I move as an unopposed motion—

1. (a) 10 hours for Second Reading;
2. (b) 12 hours for Committee Stage;
3. (c) 1 hour for Report Stage; and
4. (d) 2 hours for Third Reading;

and that for the purposes of this resolution the following shall apply:

1. (i) Second and Third Readings—At the conclusion of the periods allotted Mr. Speaker shall interrupt business and before putting the Question shall allow the Minister in charge of the Bill to reply immediately or on a future date.
2. (ii) Committee Stage.—At the conclusion of the period allotted the Chairman shall interrupt business and any amendments (other than amendments proposed by the Minister in charge) shall drop. The Chairman shall then put forthwith, without debate, the Question before the Committee and any amendments which have been or may be moved by the Minister in charge and thereafter only such further Questions, including amendments moved by the Minister in charge, as may be necessary to dispose of the stage: Provided that in the case of a series of clauses in respect of which no amendments are to be moved by the Minister in charge, the Chairman shall put such series of clauses as one group and not each clause, as printed, separately.
3. (iii) Report Stage.—At the conclusion of the period allotted Mr. Speaker shall interrupt business and any amendments (other than amendments proposed by the Minister in charge) shall drop. Mr. Speaker shall then put forthwith, without debate, any amendments which have been or may be moved by the Minister in charge. Mr. Speaker shall next put, without debate, the Question: “That the Bill, as amended, be adopted”, which shall include any amendments made in Committee of the Whole House which have not been taken into consideration.
4. (iv) Conclusion of Stages.—At the conclusion of each stage of the Bill the date for the next stage shall be appointed by the Minister in charge.
5. (v) Time for adjournment of the House.— When business is interrupted at the conclusion of any period allotted, the application of Standing Order No. 26 (automatic adjournment) shall be postponed until the proceedings on the business interrupted have been completed.

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

I second.

This measure is one of which, because of the courtesy of the hon. Minister, we have a fairly good idea in respect of its contents. The hon. Minister himself has issued a statement in which he has indicated what his intentions are in respect of this piece of legislation. He says in his statement that this shorter Bill contains those provisions of the longer measure which are urgently required as well as certain other provisions which although they can be regarded as contentious are essential in view of administrative requirements and for the purpose of the implementation of policies. Of course he is perfectly correct. Some of the provisions of the Bill, as we understand it, are contentious, very contentious indeed, and they are intended as a step in the direction of the implementation of a policy which we on this side of the House cannot support. In other words, instead of taking one big bite he is going to take a number of small ones, perhaps little bites this Session, and a much bigger one when Parliament meets again. But there is no indication as yet that we have reformed him, there is no indication that he has been reformed to the extent that he is abandoning the underlying concepts which were fundamental to the longer Bill which he has now decided to drop as far as this Session is concerned.

This policy, Sir, is designed as part of a pattern which means that the urban Bantu will have no security within the area in which he works and in which probably he will live his life, and it is because there is this fundamental cleavage between this side of the House and the Government side that it is necessary for us to take objection at this stage. In this Bill, as we understand it, as a result, I say again, of the courtesy of the Minister, there are three or four provisions which we find suspicious and particularly objectionable. One has to do with the question of the control of foreign Natives which is going to make the position of the farming community very difficult indeed. Secondly, it has been regarded as urgent, as vital, that provision should be made in this legislation for limiting the number of Bantu who can live on a householder’s property and to extend the area in which the Minister has the power to compel Bantu to live in a location, a Bantu village or a Bantu hostel. Sir, I am well aware that these powers are not new. They are merely an extension of the powers which have been asked before, but nevertheless, they represent another step towards the implementation of the pattern of a policy which we on this side of the House cannot support. Then you also find provision for the Minister to interfere far more than has been the practice in the past in respect of the management by local authorities of the Bantu population within their areas, and we find a provision which worries us very much, which is that the Minister has the power to make regulations concerning the manner in which proof should be given of the qualifications of a Bantu obtaining permanency in an urban area under Section 10 of the Urban Areas Act. One realizes, Sir, that that may revolutionize the whole position in respect of these people. Lastly, the Minister is enabled by this Bill to compel a local authority to submit for his approval any resolution concerning Bantu Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, one cannot go into details at this stage. This Bill marks once again a step in the direction of a policy which we cannot accept or support on this side of the House and we feel that it is right that our protests should be made at the earliest possible stage and that it should be indicated that we are not to be found for the support of steps in this direction.

