged sources. I shall be bitterly disappointed if I find that it did not take the trouble to obtain confirmation and nevertheless allowed this charge to stand against so many honourable persons. Confidence in the Press Board will then be shocked so seriously that I doubt whether anyone will consider it worthwhile in the future to submit a case to it again.

The Leader of the Opposition asked me certain questions, to which I wish to reply. The one was put last night and Basutoland was mentioned specially to-day, but last night it was put in a broader form. I was asked what we hope to attain through our negotiations with the High Commission Territories, and whether I make, as he did, a distinction between the granting of asylum to political refugees and the granting of asylum to people who clearly seek to organize revolution from those areas. I do not wish to go into too great detail in regard to these negotiations. I believe that the Minister of Foreign Affairs will within a reasonably short time be able to make an announcement as to how far these negotiations have proceeded in regard to the documents which will be needed for people entering Basutoland or Swaziland or Bechuanaland and the Republic. I also believe that the negotiations with regard to certain other matters have not developed far enough, e.g. in connection with customs facilities, to allow us to go into any great detail to-day. Therefore I will leave this to be dealt with under the Votes of the Ministers concerned. But I will say this, speaking for the Government, that I think it will be very bad for South Africa and the United Kingdom and the Territories should the distinction on which the Leader of the Opposition laid so much stress not be recognized by the British Government, or in the event of a Basutoland Government coming into being, by such a Government. There is in fact a very clear difference between ordinary political refugees who seek asylum elsewhere and who, as is customary throughout the world, are granted asylum, usually on the condition that they immediately cease their activities and do not embarrass the Government which grants them asvlum, and others who do not cease their activities. If political refugees can enter so closely adjacent an area as the High Commission Territories, which to a great extent depend on the economy of South Africa for their very existence, and need easy entry but, though disturbers of the peace and order in the Republic are allowed to continue political activities from there, or still worse, if they are allowed to organize revolution against the security of this State upon which those Territories depend to such an extent, it must necessarily worsen relations between this Republic and that country or its guardian as long as Britain still remains in charge. Therefore I sincerely hope that this will not be the case. At present I do not want to talk about countermeasures, because I can scarcely envisage a friendly country adopting such an antagonistic attitude. Therefore I would rather not develop this theme further.

I was also asked in regard to South West Africa about the appointment of an Administrator. The Government has not yet discussed in any way the appointment of an Administrator and I do not think it would be correct of me in any way to indicate either the principles on which such an Administrator is to be appointed, or to make any suggestion as to where he should come from, from the Republic or from South West itself. It is a matter which we will go into very carefully. The main test will be what will be in the interests of both the Republic and South West Africa, taking into consideration the present situation internationally as well as the relations between these two territories.

Taking into consideration the Act too, I take it?

The Act is well-known to us, but as the hon. gentleman opposite knows, Dr. Malan in making his appointments took the Act into consideration but nevertheless decided as he did. So did a subsequent Prime Minister. Therefore while naturally also taking this Act into consideration I shall have to look at all angles of the problem and cannot be led by the Act alone.

I was also asked to make clear our position with regard to the Federation. It was said that the Federation of Central Africa used to be a buffer state. That, of course, is quite true. It is quite true too that we cannot view all the developments there with equanimity. Naturally the disintegration of the Federation is causing us very deep distress, just as it is causing deep distress to the people concerned in those territories. However, I should prefer not to comment on what is happening to the extent of discussing Britain’s policy. That is the domestic concern of the Federation itself. I have followed the principle throughout to retain the best relations between the Republic of South Africa and the Federation in spite of the fact that the policy of the Federation was one of partnership. It was closely akin to the policy of the United Party, a policy which I foresaw from the beginning would develop in this unhappy direction.

Nonsense.

Hon. members will remember that we were asked from time to time in this Parliament, “why cannot you follow the experiment which is taking place beyond our northern borders; why cannot you be as wise as they are; why cannot you see that there in multi-racialism lies the solution? In a number of years we will see how marvellously the Federation has developed, with South Africa following far behind”. That was the attitude that was adopted.

Who said that.

The whole of the United Party …

The United Party must not run away from that now. I am not trying to score a debating point. I say that hon. gentlemen opposite will be spurning their own attitude of the past if they now say that they did not believe that an example was being set in the Federation as to how the White man and the Black man can live together in a multi-racial area.

Nonsense. You ought to know that that is not true.

Sir, I am most surprised at this retreat. After all, continually when our policy was attacked hon. members opposite pointed northwards, and from time to time we had to emphasize that we did not believe that such multi-racial government or partnership could succeed, but that we did not want to interfere in their domestic affairs and therefore did not wish to debate the matter at any great length. I made no bones in private conversations about my belief as to what was going to happen, but the attitude adopted by the Government towards the Government of the Federation was that what happened there was their business, and that just as we did not want others to interfere in our domestic affairs, we would not interfere with the domestic affairs of the Central African Federation. We wished to be on the best possible terms of neighbourliness, whatever our divergent policies. Throughout these years therefore, in spite of these great differences of policy, to which in fact they referred more specifically in public than we did, we maintained that attitude. Even when they were attacked and accused of following our policy and strongly denied that they were doing so, we never made any similar remarks in retaliation. I always sought to avoid comment on what I regarded as their business and their business alone in order to be able to retain their friendship.

Does the hon. the Prime Minister recall the statement he made at the time of the election in Southern Rhodesia about a possible closer relationship being out of the question if they followed a certain policy?

Yes, naturally. That was no criticism of their internal policy. The question was deliberately put to me whether Southern Rhodesia or any part of the Federation, but more particularly Southern Rhodesia, could become a sixth or a fifth province of the Republic of South Africa. I had no reply to that and I said that it could not; that I did not want to interfere in their policies, since that was their own business, but that it was best to state clearly that unification could not become practical politics. Since Southern Rhodesia was a multiracial state it would in such an event have to become a multi-racial province, and in a multi-racial province representation in the Central Parliament would have to be given and the electorate have to be taken over as it is. It would be a multi-racial representation and electorate in direct contrast with the policy of this country. For that reason Southern Rhodesia could not become part of the Republic. But what I did add was that when consultative relationships developed between the Republic of South Africa and any other state, whether Black or mixed or White, in Southern Africa, then naturally we would be only too pleased to be able to co-operate with Southern Rhodesia as well, but it would be for her to decide. I repeat that to-day. If in the future Southern Rhodesia should become an independent state whether governed by a multi-racial Government as now or for that matter by a White or a Black Government, then co-operation as between sovereign independent states would be welcomed whether in some form of organized economic inter-dependence according to the example of the Eu opean Common Market or whether for common political interests taking the Commonwealth as an example Whatever the consultative set-up might be, for economic or political purposes, it could not consist of any arrangement having a Central Government. That was out of the question according to our policy. On such a consultative basis between independent equals we would not only be prepared to retain existing links of friendship but we would eagerly seek further mutual advantages of such co-operation. I could say the same as far as the other portions of the Federation are concerned; I could even say the same with regard to any of the High Commission Territories when they become independent. It will depend upon them. If they desire good, friendly relations as between neighbours, we will always be available.

The question was raised whether trouble to maintain communications might arise because of the fact that there is a railroad to the Federation passing through one of the High Commission Territories. I do not wish to anticipate that we will experience trouble with that particular High Commission Territory—I sincerely hope not. Indeed I hope that there will not be trouble even if there should be a Black Government there. I sometimes wonder whether perhaps our troubles are not greater while Britain remains the guardian, because by taking into consideration her international interests, she may perhaps act differently from the course that would be followed by a local government which has only to take its more restricted interests into consideration. A Black government in, say, Basutoland, however much its members might disagree with our policies, might in its own peoples’ interests and in the interests of the economic relationships which it wishes to retain with South Africa, find it very valuable to forget about the other differences and say: “That is their own business.” It might try to create harmonious relationships in the economic interests of its population, whereas Great Britain would not have to think in terms of the interests of Basutoland alone but would in handling Basutoland affairs consider the effect on her relations with all the Afro-Asian States on her position at UNO and on her contacts with the United States of America. Therefore I sometimes wonder whether the metropolitan states’ wider interests may not make it more difficult rather than less difficult to create harmonious relations between neighbour states or communities in Southern Africa who escape the fact that they cannot help each other. As far as the railway link is concerned, I hope therefore that that will not become one of our mutual problems, but should difficulties arise then it will be less our problem than one that Southern Rhodesia would have to solve. If Southern Rhodesia seeks further railway links with South Africa, then that would be something that we would surely consider favourably. We would consider the question of assisting her in creating such links. But this is not for us to decide because we have railway lines up to our boundaries and what happens beyond those boundaries is not primarily our business but theirs. All I can say is therefore that from our side there would be great sympathy in giving aid if such aid were sought.