Mr. Speaker, we have to consider this afternoon a Bill which is part of a larger concept. We have been able to see and appreciate the scope and effect of that larger concept and we were able to appreciate that that whole was an acceptable one, making as it did a chattel of the Bantu in large parts of the country. I do not propose going into the details of that larger concept, because it is not before the House now, but it was necessary to make the reference to it that I have done because what we are now dealing with is merely a part of that which was formerly found by us to be unacceptable. This is not only a part of it, but the first step, as we understand from the Minister’s statement, in the direction of the implementation of that larger concept which, as I say, we found totally unacceptable. This first step which the Minister is asking for leave to introduce now in itself contains the seeds of what is to come. Those seeds, i.e. this Bill itself…

Order! The hon. member is out of bounds now. He cannot discuss the seeds of something which is not before the House yet.

I do not intend discussing the Bill which is not before the House yet.

Then the hon. member should tell me what he intends doing.

When I referred to seeds, I was referring to what was contained in the Bill which is now to be introduced.

Order! How does the hon. member know what is in the Bill?

We know precisely what is to be in the Bill because the Minister has told us. The Bill to be introduced pursuant to the motion we are discussing will affect all sections. With respect, surely I can discuss the effects of the motion before the House, which is to introduce a Bill which will have certain repercussions on certain sections of the community. It is those repercussions which I wish to offer as the reasons for this side of the House adopting the attitude it does in opposing the measure at this stage. I do not propose going beyond that scope. Firstly, there are the effects of this Bill on the farming community.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the motion before the House.

The motion before the House is for leave to be granted to introduce a Bill containing certain provisions. In order to give the House some indication of why this side of the House is opposed to the motion, I must give reasons. I cannot indicate our opposition without giving reasons, and those reasons must necessarily have some bearing on this motion. I just want to make some reference to these reasons, but I understand that we are not allowed to have a discussion at this stage.

I have already allowed the Leader of the Opposition to state his case, and I hope the hon. member will follow my guidance.

With respect, if I am not allowed to give reasons, I find myself unable to speak.

Well, sit down.

Do I understand, then, that I cannot give reasons as to why this side of the House is opposing this motion at this stage?

I think the reasons have been adequately stated by the Leader of the Opposition.

Do I understand that I may not give any further reasons?

The hon. member cannot conduct a second-reading speech here. I have given my ruling.

Then I shall limit my reasons to the greatest possible extent, as to why we are opposing this motion. One of our reasons is the effect it will have on the farmers, because this Bill has to do with the control of foreign Natives.

Order! That is a second-reading speech.

On a point of order, if the hon. member gives new and different reasons from those advanced by the Leader of the Opposition, I submit that he should be allowed to do so.

Order!

We are dealing with a motion which is designed in its terms to amend certain pieces of legislation. Apparently I am unable to go into any details of the changes to be made and to give the reasons I wish to give, but I say it will be detrimental to all sections of the community, both Black and White, and as the Leader of the Opposition has said, we on this side of the House feel justified in opposing this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I should briefly like to say a few words. At the outset I wish to say to the Leader of the Opposition that when he said that we on this side have not been reformed, and that in regard to the introduction of this Bill, he still suspects all the evil things he suspected in the past, he himself has become much less reformed because he has made out a much poorer case here to-day than he made out on the previous occasion when he also opposed leave to introduce. [Interjections.] I would remind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that yesterday I helped them in fact. Because I could say nothing about the objects of the Bill. I issued a Press statement, in which I very briefly explained the contents. I then assumed that the Leader of the Opposition had taken proper cognizance of it, as he has testified here to-day, so that on the strength of that he would not waste time by opposing the introduction of this Bill, because in that brief summary I issued of the contents of the Bill, it was very clear that there is nothing in it, as the hon. member for Zululand has said, which is “to the detriment of all concerned”.

But I think so.

Oh, Mr. Speaker, that old hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) has never read the Bill, so why does he also join in the discussion? I say that the Bill that will be considered by this House is in the interests of and for the benefit of the Bantu in every respect. The two points on which the Opposition are always making such a fuss, even those two points are being promoted by the proposed Bill.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister should also not go too far.

No, I shall not raise those points. I merely wish to reassure the Opposition. But what the Opposition has shown us to-day—and this is all I wish to say further—is that they have now reached a stage in regard to Bantu administration where they refuse to hear anything further.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must not go too far.