What about the question of extra markets for our industrial products?

I said a moment ago that as far as industrial relationships were concerned, we would be very pleased, knowing that there is economic interdependence between us and that we have common interests, to retain those interests whether the Government is Black or White and whether Northern Rhodesia or Southern Rhodesia is concerned. But retaining economic co-operation is mainly in their hands rather than in ours. I do not believe that. I should enlarge upon that matter much further.

*The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has again referred to our economic policy and our agricultural policy but I think he will have ample time to discuss the agricultural policy under the Vote of the Ministers of Agriculture. At this stage I just want to repeat what I said yesterday, namely, that we are giving very serious attention, that we have given it continually, and given it in the correct way, I think, to proper agricultural development in South Africa.

I rather want to deal with the other problems which he raised yesterady. He alledged, inter alia, that there was a bottle neck in our economic development. I want to draw the attention of the House to that because it is important that the House should know that since 1948 I have made the question of the economic development of South Africa the subject matter of a special report which I asked my economic adviser to submit to me. On the strength of a proper study he had to submit to me an objective exposition as to what development had taken place and to what extent the development was being influenced by Government policy. My object was not to get a report which only painted the bright side of the picture. As is expected from scientists. I want to get a precise and accurate exposition. The report which I received some time ago and which is approximately 64 pages long contains the most definite indications of prosperity and development over this period of years that you can get. If ever I have been in possession of anything which has given me the confidence to adopt an optimistic attitude as against the pessimistic attitude of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, if ever I have been convinced that over the past 14 to 15 years we have experienced remarkable development and that the future economic prospects are rosy unless the world experiences some catastrophe or other, it is this very report. I am convinced that we have every reason to be optimistic that this growth will be maintained. This is what the report says, for example—

I do not think time will permit me to read everything that is stated here and which strongly suppports the opinion which I myself also hold.

Are you going to Table that?

No. it was really only intended for my own personal use. The report has already been in my possession for about four or five months. I think the figures contained therein are already somewhat out of date. I myself was sorry that I did not think of it earlier to make the report generally available in one or other publication. I may perhaps go so far as to ask whether the report can be brought completely up to date and how it can be made available for the beneficial use of everybody. I shall go into that. In view of the arguments which have been submitted to me, I wish to make a few points. According to the report, one type of data which constitute a test as to whether the development in South Africa is good, is the gross internal production figure in South Africa during the period 1948 to 1961, a figure which has risen by R2,010,000,000 to R5,703,000,000, an increase of 185 per cent. But when the gross internal production is calculated in terms of constant or real prices it provides one with an even more reliable yardstick to judge the progress, because in that case it takes into account the changes which have in the meantime taken place as far as prices are concerned; if 1953 is taken as the basic year it appeared that the gross internal production has increased from R2,748,000,000 in 1948 to R5,138,000,000 in 1961; in other words, there has been a rise of 86 per cent and that represents an annual rise of 5 per cent. That is one of the important indications of the growth of our economy. It says here that the first phase lasted from 1948 to 1954 with a high growth rate of practically 6 per cent per annum in the gross internal production, at constant prices. The report says that subsequently from 1954 to 1956 there was a decline and the reasons are given. The report goes on to say what the difficulties were, what the reasons was, and how those difficulties were overcome. Then they show how. during the second phase which lasted from 1957 to 1961, the growth rate of our gross internal production, again at constant prices, in comparison with 1948, declined to 4.3 per cent per annum and the economic adviser gives the reasons for that. Ultimately he comes to the conclusion that if all the reasons for the development and even for the drop in the percentages are taken into account, it is not surprising that both the private sector and the public sector have already announced that they intend embarking on large capital developmental works and that the indications are that South Africa has already entered a new era of great economic upsurge: and that the discussions at the most recent sitting of the Economic Advisory Council were conducted in a spirit of optimism about the prospects of an increase in the tempo of our future economic development. In other words, in contrast to the somewhat pessimistic attitude adopted by the Leader of the Opposition because of his figures, the Economic Advisory Council is optimistic. I now take the figures to which I think the Leader of the Opposition referred, namely the increase in the per capita income in South Africa in comparison with those of other countries. I think this position has already been explained before by the heads of the Department of Economic Affairs, but here it is: The averaee increase, expressed in percentages, per capita between 1948 and 1960 was 2.7 in South Africa; 1.5 in the U.S.A.: 2.0 in Canada; 2.5 in the United Kingdom; 3.5 in Holland; 5.0 in Italy: 6.0 in West Germany; and 8.5 in Japan. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition concluded from these figures that we were relatively behind. at least as far as certain countries. namely Holland. Italy, West Germany and Japan, were concerned. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, however, lost sight of two important factors. The one is that the few countries where there has been such large expansion are countries which have been so destroyed by the war that they practically had to start from scratch. Their position was, therefore, very bad in 1948 and their re-development need not necessarily have reached a relatively higher mark than those of other big countries in the world. Because countries like Italy, West Germany and Japan had to develop from devastated to prosperous states, backed by capital from the U.S.A., their percentage growth is as high as it is in comparison with those other countries who started from an existing high level. We can take the case of the U.S.A. Hon. members will see that where the growth figure for South Africa, which is one of the four comparable countries in the sense that they were not destroyed by the war, is 2.7, it is 1.5 in the case of the U.S.A., 2.0 in the case of Canada and 2.5 in the case of the United Kingdom. In other words, the growth figure for South Africa is the highest. But when you make a comparison with those countries you must also have regard to the growth in population during this period and you must also have regard to the type of population. In the case of the U.S.A. the population growth was 1.7 against 2.4 in South Africa. In other words, the growth in the population in the U.S.A. was smaller. Therefore, when the national income is allotted per capita to fewer people more relatively, until you get to the countries where the population growth is higher, you still find that the U.S.A. has the low figure of 1.5 That fact makes a comparison with her population growth even less impressive. In the case of Canada which had a greater population growth of 2.6 in comparison with our 2.4. the per capita income amounts to 2.0. But in the case of the United Kingdom with a very low population growth of 0.5 the income amounts to only 2.5 Had her population growth been higher the percentage would inevitably have dropped. Her figure of 2.5 is, therefore, not as significant as that of South Africa. In other words, the population growth is very important in determining the economic development as indicated by the per capita allocation of the national income. Take South Africa: Another factor comes into play and that is that the population growth of 2.4 is to a very large extent the result of an increase in the number of lower income groups, i.e. the Bantu and the Coloureds and the Indians. The result is that the growth in the national income which is achieved by the industrial sector, a growth mainly due to the achievements of the White section of the population, must be divided among the entire population in order to determine the per capita increase, including those who contributed little to it. That shows even more how remarkable the economic growth has been in South Africa, in comparison also with other countries.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also asked whether we were doing anything in connection with the expansion of our export industry. Time does not permit me to enlarge upon that but I have also given this question my personal attention. I have pleaded for this in public and I have also pleaded that we should expand our industries so that we can produce substitutes for imports. I may also add that my section, under the economic adviser, is compiling what is called an economic budget, a budget which is nothing else than an advance estimate of the economic activities in the country and which will better enable us to spot the gaps and to determine where the tempo of development is insufficient. The result is, therefore, than I can give him the assurance that in the field of research and deliberate planning, in the field of incentives to industrial development by the Economic Advisory Board and in the field of encouraging initiative on the part of those people who are constructively active in the industrial sphere by embarking on new undertakings, every possible guidance and assistance is given. In many respects, therefore, we have every reason to face the future with great confidence.

I just want to give a final figure in this connection and that is to show that one of the main tests to determine whether the country’s economy is flourishing and developing, is the contribution of industry to the national income, once again calculated at constant prices. In this case 1958-9 was taken as the basic year. We find that the contribution by industry had increased from R641.5 million in 1949-50 to R1,095,6 million in 1960-1, approximately 70 per cent, or at an average rate of 6 per cent per annum.

Every possible sign that there is indicates that there is undoubtedly growth. The Government takes the initiative to encourage that growth even further. It not only encourages it in the form of words but in the form of well-known deeds as well. I cannot, therefore, subscribe to the pessimism of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I want to conclude with this and I take it that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will understand that I cannot again deal with the old arguments which he has repeated in regard to the colour question.

I just want to raise two small points before we approve of the Prime Minister’s Vote. The first is the allegation that the partnership policy of Rhodesia is the same as that of the United Party. I am surprised that anyone who knows the political set-up in South Africa can make such a statement after the United Party has fought the Progressive Party at two elections on that very point and beat them on two occasions, except for one member who is still here. The hon. the Prime Minister referred to the economic points which he had raised but he did not react to the ever increasing concern of the Chambers of Commerce about the shortage of technical and trained staff in our industries and in the business world in South Africa.

My Scientific Council has been established to look after that.

Vote put and agreed to.

I move—

1. (a) lay upon the Table of the Senate and of the House of Assembly a report on the incident in question in such form as he may consider appropriate and in which is recommended that Parliament appropriates moneys for rendering financial assistance in respect of the amount by which such claims exceed or are likely to exceed the security so available; and
2. (b) by notice in the Gazette suspend the obligation to pay such claims in respect of the nuclear incident in question until such time as the Senate and the House of Assembly shall have decided about the recommendation.
3. (3) If the Senate and the House of Assembly have by resolution decided that moneys in an amount specified in such resolution, be so appropriated, no payment of any such claim for compensation arising out of the said incident shall after the passing of such resolution be made without the approval of the Minister or an order of court.

Before I proceed to discuss the amendments before the House further, I want to give the hon. the Minister an opportunity of putting right the statement that he made in reply to the hon. members for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) and Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). The statement which he made in reply to those hon. members was a great shock and disappointment to the Coloured people. They are greatly disappointed because it is contrary, I am told, to the assurances which were given to the Coloured people when the whole question of the transfer of Coloured education was discussed with them. My information is that the basic principle of the transfer of Coloured education was never discussed in so far as they were told that it was the Government’s policy that the transfer of Coloured education would take place. So they said that if that was so they would like to have certain assurances from the hon. the Minister and from the Department. One of those assurances which they asked for was that there would be no change in the syllabuses as they existed to-day. I am told that those assurances were given to the Coloured people. The Minister has now made a statement completely denying that.

Before I proceed I want to give the hon. the Minister an opportunity of rectifying his statement and re-assuring the Coloured people that what he promised them earlier will in fact take place, and that there is no cause for concern.

I shall resume my seat and wait for a reply from the hon. the Minister.

When this debate adjourned the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) had just spoken. The hon. member for Malmesbury hinted that there would be a difference between the syllabus and the education which would be given to the Coloureds. In other words their education would not be on the same plain as that of the Whites. By way of an interjection, after the hon. member for Malmesbury had said that the Coloureds were not on the same level as the Whites, the hon. the Minister said to me: “You know that is so.” We are not going to argue this evening whether the level of the Coloureds is the same as that of the Whites. What we must discuss is the desirability to get the Coloureds on to the same level as the Whites and what the Government has indicated it wanted to do for the Coloureds in all its promises.

Here I have a publication “The Coloured People of South Africa”. The most wonderful promises are made here to the Coloureds. They talk about education and reference is made to all the education that they must receive and all the new services which they have to receive. It says—

This entire publication holds out the promise to the Coloureds that they will be uplifted and it is desirable that they be uplifted to the same level as that of the White people. That is the reason why this side of the Committee have the amendment of the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) on the Order Paper. We ask in that amendment that the syllabuses should be left in the hands of the provinces. It does not avail the Minister to say that we are advocating divided control. It is divided control when they want to give the Coloureds a different syllabus from that which they want to give to the White people. When the syllabuses were in the hands of the provinces in the past the Coloureds in the Cape Province wrote the same examinations as those which the White child wrote. In Natal that was the position even more so. We did not only have compulsory education in Natal since 1943, when education was made compulsory in the case of the White child, but it was compulsory free education with exactly the same syllabus.

Are you pleading for it that that should apply to the whole Union?

I am pleading for it that what is being done for the White child should also be done for the Coloured child. I am pleading for it that the Coloured child should be uplifted so that he will attain the same level as the White child. It is not necessary for me to give my reasons to the hon. member but I shall nevertheless do so. The Coloureds constitute the one section in our country which is the closest to the Whites. We as Whites need friends and for that reason we should uplift them so that they can stand by our side. In view of the fact that the hon. the Minister does not want to reply to the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) I think it is very clear that this beautiful publication is just so much sham and that we were under the wrong impression that no distinction would be made. The Minister has so far been hedging when he said that there would not be any difference. The hon. member for Malmesbury has, however, let the cat out of the bag as did the hon. member with his interjection. They suggested that a sort of inferior education would be given to the Coloured.

I do not think the hon. the Minister should have any difficulty in accepting this amendment. It may not be possible to maintain the same syllabus; you cannot often maintain it from school to school. It depends on the organization of the school— whether there is one teacher or two teachers, whether it is a city school or a farm school and so on. But when it comes to maintaining the same standard surely we mean that the Std. VI in a Coloured school will be of the same standard as the Std. VI in a White school. That has been the position up to now. When it comes to university level, surely the entrance examination to the Cape Western University College is the same as the entrance examination to the University of Cape Town or Stellenbosch or any other university. In other words, the same standard is assumed to-day. When the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) says in his amendment that the same standard will be maintained I cannot see what the difficulty is.

Why does he ask for it? [Interjections.]

Why does the Minister not accept it? Mr. Chairman, do I understand the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander) to agree that it will be maintained?

Yes, of course it will.

Why does the Minister not accept the amendment then? Then I would say nothing more.

Mr. Chairman, it is a great pity that this debate has created a measure of suspicion and distrust in respect of this clause. I want to appeal to hon. members to be very careful what they say. A large section of the Coloured community is still immature. What is said here for purely political purposes has an affect on the immature minds of people. I shall prove that to hon. members in a moment. There have already been reactions to my refusal to accept this amendment on the part of certain so-called Coloured leaders who want to create the impression that I intend doing an injustice to the Coloureds by refusing this amendment. When this Bill was last discussed I said that it would be an impractical step because it would be more to the disadvantage of the Coloureds. I gave an example. Let me give a further example. Of the plus minus 900 high school teachers in the Cape Province approximately 250 to 290 have degrees. Numbers of Coloured students go to a training college after Std. VIII where they take a two-year course for their primary teacher’s diploma. If I were to accept this principle it would mean that I shall not be able to allow those people to remain. I am supported by people who hold different views on Coloured education from hon. members opposite. I have received a document from Safta during the past few days. Safta is a federal organization of Coloured teachers’ organizations some of which are not recognized bodies. They, however, maintain that they represent a number of Coloured teachers. Safta is in principle against the transfer of Coloured education to the Department. The chairman is the Rev. Joost and the secretary is Dr. van der Ross. Safta informs me in this document that they are in principle opposed to the transfer but in spite of that they are prepared, as far as purely educational matters are concerned, to co-operate as closely as possible with me and the Department in order to try to get the best possible education for the Coloured child. I want to read from this document—

That is precisely what I am warning against. [Interjections.] I tried to introduce this Bill objectively. I tried to deal objectively with every clause, but those people who are always chasing votes were the ones who tried to contaminate everything. I want to quote further what Safta says. The reason why this situation has developed, Mr. Chairman, is because there is a struggle between the United Party and the Progressive Party as to who will represent the Coloureds in future. They are now bidding against one another.

You remain a party organizer.

The hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) is the last person who should make such personal remarks in this House. The hon. member will regret it if he continues to be personal. I know of his activities amongst the Coloured people, and I shall bring them to light if he continues to be personal. We shall then see who is the friend of the Coloureds. I now wish to read further to the hon. Committee what Safta says—

That is what Safta says. In other words, they agree that it is impractical for me to accept it now. And they are people who are in principle opposed to the transfer of Coloured education. This Dr. van der Ross who is always being thrown at us is the secretary of Safta. He signed this document. That is why I say that I am sorry that I cannot accede to these pleas. They can only have one effect and that is to imprint wrong impressions on the immature minds of a large section of the Coloured population. Let us at least be careful. if we are serious when we say that we want to preserve race relations, how we handle this sort of thing.

What are the facts? The facts are that provision is made in this Bill that in respect of the foreseeable future, inasmuch as the Department of Education laid down the courses, it will continue to do so. It is further provided that inasmuch as the provinces did so they will continue to do so. All I told the Coloured people last year by way of a statement was that we would not provide them with inferior education. The education which they receive to-day. however, is not equivalent to that of the Whites, even between the provinces it is not equivalent. The object is to improve it and we shall continue to strive for that. It must of necessity improve to the extent to which Coloured teachers receive better training; it must improve to the extent to which school facilities are created and to the extent to which other factors influence the Coloured community. The present standards will at least be maintained and they should gradually be improved. If I were to accept these amendments …

You are now changing your tune.