The Opposition will not allow time for a measure on Bantu administration, and for that reason the Leader of the Opposition has indicated that they will not listen to any possible measures for the improvement of Bantu administration. Have we to assume that it is the point of view of the Opposition that everything should remain just as it is to-day? I think that neither the people nor the Bantu will be satisfied with that attitude.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that, like other hon. members on this side, I am opposed to the introduction of this Bill. I do not wish to deal with the contents of the Bill, but it is quite clear from the hon. the Minister’s notice, which is before the House, what the points are which will come up for discussion in terms of this Bill, and the Deputy Minister has made a Press statement which clarifies the matter further, and he has also indicated which provisions will be proceeded with. Looking at the provisions to which the Minister has referred and with which he is proceeding, the provisions to amend the various Acts, like the Native Labour Regulation Act, the Natives Taxation and Development Act, the Native Trust and Land Act, the Native (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, and a host of other legislation which has failed in its objects, because the Minister is coming with these wide amending provisions… [Interjections.] This Bill is portion of the Bill which was published for general information in the Gazette some considerable time ago. It is portion of another measure which was actually introduced in this House, as is also clear from the statement of the Minister, and while some of those provisions may be supported, no doubt a large number of the provisions to be included in this Bill when it comes before us must be opposed by me as a matter of principle because I do not believe that the way of dealing with these problems is by more and more legislation to seek to deal with the movements and the work of a section of the people, as is clearly the intention in terms of the notice given by the Minister. I will therefore content myself by saying that I believe that this Government, in tackling this problem, is using quite the wrong methods.

Order!

Then may I put it this way? I say that the measures which the Minister will include in the Bill to be introduced are not measures which will help to bring about a happier state of affairs in this country, and on that ground I must vote against the motion for leave to introduce this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to deal with the merits of the Bill at all. I would like to spend a few minutes on the wisdom of the hon. the Deputy Minister in introducing a measure of this nature at this stage of the Session at all. I think it is quite wrong that Parliament should be asked to seize itself of a measure of this nature in the closing weeks of a difficult Session. It is obviously a most complicated measure. I have before me the wording of the motion moved by the Minister and I find that we are asked to amend no fewer than seven or eight statutes. We are asked to amend the Native Labour Regulation Act, 1911; the Natives Taxation and Development Act, 1925; the Native Trust and Land Act, 1936; the Natives (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945; the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, 1951; the Bantu Authorities Act, 1951; the Natives (Abolition of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents) Act, 1952, and the Urban Bantu Councils Act, 1961. We are also asked to deal with the transfer of land in certain controversial districts, affecting Native policy in the Transvaal. All this we are asked to deal with for the first time in June.

Would you have preferred the longer Bill?

The Deputy Minister knows our attitude to that Bill. We opposed the introduction of that Bill also.

Order! That is not relevant.

I am sorry, Sir. I was led astray by that interjection. The point is that we also have to look at this motion for leave to introduce the Bill in the light of the statement which the Deputy Minister issued.

Order! That statement is not under discussion; only the motion.

But surely there was a reason why the Minister came with this motion, and he has made that reason public, and with great respect I submit that we are allowed to take note of the fact that the Minister has come with an amended Bill and has given us the reasons why.

Order! I have given the hon. member my guidance and I hope he will obey my ruling.

I hope that hon. members opposite will be objective enough to see the force of my argument and that they will take this opportunity to persuade the Deputy Minister not to continue with this Bill. In South Africa we have no more controversial subject than this question of our race relations and the administration of the affairs of the urban Natives, who are a permanent part of our urban population in this country. Yet when I look at the long title of this Bill the Government seeks to create the legal fiction that they are not a permanent part of our population.

Order! That is irrelevant.

I want to ask the Deputy Minister not to come with this highly controversial measure at this stage, a matter which affects the lives of millions of people in South Africa. He admits himself, by introducing this amended Bill, that this is not the time to bring this Bill before Parliament, and he admits that this Bill also contains subjects which may be controversial. Why do it? Why not give South Africa a rest? [Hear, hear!] Sir, I have made my appeal and I hope the Deputy Minister will give due consideration to the need for South Africa to escape this controversy.

Motion put and the House divided:

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

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill brought up and read a first time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House, may I say that we welcome the improvements now incorporated in this Bill. The first improvement contained in this Bill from that originally introduced in the Other Place in February this year is the clause giving the general public the right to inspect and to copy documents. As the clause stood, the public was prohibited from making copies by mechanical means, and therefore I commend the wisdom of the hon. the Deputy Minister in accepting the amendment moved by this side of the House that where copies cannot be made available to the public the Registrar has the power to direct that these documents may be copied by mechanical means. These improvements are to be commended and the Bill as it now appears is acceptable to this side of the House and we support the third reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, the Trade Marks Bill, with Clauses 44 (1) and (b) suitably adjusted, I feel will mark a welcome improvement and will remove the very real difficulties that were experienced by the trade and by patent agents in terms of Chapter III of the Patents, Trade Marks and Copyright Act of 1916. The modernization of this original Act does not conflict in any way with the Committee’s report, which was submitted in 1961. It is supported both by the Trade Marks Committee and the South African Institute of Patent Agents. This side of the House therefore now approves of the Bill as it now reads because it incorporates 99 per cent of the recommendations of the Committee.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