I am not going to accept one of these amendments because they are all ridiculous. I am not changing my tune; this is precisely what I said the other evening. What hon. members are suggesting, as I said the other evening, is not to the advantage of the Coloureds but to their disadvantage. I replied explicitly to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). I told her that she should read my reply to the second-reading debate. There I gave a detailed exposition of what we envisaged and what the broad principles were.

It was a weak reply.

It may have been weak; I am incapable of giving a reply of the high standard of which the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) is capable. I am incapable of doing many things which he is capable of. I want to assure the hon. member, however, that I did my best and my best has so far meant much more to the Coloured people than his. I leave it at that.

The point is this that I am supported by a body who is in principle against the transfer of Coloured education but who appreciate the reasonableness of my attitude. I, therefore, have to refuse to accept these amendments.

Before I call upon the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) to address the committee, I want to remind him that this clause has been fully discussed and that he must refrain from repeating arguments.

I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I want to say this that any fears or suspicions that have been created in the minds of Coloured educationists about this clause have been created by no one else but the hon. the Minister himself. I think it is necessary for me to remind this Committee that the hon. the Prime Minister himself initiated the idea of the transfer of Coloured education from the Provincial Administration to the Coloured Affairs Department. He was at pains to explain to the Union Council of Coloured Affairs that there would be no diminution at all in the standard of education that the Coloured children of this province would receive. He made that manifestly clear in a statement which I referred to in my second-reading speech. That assurance was repeated by the hon. the Minister time and again outside of this House namely that it was the intention of the Government to maintain the same standards of education as far as the Coloured children were concerned.

Mr. Chairman, you will appreciate that this clause is one of the most important clauses of this Bill. This clause gives the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs the right to determine at his sole discretion the courses for the education or for the training of persons at trade schools, schools of industry, reform schools, State-aided schools and to conduct examinations. It vests almost autocratic powers in the hands of the hon. the Minister to determine the standard of education which these Coloured children are to receive from now on when the control of Coloured education is transferred from the Provincial Administrations to the Coloured Affairs Department.

It is necessary to remind this Committee again that no Coloured organization has asked for this transfer. The suggested transfer emanates from the Government. They have initiated this idea. The Prime Minister has indicated that there would not be any diminution in the standard of Coloured education as a result of this transfer. What are we asking the hon. the Minister to do? We are asking the hon. the Minister in terms of my amendment to put it on record that in exercising the powers which we are conferring upon him under this clause he will maintain the standard of education obtaining in the case of White children in the Cape Province.

That is not in your amendment.

Read my amendment. My amendment is on the Order Paper. It reads—

May I interrupt? The standard of education of the Coloured people in the Cape are not the same as the standard of education in respect of White children.

I think the hon. the Minister even now does not appreciate the import of my amendment. All that we are asking him to do is to put on record that the standard of education, which he proposes to give to the Coloured people in this province will be the same standard …

I have explained why I cannot accept the amendment.

Order! The hon. member for Peninsula has advanced those arguments over and over again.

Sir. the hon. the Minister put that forward and I …

Order! The hon. member has advanced those arguments over and over again; he must advance new arguments.

The point I am trying to make is this. I was merely replying to the Minister’s intervention in this debate. I want to say this that the hon. the Minister was not prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) because he said that went too far. He said that he was not able to adhere to the regulations governing syllabuses for the training of White persons because in each province …

Order! Yes, and then the hon. member suggested a solution. He has advanced those arguments.

I want to say this in conclusion that if the hon. the Minister intends to give effect to the promise which he and the Prime Minister made to the Coloured people there is no valid reason why he cannot accept this amendment and put it on record. Despite the assertions made by the hon. the Minister I wish to have this amendment on record for the purposes of protecting the standard of education to be given to the Coloured people of this province.

Mr. Chairman …

You should go to Hospital.

Sir, I do not think I should be concerned with that invitation to go elsewhere …

Order! The hon. member should proceed straightaway.

I should like to, Sir, but when I am told to go to hospital I suppose I have to react to it. A lot of people should be in hospital with a small ailment.

Mr. Chairman, what I want to say is this: The attitude of the Government towards the educational or the cultural level of the Coloured people is expressed in a Government publication called “The Coloured People of South Africa” in one simple sentence. Under the heading “Cultural Development” we find this: “The culture of the Coloured people is largely Western.” I did not say that; although I subscribe to it. This is an official publication of the Government of the Republic of South Africa about the Coloured people. For the information of the Minister of Coloured Affairs I say that the Government goes out of its way here to say that the culture of the Coloured people is largely Western.

Furthermore, the Minister himself in introducing the second reading of the Bill had some fair words to say to the Coloured people about their education. In the light of what he has just cited about what an organization called Safta has said, I think it is reasonable to remind him of what he himself has said, which has a greater bearing on the matter than something which Safta, whoever they may be, have said to him. He said so, among other things, according to a report in the Cape Argus of Friday 22 February …

Order! The hon. member cannot quote a newspaper report relating to the proceedings in Parliament.

I think you ruled earlier that I may not quote from Hansard, but from a newspaper report.

Is it a report of what happened in Parliament?

It is a report of a speech made by the Minister in regard to the second reading …

Order! The hon. member cannot quote from it.

I do not want to quibble over it, Sir. What he said was, in effect, that since the earliest days of the Cape, the education of the Coloured people was parallel with that of the White people. Whether I read a Press report or whether the Minister reads his own Hansard, that was what he said. One must ask him, as a “Minister of Education”, what is the meaning of “parallel”? Because he went on to say that it was the purpose to continue the policy of parallel education. I ask the hon. the Minister again—and I hope he will reply to me—what is the meaning of “parallel”? Unless he says that “parallel” does not mean that the two systems of education shall be on the same plane and shall not in any way deviate from each other, then he will be giving me a new explanation of the meaning of the word “parallel” to which I shall be very pleased to react.

The argument has also been advanced that the Coloured people should not expect to be given the same education as the White people of South Africa; that it is not good for them, on the basis that they are not intellectually capable of absorbing that quality of education given to the White people.

Nonsense.

I am not talking nonsense, Sir. That statement comes from that side of the House. When it comes to talking non-sense, I would not dream of trying to match the efforts of the hon. member who has just told me that I was talking nonsense. I must draw the attention of these hon. gentlemen who are so fond of alleging that it is “nonsense” whenever they do not like a statement …

Order! The hon. member must return to the clause.

I have been referring to Clause 21 all the time, Sir, which is the basis of the education of the Coloured people. I want to draw the attention of the Committee to a statement which is contained in a book, “Education and Race Relations in South Africa” an essay written by the then Principal of the University of Cape Town, Prof. T. B. Davie, and he surely is regarded as somebody who knew something about education, and what is more, knew something more about Coloured education.

You know nothing about it.

Of course, the honourable sheeptail for Cradock knows everything.

Order! The hon. member may not refer to another hon. member in those terms.

I withdraw, Sir.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, could you also ask the hon. member for Cradock to allow the hon. member to make his speech?

I will call the hon. member for Cradock to order, if necessary.

Sir, may I with your permission, if not with the permission of the hon. member for Cradock, quote this statement by Professor Davie about the education of the Coloured youth, both in schools and at the university. He says about the Coloured people—

That has nothing to do with the Bill.

Order! Hon. members should allow the hon. member to make his speech.

Does that not reinforce the argument which the Government itself uses—I accept that it approaches this matter with some seriousness—when the Government says that the culture of the Coloured people is largely Western? Then, what is the meaning of “Western culture”? What is the meaning or “parallel education”? What is the meaning of “equal” intellectual capacity in regard to education, except that they must receive the same standard and quality of education as the White people? What can the hon. Minister say in reply to that argument? That it is not so, or that it is, and he is making political capital out of the issue. There are only two alternatives. And finally, in this regard the hon. Minister has referred to the reaction of Safta. I want to refer him to the reaction of the Council for Coloured Affairs, who have a certain interest in this matter, and the hon. Minister has cited them from time to time as people who should be favourably regarded as far as their standing in the affairs of the Coloured people are concerned. I have a report here, not a report of a Parliamentary debate, a report in the Cape Argus of 20 April and in that article a member of the Council’s Education Committee, Mr. Arendse, is reported to have said “that all his fears and those of the Coloured teachers had been proved justified by the Minister’s stand”. The stand he is taking to-night, Sir. I am not going to read it all, but he went on to say “I feel that the Council has been led up the garden path; it would never have agreed to the transfer …” in other words, if it had known what was going to happen in regard to this Clause 21, for instance. He continued “I think we are now seeing the Minister in his true colours”. Sir, this is not a light allegation to make. These people also have a certain regard for propriety; they also realize that they are in a position where the Government can do certain things for them, and can do certain things against them, and therefore this statement made by a member of the Education Committee of this council must be regarded as having some weight. For the reasons that I have advanced the Minister cannot surely blindly refuse every single amendment on the Order Paper. He must in all seriousness, instead of making allegations of political capital being important into this debate by this side of the House, tell us of a good reason, not a specious reason, why, when he alleges that it is the intention to ensure “parallel education” for the Coloureds, as he did in his second-reading speech—parallel to that of the Whites—why he will not, then, accept the amendments which have been proposed to this clause.

I am really sorry that the hon. the Minister has issued threats this evening, particularly against people who represent the Coloureds.

Do not talk such nonsense.

How can the hon. the Minister say that?

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Clause.

He definitely threatened the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) by saying to him: “If you do that, I shall do this or that and then you will be sorry that you ever said such a thing”. That is intimidation.

On the merits of the case.

That may be, but the hon. the Minister had no right to do that.

The hon. member for Peninsula has no right to make such personal remarks.

The hon. member must come back to the clause.

All we are asking—I do not care if the hon. the Minister does not want to accept it, because that is his business…

I have given my reasons, have I not?

What we are asking here is not to create suspicion, as the hon. the Minister says, or to talk about the socalled leaders among the Coloureds who are supposed to want certain things, all we are asking is that there should be uniformity or an attempt at obtaining uniformity. If the Minister tells us to-night that he cannot do so immediately but that he will try to do so, that he will honestly try to do so …

Order! The hon. member has already used that argument. He must advance a new argument.

With due respect, Mr. Chairman, I have not used it before …

Order!

Let me continue. The hon. the Minister says that he cannot introduce it—I think it was a slip of the tongue— because the Coloured people are not ready for it.

Of course.

I never said that.

There you have it. One Government member says “of course” and the Minister says he never said it! All we are asking the Minister to do is to make an effort to bring it about, and that will not be difficult or impossible. For years and years these Coloured people have been following the same syllabuses, they have been writing the same examinations; and till recently, when they got their new university, they have been attending the same universities as the Whites.

That has nothing to do with the clause.

Order!

They wrote the same examinations.

Nonsense.

I do not know whether the hon. member for Wolmaransstad wrote any examinations, otherwise they wrote the same examination which the hon. member wrote, examinations of the same standard.

[Inaudible.]

That goat (kapater) from Cradock …

Order! The hon. member must apologize for having made that remark.

I apologize, but please, Mr. Chairman, we are getting tired of the stupid stories we get from him throughout the day. It is to the discredit of this House.

Order! I did not hear what the hon. member for Cradock said, but he should give hon. members an opportunity of making their speeches.

By saying the standard of the education which these people receive at this stage is not the same as ours, is the hon. the Minister implying that the examinations which the Coloureds write at their university are not of the same standard at the moment, that their diplomas or their certificates are not of the same standard as ours?

I do not believe it. I think they are of the same standard. I think, therefore, that the hon. the Minister can adopt a different attitude. It would be much better for the Minister and it would facilitate the proceedings of this House if the hon. the Minister would stop insulting this side of the House.

I move—

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—62: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jurgens, J. C.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, A. I.; Marais, J. A.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J.

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

NOES—36: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Timoney, H. M.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Question put: That the words “Until the I Minister otherwise determines” in line 56, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause, Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—62: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L J. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jurgens, J. C.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, A. L; Marais, J. A.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J.

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

NOES—36: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Timoney, H. M.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Dr. Fisher negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mrs. Suzman put and the Committee divided:

AYES—38: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A: Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Taurog, L. B.; Timoney, H. M.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: C. Barnett and H. Suzman.

NOES—62: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jurgens, J. C.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, A. I.; Marais, J. A.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

I am unable to put the amendment proposed by Mr. Bloomberg, as it is similar in substance to Mrs. Suzman’s amendment, which has been negatived.

Clause 21, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—62: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jurgens, J. C.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, A. I.; Marais, J. A.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J.

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

NOES—38: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Timoney, H. M.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to. On Clause 22,

I should like the hon. Minister to give us some clarification on the interpretation of this clause. I am not going to refer to the matter of the “Secretary”. I have said at an earlier stage that this should be “the Director”, but I am not going to discuss that now. But this is the point I should like to discuss with the hon. Minister: We provide in this clause for two investigations. Two, not one, and the two things provided for are the inspection of certain schools (that is one) and the other is “inquiries in connection with matters relating to such schools”. Now I think the two things should be kept completely separate. I am going to ignore the question of inquiry for the time being and in dealing with the inspection, see how this clause can be applied to an inspection. We say in sub-section (2) (a)—

What documents will he require when an officer goes along to conduct an inspection? And then in (b) powers are given to administer an oath or affirmation to any person present at such inspection. When will he be required to administer an oath when as an inspector he visits a school? That is meant for an inquiry, not for an inspection. And then we come to sub-section (3). There it is envisaged—

But you don’t have a law as applied in a criminal court applicable to an inspection of a school. That is all meant for an inquiry into some irregularity under Clauses 16 or 17. Finally, in sub-clause (3), will the person present at an inspection be legally represented? I understand he will not be, but I cannot see what the whole thing has to do with a school inspection. It is relevant to an inquiry into a complaint about the conduct of a teacher or something in regard to the property itself, but I do not think that this has anything at all to do with the inspection of a school. I am not going to move an amendment, but I think it might be advisable for the hon. the Minister to discuss this with his law advisers. Perhaps at a later stage in Another Place he might be able to give us two clauses, or to delete the inspection altogether, because a school inspection cannot possibly be carried out in this way, by swearing people in.

I just want to get some information. Clause 22 (2) provides that a person who holds an inquiry in terms of sub-section (1) can do certain things and subclause (4) provides that any person who prevents any other person from appearing in accordance with a subpoena issued in terms of paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) at the time and place in question, or from producing any document shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty rand. Sub-section (3) provides that the law relating to witnesses and evidence which applies in connection with criminal cases in a magistrate’s court shall mutatis mutandis apply in this case. Will the same procedure be followed here? I cannot see how a person who gives evidence can be found guilty of a crime by an ordinary individual. I shall be pleased if the Minister will explain this.

I shall certainly consider the suggestion of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) and discuss it thoroughly once again, and if it is possible to set it out in a more broken-down form I shall consider it. But I shall have to consult the law advisers. I understand that the reason why all these provisions are contained in this one clause is because we are dealing here not only with the provisions of certain Ordinances but it must be remembered that we are now accepting certain obligations under certain provisions of the Vocational Education and Special Schools Act. But I shall discuss the matter with the law advisers to see Whether these provisions cannot be framed in a better way. The one inquiry of course deals with malpractices and the other with the normal inspection of the school. I shall see what I can do to have these provisions set out more clearly.

The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) asked me whether the same procedure will apply to sub-section (4) as in the case of sub-section (3). I take it that that will be so, but I do not want to give any assurance to that effect until I have consulted the law advisers. If these provisions are not clear enough we shall consider framing them in a different way.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 23,

I regard the amendment which stands in my name as probably the most important one before this House Rightly or wrongly the Coloured people have definitely come under the impression that immediately after this Bill is passed compulsory education will immediately be introduced, as in Natal. Although I am only too well aware of the practical difficulties which confront the Minister, I think the Minister should, to a certain extent in any case, comply with the wishes of our Coloured people. For a considerable time there have been sufficient facilities and enough schools in the big cities, particularly in Cape Town, Paarl, Worcester and other places, for education to be made compulsory. That is why I am sorry that the Minister is not already making provision for compulsory education in certain areas. He may perhaps be afraid of the financial implications, because if he introduces compulsory education, education must, of course, be free. I feel, therefore, that this Clause is not clear enough and that it will cause dissatisfaction or that it will not remove the dissatisfaction which exists. I think the Coloureds will be satisfied if the Minister lays down a time limit, even if it is five or ten years. In that case they will know that although they are not getting it to-day it will indeed be introduced in due course. That is why my amendment is worded the way it appears here and for record purposes I should like to read it. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I wish to add something to this amendment which I hope the Minister will accept. It is a practical amendment—

You have to make provision for those people who live just outside the municipal boundaries, Sir, so that they can also attend that school and although as a child I had to walk six miles to school in the mornings and six miles back, I think it is reasonable to ask that the distance to the nearest school should be three miles. This is a reasonable amendment. It does not detract from anything the Minister already had in his Clause. He still has a time limit, and a fairly lengthy one, within which he has, in certain circumstances, to introduce compulsory education in the big cities, in municipal areas and within three miles of a school for all Coloured children living within that radius. It is a practical suggestion and something definite, but I am convinced—I do not know what the Coloured Representatives think about this; I have not discussed this with them—that this is something which will satisfy our Coloured people because many of the Coloured leaders who have come to discuss this matter with me, think we shall not carry out the promises we have made to them, or as they understood them, namely, that compulsory education will be introduced in their case just as it has been introduced in the case of the Whites, but a promise as embodied in my amendment will satisfy them.