The Bill before us provides for the customary method of parliamentary control over expenditure on railway works. It authorizes expenditure prior to the work being carried out and it therefore fits in both with parliamentary procedure and the resolutions taken from time to time by the Railways and Harbours Select Committee. The Bill we have before us provides, firstly, for the construction of a new line which is to be built as a result of the subsidences in the Reef area and, secondly, for a new line, which is still to be dealt with in its detailed form, a new line from Delmas to Middelburg, to meet the needs of the coal industry and, thirdly, for certain other works on open lines which are necessary to carry into effect the proposals of the Administration. Sir, taking the items in the reverse order to which they have been dealt with in the Bill, I want to deal with the last one, that is, the amount being provided for the commencement of work on the grain elevator at East London Harbour, which the hon. the Minister dealt with in his Budget speech and touched on again during the course of the earlier procedure in regard to this measure. This Bill now authorizes the expenditure of R100,000 to begin with, for work involved this year on a project which will eventually cost somewhere in the region of R4,000,000 and will provide a large-scale grain elevator at East London. The proposal to erect an elevator is one which we on this side of the House strongly support. It is another step which will make it possible to more fully utilize the resources and the facilities available at East London Harbour and which are by no means being used to full capacity. The construction of this elevator will make it possible to make much more beneficial use of the East London port. Not only will it relieve a certain amount of overloading at the other ports, but it provides for the development of a very large agricultural area which is served by the East London port itself, both in the hinterland of East London and further north in portions of the Free State and the Transvaal impinging on that area. It should certainly be welcomed therefore by the people in those areas, particularly in the grain-producing areas, who will have this new outlet for their product through the East London port. One of the bottlenecks has been the handling of the maize crop in times of very big production. We on this side of the House are prepared to support fully what is a very valuable improvement and development in that particular respect.

With regard to the lines provided for in this Bill in its various other clauses, the Delmas-Middelburg line which is to be built to meet the requirements of the coal industry will come before us again on the Order Paper in another measure and I do not propose to take up the time of the House in dealing with it now except to say that we agree to the expenditure being provided. To some extent, however, it seems rather as if the engine is pushing the train instead of pulling it. We first approve of the cost of the job and later come along and approve of the job itself. One would have thought that it would have been dealt with the other way round, but still in this case it does not matter because there is no objection in either case. Here again we will be meeting the needs of an industry which may develop into a very valuable one as far as the country is concerned, and we on this side will therefore support the second reading of this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

Clauses, Schedules and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

This clause provides for certain powers incidental to the construction and equipment of the line: The Construction Bill itself and this measure provide in one part that at a particular portion of the line certain facilities will be provided. The main purpose of the line is to cope with the transport of coal from Afrikander Proprietary Mines to Delmas. It provides that a goods shed, station buildings and cattle kraal will also be provided. Can I take it that advantage is being taken here of the fact that this line is being constructed, to also provide necessary facilities which will meet the needs of the cattle industry in that area? Clause 3. This clause deals with the construction and equipment and maintenance of the line while it is in the course of construction. I am not quite sure that permanent maintenance comes under this clause. But the construction of the line also envisages the provision of certain level crossings or road bridges over the main roads in that area. Can I take it that the Administration will be responsible for the maintenance and equipment of these facilities provided for crossing the railway line? Will those facilities be provided in the course of the construction of the line itself, or will the cost of their future maintenance devolve on whatever authority they are finally handed over to for control after completion?

I do not understand what the hon. member is getting at, but of course any road bridges over the railways will of course be the responsibility of the Railway Administration.

Including the road bridges to be built under this Bill?

Yes, the Administration will be responsible for that.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses, Schedule and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