I want to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) and say that I will not move in its entirety the amendment standing in my name on page 368. The reason why I am going to move only part of that amendment is because as it stands my amendment to Clause 23 was really contingent on an amendment which I wanted to move to Clause 3. But because this would have involved increased expenditure I was unable to move that amendment. Therefore it is obviously foolish for me to move this amendment which depended entirely on the availability of enough money. So I am not moving the amendment as it stands and I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow, but I want to move that part of the amendment which reads—

I also suggest that the penalties are far too high, particularly as this applies to a section of the community which is ill able to afford the heavy fines provided for as the clause stands now. I hope the Minister will accept that part of the amendment. It does not alter any principle, but brings it into line with the Cape Education Ordinance. I hope he will also accept the amendment of the hon. member for Hillbrow, for one good reason. If there is anything that the hon. the Minister could do to reassure and to give extreme pleasure to the Coloureds, it would be to implement a power which in fact the provinces have had for at least twenty years. For at least twenty years it has been within the power of the provinces to make compulsory attendance at school for Coloured children obligatory, but it has not ever been imposed to my knowledge, and I think it is something the Coloureds want badly. I hope that where there are already areas where there are sufficient schools and the facilities are available, the Minister will give us an earnest of his sincerity that he will ultimately introduce compulsory education for Coloured children by telling us thàt he intends immediately, in certain districts anyway, to implement compulsory education. If he wants this Bill to be accepted, as he put it, as a great step forward for the Coloured people, he should at least take this small step forward by assuring us that he intends as soon as possible to make education compulsory for Coloured children, and telling us that he will at least introduce it immediately in those districts where these facilities exist.

The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) said he did not know what the sentiments of the Coloureds’ Representatives were in regard to his amendment. I want to say immediately that we agree with and wholeheartedly support his amendment. In that connection I think it is necessary for me to tell the Minister that a representative delegation of teachers met the Coloureds’ Representatives in this House and put forward certain suggestions in regard to the proposed transfer of Coloured education to the Department of Coloured Affairs. Dealing with this particular clause, the following appears in the memorandum they presented to us. They said that compulsory education should now be introduced in all areas where this is possible and that provision should be made to make this system the order within a minimum period. That is wholly in line with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow. This is a very important clause. It has the effect of vesting in the Minister the power to make Coloured education compulsory, but it gives the Minister a blank cheque in that regard, because the clause says it is only when the Minister is satisfied that sufficient and suitable school accommodation is available that he may by notice declare that regular attendance shall be compulsory for every Coloured person belonging to a particular age group and resident in a particular area. In other words, the Minister will have the discretionary power to determine (a) whether there is sufficient accommodation, (b) whether there is suitable accommodation, and (c) whether it will apply to Coloured persons of a particular age group, and (d) the residential qualifications of the Coloured persons affected. The amendment of the hon. member for Hillbrow at least gives this safeguard that it ensures that within a limited time this compulsory education will be given effect to. I think it is essential that there should be a limitation of time. I am sure the Minister will agree that it is not unreasonable to ask him to accept some limitation of time. If the Minister feels that the period suggested by the hon. member for Hillbrow is not sufficient, he can suggest a further period. But I feel that we should get a statement from the Minister that wherever possible this compulsory system of education will be introduced without any delay whatever, and that thereafter provision will be made to make introduction of this compulsory system applicable within a minimum period. I urge upon the Minister to accept the amendment because I think it will relieve a great deal of apprehension existing at present in the minds of the Coloureds.

I am prepared to accept that first part of the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). I also want to move the following amendment—

With leave of the Committee, the second amendment proposed by Mrs. Suzman, was withdrawn.

As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) is concerned, the position is perfectly clear. I do not think that anyone in this House will object or have the courage to object to the principle and the desirability of compulsory education. That is why I have consistently adopted the attitude that this is an ideal that we will strive to achieve. But the introduction of compulsory legislation in the Cape, for example, where the greatest measure of goodwill has existed over the years on the part of the province in respect of the Coloured people, is not a question which depends entirely upon goodwill. The practical implication of compulsory education depends upon the availability of school buildings and, secondly, the availability of well-trained teachers. I am not an educationist myself but I have never been able to understand why people have placed so much emphasis upon the availability of school buildings while the availability of well-trained teachers has hardly ever been mentioned. After all, it is essential for the effective application of compulsory education that there should be an adequate number of suitable teachers available. In the second place, a great deal depends upon the amount of money available. What will now happen in practice? Once Coloured education has been taken over we will have the situation that we have in Natal, where compulsory education has already been introduced and I think I can accept that that position will have to continue. We have given an undertaking that we will not deprive the Coloureds of any rights and that is why we will have to continue with compulsory education there. There is no compulsory education in the Transvaal and the Free State. The principle of compulsory education was adopted many years ago in the Cape and has been applied in a few school board districts. There too we will have to continue with the position as it is. But if I were to say publicly this evening in the full realization of the responsibility of my position—and bind the Government, moreover by legislation—that we will make education compulsory throughout the four provinces by 1970, I would be going too far. The danger is this. Supposing we embody it in legislation and something happens to make it impossible for us to carry out this undertaking and we have to introduce legislation at a later stage to the effect that it is no longer possible to make education compulsory throughout the country by 1970, will we not then be doing far greater harm to the goodwill and to the confidence that the Coloureds have in us? Is it not better for me to reply in the spirit of S.A.F.T.A.? I quoted just now from the document that S.A.F.T.A. submitted to me a few days ago. I am not using S.A.F.T.A. as a cloak to cover my actions. S.A.F.T.A. know precisely what I think of their attitude and that I differ from them in principle, but in the third paragraph of this document which is dated the 20th of April of this year they say—

I want to make use of this opportunity to say that that is a wrong impression because I believe that if the Coloured people are to be uplifted culturally and otherwise and if they are to be an asset to the country, then their salvation lies in this direction amongst others. I do not think that anyone with a reasonable sense of responsibility and a sense of what is in the interest of South Africa will deny that. But I think that I would be acting stupidly if I were to bind myself to a specific date this evening.

In the second place I would be acting stupidly if I did not take into account that there is a great backlog as far as school buildings are concerned. Hon. members are aware of the great burden which is imposed on the State to make school buildings available. I think that there is one way to make the Coloured people feel aggrieved and that is to give them the type of school building that will destroy the spirit of their children. I do not say that we must build palaces for them but we must build practical schools for them. We have to take capital expenditure and the carrying capacity of the country into account in this regard. But what is more important, we must bear in mind the extent to which teachers are available. A little earlier on I pointed out the position of the standard of training of numbers of these Coloured teachers. There may be sufficient teachers available for primary education but I cannot say that all of them have the qualifications that will be necessary to comply with the requirements once compulsory education is introduced. I do not say this to insult the teachers in any way. That is why I am sorry that no matter how much I would like to make this promise, for the sake of good relationships amongst other things, I cannot do so. Does the hon. member imagine that if I were able to assure the Coloured people in regard to some matter about which they were most concerned, I would not do so? That would greatly facilitate my task. But it would be the height of irresponsibility for me to promise things which I knew in my heart of hearts I would have to subject to these three tests. I am unable to say that it is possible to make education compulsory by 1970 because at a later stage I might have to introduce legislation to delete a provision of this nature. For these reasons I regret that I cannot accept this amendment.

I hope that the Minister will not regard the representations of this side as a reflection upon him personally. I do not doubt his good intentions and his goodwill, but I do not think that the clause as it stands is satisfactory because it is not positive enough. We are constantly told that there is a shortage of school accommodation for Whites and a shortage of teachers, and yet that does not affect the position as far as compulsory education for Whites is concerned. I do not suppose that the Minister will always occupy that position; there may be a change of Ministers, and in that event a section such as this might be responsible for an indefinite delay in introducing compulsory education. Moreover, it is my impression that unless we have compulsory education, we will never discover how great the leeway is in respect of school accommodation and in respect of the shortage of teachers. It is only when we have compulsory education and when we know what has to be provided that we shall find out what the shortcomings are and then hasten to meet those shortcomings. I am afraid there is no positive indication that the Government proposes to introduce compulsory education. Let us view the matter in this light: Things are going wrong in this country to-day and I believe that it is our duty, in our own interests, to take every possible step with the greatest possible expedition to raise the standards of Western civilization in South Africa. The spirit with which we should like the Minister to be imbued is not simply one of recognizing the difficulties. Difficulties can be overcome; they can also be overcome in respect of the question of adequate funds. We are spending scarcely one-third on education to-day that the Communist countries are spending. If we have to do so, we curtail expenditure on some other service, but the time has come when expenditure on education in South Africa should not be curtailed by a single cent because we should see to it that every person in South Africa enjoys the high standards of Western civilization. It should be treated as a priority. The spirit with which I should like the hon. the Minister to be imbued is not a spirit of recognizing difficulties, but a spirit of “it must be done”, and “it must be done as soon as possible”. This amendment asks that 1970 should be set as the target for the achievement of this ideal. Personally I feel that that period is too long. It ought to be five years. But if the date is fixed at 1970, it gives the Minister seven years to introduce this. If he finds at the end of six years that there are very good reasons why he cannot put it into effect, then the right thing to do is to come to Parliament so that Parliament can decide whether his reasons are adequate. I do not think that the public or the Coloureds would be so unreasonable as not to support him if he is able to show by 1969 that there are good reasons why he cannot put it into effect. There is nothing that will prevent him then from coming to Parliament and asking Parliament to extend the time by another year or longer. We will then at least have achieved this that in the meantime the Department will have been forced to tackle this matter and there will be a feeling of “it must be done”. I am sorry but as the clause stands here it is altogether too negative. Furthermore, I feel that the Minister’s excuse that he cannot come back to Parliament at the end of seven years, is not a good argument. I therefore fully suport the amendment of the hon. member for Hillbrow.

I am in full agreement with the hon. the Minister that there is only one thing to do. I am thinking primarily of the Cape. One will have to link up compulsory education with the State school. But I will come back to this matter later on. Firstly I want to mention two more good reasons why it is impossible to bind the hon. the Minister to a particular date, whether it be 1970 or 1980. The comparison that has been drawn between Coloured education and White education does not hold water. It must be remembered that in the case of White children, all of them are at school. All that one has to do is to make provision for the annual increase in that number of children. As against that, there is a tremendous backlog as far as the Coloured child is concerned. For example, we do not know what their numbers are. The Commission on Coloured Education found, for example, that there were at least 35,000 Coloured children who were not yet at school. Provision will therefore have to be made for them. Then we must also remember that when we estimate the number of White children at school we can assume that we will have those children at school between the ages of seven and 16 years. In the case of the Coloured child, however, the position is such that he leaves school at any stage after sub B. He only stays at school for a few years and then he leaves. If compulsory education is introduced it will mean that there will be a very large number of children who will have to be kept at school. Provision will then have to be made. Provision will also have to be made for buildings and for teachers.

There is another matter that I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The Commission to which I have just referred also found that compulsory education had to be linked up with State schools and not with State-aided schools as is provided for in this clause. A State-aided school is a church school. We went into the matter and we found that we could make an arrangement amongst the various denominations to make provision for religious education—we call these schools amalgamated schools. But there are a few religious societies which have a number of schools under their control and which refuse to have anything to do with this matter. I simply cannot see how the hon. the Minister can compel any parent to send his child to a school that has been specifically built for the education of children belonging to some other religious society. We have to be extremely careful here. If the hon. the Minister can take over these schools on a large scale, at least in the municipal areas, then it may still prove successful. It may also prove successful if he has the power to take over those schools and to make State schools of them. But I simply cannot see how one can compel a parent to send his child to a school which is not controlled by his own church. I want to bring this aspect of the matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

With further reference to what the hon. member who has just sat down, has said and also to what the Minister has said, I should like to deal with one aspect of this clause. The following is stated in the clause: “If the Minister is satisfied that sufficient and suitable school accommodation is available …”. I understood the hon. the Minister to say that in the case of Natal the chances were that the school accommodation there would be adequate and that there would be no practical difficulties in connection with compulsory school attendance. But this is a clause, Sir, which if it becomes law, can demand of the parent that his child attend the school which in the opinion of the Minister, is suitable and sufficient. The point I should like to make quite crisply in this connection is that I hope the Minister will bear in mind that in the major portion of the debate which has taken place so far on this measure there was the tendency for us to focus our attention on the Coloured child in the Cape. That is perhaps natural. Reference has also been made to the Coloured child in other provinces. I want to say to the Minister that merely the provision of classrooms and teachers in a suitable building is not necessarily providing suitable accommodation in the sense that it will be viewed by the parents and the children of a certain class. This has been a problem with us in Natal and. to meet this problem we have recognized human relationships by administrative means. In this way we have been able to cope with the problem quite satisfactorily. I can, however, recall one or two instances where difficulties were encountered because of the racial descent of the people concerned. In so far as the Coloured people of Natal is involved in this matter, we have to remember that the so-called Cape Coloured except in one small corner of the Province do not as a group exist in Natal at all. The Coloured people of Natal come from two other quite different racial stocks than that from which the Cape Coloured people come. On the one hand there is Euro-African stock and on the other Euro-Asians. Between these there is a mutual hostility, a mutual hostility which we have to bear in mind when dealing with this very question, namely suitable school accommodation. It has been found quite unsuitable to have a school where a survey of the child population in the district has shown that there are so many Coloured children—that means Coloured children in terms of the definition set out in this Bill. Under this Bill it is perfectly clear that those children fall under “any other group”. There is not only mutual hostility but there is extreme mutual hostility.

Do you segregate them in the schools?

Yes. Administratively, we keep them apart as far as is possible. There is a natural tendency on the part of the people coming from a Euro-Asian stock to live in a certain part of the Province—in the main the sugar belt. These are the people who so often are called Mauritians. They have a different home language—their original home language was French. They are not Protestants by religion and they are people very often of a very high culture. Now, there is a mutual hostility between them and those of Euro-African descent. This latter group in the main comes from other parts of the Province.

But, as I have said, we have a respect for these differences administratively. We have a respect for these human differences, we have accepted it and we have tried administratively to deal with the matter. So far as I know the Coloured people of Natal has not yet accepted the principles of this Bill. It is therefore a matter of, whether they like it or not, Parliament passing the legislation and that they must accept it and make the best of it.

In view of the fact that under this clause compulsion can be applied, I should like to appeal to the Minister that his Department should see to it that as far as possible recognition is given to racial differences. We have for instance never had any difficulty in getting White teachers to teach in Coloured schools, but we have had great difficulty in getting Coloured teachers to go from one Coloured school to the other. The only instance of real unpleasantness which came to my notice has actually arisen on this ground. I do appeal to the Minister therefore that he should not deal with this on the basis of vacant seats in a Coloured school and that that will be regarded as suitable accommodation for them. I am afraid that will lead to difficulties.

I am prepared to meet the hon. member on that point. I will even go further and ask the heads of my Department to have a discussion with him on this and to go into the matter very thoroughly with a view to determining that as far as possible the difficulties which the hon. member has put to us will be recognized.

Do you mean in Natal?

Yes, in Natal. As the hon. member is aware we have had discussions with him on the other matters already, quite fruitful discussions, and I suggest therefore that we have a further discussion on this also.

*As far as the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander) is concerned, I want to say that I can understand his problem. I want to say immediately that the interdenominational committee discussed this matter with me some time ago, after which a statement was issued. In any case, on that occasion I gave the religious organization concerned the assurance that I would compel no child to attend a school that was controlled by a religious society different to that to which that child’s parents belonged. In spite of the dangers in this regard the clause makes it possible for one to compel a community belonging exclusively to one religious society—this is possible and I can imagine that there are communities of this nature—to accept compulsory legislation when one introduces that compulsory education. I am giving full consideration to what the hon. member said and I can also give him the assurance that the principle of compelling people to attend schools controlled by churches other than those to which they themselves belong will never be accepted.

I am pleased that the Minister has agreed that in principle we should strive for compulsory education. His reasons, however, for not bringing in compulsory education at this stage are to me quite insufficient. He says we would firstly have to have sufficient school accommodation, sufficient teachers and sufficient finances. If we are going to wait for all these to be sufficient we will never ever have compulsory education. I would rather that a child be taught under a tree in the open air in summertime than to see him go without education. I would be far happier to see that. The problem is that classrooms have always been in short supply. That is the case especially in the primary schools. Here there has always been overcrowding in class-rooms. Sometimes there were 40 to 50 children in a classroom normally offering accommodation for 20-25 only. But that has not stopped the White child from going to school. I think the same thing is necessary in respect of the Coloured child. If there are too many Coloured children to go into the classrooms some of them would have to be taught outside the classrooms. To me, children would like it especially in the summertime, to be taught on benches outside the classroom than inside the classroom. So in that way we can always get over the accommodation difficulty.

But what then about the wintertime?

It must be remembered that winter in South Africa lasts for only a short while. It is not like in Britain where winter lasts some times for many months. If we have to have tents we can erect them. In fact there are one hundred and one ways of getting over the difficulty of accommodation. Marquees can be erected. This type of accommodation is quite suitable. People who went through the difficulties which we had after the war, of accommodating children in classrooms know that we used marquees and prefabricated buildings which were taken from army depots.

We will never be able to find enough money for education. It is necessary that we make a start. Now the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow gives us a seven year period. Surely we can start during that period? But if we are going to go on and wait as the hon. Minister would like us to do until we have sufficient money, accommodation, etc., we will never get started. The whole structure which the Minister erected this afternoon shows that we will never have enough qualified teachers. He does not want to bring in education for teachers on a par with Whites. Why not? He says that there are many teachers to-day who are teaching but who are not fully qualified. They have only passed Std. VIII. But surely those teachers can teach primary school children. There is no reason why they shouldn’t do that. If the Minister is going to insist on the best qualifications, how would he ever manage to get started? The whole structure of the education of the Coloured people is going to break down. In fact it is breaking down to-night. And that for the reason that the Minister does not start with laying a solid foundation for the future.

I didn’t know you were an educationist.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to treat the matter seriously while the hon. member for Standerton treats it as a joke. He has had his education although he has not made the best use of it. But that does not mean that we must prevent others from having education. It is amazing what good would come of it if the Minister is prepared to-day to say that during the next seven years he is going to plan to have sufficient accommodation available and to get sufficient teachers. If he really wants to do it there is no reason why he cannot. We do not want him to do it tomorrow but we only ask of him to do it in seven years. If he is sincere in his wishes and sincere in what he has said then surely he can make provision for it in this Bill. Thereby he can satisfy us as well as satisfy the Coloured people. And not only that, Sir, but he will satisfy the people of his own side. But now we are leaving this matter in the air and I know what will come of it in seven years’ time. After seven years we will be just as badly off as we are this evening.

I accept wholeheartedly that the Minister is willing to do his best for those people whom he has under his control. I accept the goodwill of the Minister in this connection. I do not doubt it but I accept that he is willing to do whatever he can. As a matter of fact, I accept that he will do it. There is one point on which he will, however, agree with me, namely that no matter how willing he may be, no matter how willing he says he is in this House, it is not included in this Bill.

The hon. the Minister gave certain reason why he could not do it. He said, for example, that he did not have sufficient trained teachers to make education compulsory. But I am giving him a period of seven years within which to train these teachers. It can be done. There are enough matriculation students at school to-day, particularly in the Coloured schools here in Cape Town where there are already 300,000 Coloured children at school, to enable him to have enough trained teachers within seven years to introduce compulsory education in the municipal areas. I want to assist the Minister in this respect. This is not a case of making political capital out of a situation. What political advantage can I gain from this? All I want to do is to assist him to satisfy his own people and to calm their feelings.

The Minister also said that he did not have enough school buildings. He said he would consider compulsory education when he had enough proper schools. When I was in Australia a year or so ago I was struck by the way the children of the so-called New Australians were being catered for. Within a period of ten years over a million of them had entered Australia: Hollanders, Frenchmen, Englishmen, Scotsmen, Germans, Austrians, etc. I was struck by the way they had looked after these people not only in respect of housing but in respect of the children as well. Let me tell you, Sir, that if the will is there it can be done. In this regard I want to call the hon. Minister’s own Government as witness. When they established the university college for non-Whites they found the necessary money although thousands and thousands of pounds were required for it. They did not, however, let the question of money stand in their way. They carried on and erected the buildings. As far as the Coloureds are concerned I suggest Rhodes’ motto to the Minister: “Do not wait till you have the money but build and then you will get the money”.

My amendment places no obligation on the Minister. It is only a qualifying amendment. It does not expect him to introduce compulsory education in distant places or in the Kalahari or wherever our Coloured people find themselves. We will not expect him to have introduced compulsory education by 1970 in small platteland schools. The amendment limits the introduction of compulsory education to municipal areas. If I can do anything further to assist the Minister I shall insert “urban municipalities” in my amendment. Surely he will have the facilities there in seven years’ time. If he has not succeeded ip seven years’ time he will have the greatest dissatisfaction among the Coloured people.

I repeat that what the Minister is planning here is not positive enough. It is not definite enough. It hangs in the air and we are making this suggestion in the interests of himself and his Department. That is all I want to say. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will once again reconsider what he has said this evening and accept this amendment; if not here then in any case in the Other Place.

The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) said that if the hon. the Minister was not able to implement compulsory education within a period of seven years, these people would have the right to be dissatisfied. That hon. member likes to make people believe that he is a historian, but here I want to refresh his memory somewhat as far as the history of this matter is concerned. In 1947 when the United Party was in power they introduced an ordinance in the Cape Province making provision for compulsory education for Coloured people. The United Party remained in power in the Provincial Council in the Cape for eight years after this date, that is to say, until 1954. I would like hon. members on the other side to rise and tell this House honestly what the United Party achieved during that period of eight years in regard to compulsory education. They want to compel the hon. the Minister by means of this Bill to make provision for compulsory education for Coloured children throughout the Republic within a period of seven years.

You are reading my amendment incorrectly.

The hon. member qualified his statement by saying that it would only be confined to certain municipalities. But that is not what is requested in the amendment. The hon. member for Hillbrow qualified his remarks just now when he said that he would have no objection if it was confined simply to certain large urban municipalities. But let me come back to the question that I put to hon. members opposite in regard to the ordinance of 1946. I want to tell the House what the results were of the efforts which the United Party made in this connection during that period of eight years as far as I can remember, during that period from 1946 to 1954, only two rural school boards introduced compulsory legislation. If I remember correctly, the one school board was the school board of Cradock. Not one single United Party school board introduced compulsory education.

The discussion on this matter this evening has been quite objective up to the present but I do not want us to lose sight of the facts. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. P. Basson) was a member of the United Party, a very important member, during the period to which I refer. Indeed, he was an organizer of that party. It does not help to try to avoid historical facts. I repeat: The United Party was not able to achieve anything in the Cape in regard to compulsory education during that period. There were a few reasons for this. They did not have the funds available or else they were not prepared to introduce compulsory education, but if that was the case then it was purely and simply deceit as far as the Coloureds were concerned. I do not want to make this accusation this evening but hon. members opposite must accept one fact and that is that this side of the House has carried out all the promises that it made, including those made to the non-Whites in this country. I do not want to read out quotations to prove this unless it becomes necesary to do so. As it happens, I have here a pamphlet which was drawn up in 1948 by the late Dr. Malan in connection with Coloured education. When I consider the policy set out in this pamphlet in regard to this matter, I feel that we on this side need not be ashamed because we have done everything predicted in this pamphlet. We have carried out all our promises.

We are the guardians of the non-Whites, including the Coloured people. The time has now come for the United Party to give this side of the House an opportunity to do what it has promised to do. This will be in the interests of South Africa, of the White people and also of the Coloured people.

I think I am correct in saying that the hon. member for Malmesbury opposes the amendment proposed by the United Party because the United Party did not do its duty in 1946. I should like to ask the hon. member for Malmesbury whether he does not think it was wrong of the United Party not to have done anything during that period?

That is for you to say. After all you were a member of the Provincial Council at that time.

No, I came there later. At any rate I should like to know from the hon. member whether he does not think that it was wrong of the United Party not to have done anything. In fact he did try to show that it was wrong of the United Party not to have done anything during those eight years. But now when we propose to set a date, he opposes it. And vet he argued in favour of the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow. Only he does not realize it. In an endeavour to justify the Minister he is actually supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Hillbrow.

Now I should like to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that there was a commission, the Botha Commission, which in 1956 reported to the Nationalist Government where it was stated that compulsory education for the Coloureds should be started. Well, we are already in 1963—years later—and yet the Government has done nothing. This proves the danger of legislation without fixing a date. We must stipulate a date; if we do not, we shall never make a start. I admit that the hon. the Minister has a very difficult task to overcome even in regard to school accommodation required for the present pupils and if he is going to postpone the introduction of compulsory education for the Coloureds until he has enough schools, neither he nor I nor any of our grandchildren will see compulsory education introduced. I say therefore that there is nothing wrong to have a specified date.