May I ask for the privilege of the half-hour. When this Vote was under discussion last year, the debate centred mainly on two points, first of all the Minister’s complete failure over a period of years to convince anybody of the rightness of his Government’s policies either in respect of the Republic or of South West Africa, and secondly, on the growing political isolation of the Republic, the hostility which accompanies that isolation and the growing menace that that isolation presents to the future well-being of the Republic. At that time neither the hon. the Minister nor the Prime Minister who took part on similar discussions on his Vote, was able to throw any fresh light on the subject, nor were they able to offer clear prospects of the position improving. It is true that the hon. the Prime Minister was optimistic and he has remained optimistic. He believes that sooner or later the world will come to realize how right he is and will accept his policy as a pattern for other multi-racial countries to follow. What grounds he has for that blithe optimism I do not know. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister can offer any evidence as a result of his dealings with a very large number of foreign countries to support the view which the Prime Minister so firmly holds. The 1961 White Paper which we discussed last year showed that we had had no success in furthering our case, in fact very much to the contrary, and in the debates, to which I referred, in this House, both the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister adopted a non possumus attitude towards the question of establishing any kind of relations with the African States or the Asian States, or of taking any steps to improve our relations with the Western powers. They were not willing to differentiate between the Afro-Asian bloc, the communist bloc and the Western powers in this matter. They took the line that any kind of deviation from their present policy was opening the door to “one man one vote”, which they were not prepared to contemplate, and therefore there was nothing to be done about it, and therefore the only positive steps that were taken last session, directly or indirectly affecting our foreign policy, was a substantial increase in our Defence and Police expenditure. The outlook at that time was gloomy. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that since then, as far as we can see, it has become steadily worse and more threatening. To do the hon. the Minister justice, he has not attempted to disguise that fact in the various utterances which he has made from time to time where he referred to the future being darker than most people realized and to the fact that he is not getting the support from the people from whom he would expect to get it and so on. Towards the end of last year, of course, the United Nations met again, and we have before us to-day the White Paper which the hon. the Minister has issued during this Session. It is noteworthy, in this White Paper, that the Western powers, as compared with 1961, have refrained from the outspoken criticism in which they indulged in 1961. They were far more reticent in the debating chamber and in the Committee than they were in previous years, but at the same time there were at that meeting of UNO two potentially very far-reaching resolutions passed which affect us. The one was the resolution in the General Assembly which was carried by 67 votes to 16, I think, with 28 abstentions, and here again one must note that the Western powers, the greater powers, voted against the resolution but nevertheless it was carried by a two-thirds majority and it recommended inter alia the breaking off of diplomatic relations with the Government of the Republic, closing the ports of each state to all vessels flying the South African flag, prohibiting the ships of each state from entering South African ports, boycotting all South African goods, refusing landing and passage facilities to all aircraft belonging to the Government and companies registered under the laws of the Republic. It then went on to establish a special committee whose function it was to keep the racial policies of the Government of the Republic under review when the General Assembly was not in session and to report either to the Assembly or to the Security Council as may be appropriate from time to time, and finally requested the Security Council to take appropriate measures, including sanctions, to secure South Africa’s compliance with the resolution of the General Assembly. The other resolution was adopted in the Fourth Committee and referred to South West Africa, and while no drastic action is proposed in the resolution it is nevertheless important because it was carried unanimously by 96 votes with one abstention, and it must therefore, whether we like it or not, be taken to reflect the considered view of all the members of the United Nations in respect of South West Africa. This resolution starts off by expressing deep concern that the continuance of the critical situation in South West Africa constitutes a serious threat to international peace and security. It affirms its solemn proclamation of the inalienable right of the people of South West Africa to independence and national sovereignty, and it asks the special committee appointed under the previous resolution to take on the work of the special South West Africa Committee which has been dissolved and it condemns the Government of South Africa for failing to cooperate with the United Nations and requests the Secretary-General to appoint a resident United Nations technical assistance representative for South West Africa and also asks him to take all necessary steps to establish an effective United Nations post in South West Africa, and decides to maintain the position of South West Africa on its agenda as an item requiring urgent and constant attention. That, as I say, little as we may like it, has to be taken, until it is changed, as representing the considered view of all the members of the United Nations in respect of our relations with South West Africa. These committees are to report at the next meeting of the United Nations. Sir, I do not think anybody will question my statement when I say that the prospect at the moment for us in regard to our foreign relations is a bleak one, and the question before us this afternoon, at the outset of our discussions on the hon. the Minister’s Vote, is what the Minister can tell us to make the prospect seem less bleak. We know that there is a deep division between the different sides of this House on the question of race policy. We had an example of that earlier this afternoon. That division exists and it is deep, and I believe that both sides are sincere in holding the views which they do. But, Sir, it does seem to us that so long as the Government relentlessly pursues its present racial policies, we have reached a stage where it is useless even to talk about improving foreign relations, and since the Government remains obstinately determined to sit tight, we believe, with its eyes and ears closed to all that is going on around it, and to leave us, to use the phrase used by the hon. the Minister last year, to be “kicked around” and to sit here helplessly waiting for the mounting hostile resolutions at some time or other, sooner or later, to be translated into positive action in some form or other. But although that is how it seems to us it is nevertheless our duty here in this Committee to ask the Minister to give this Committee and the country a full review of the position as he sees it and particularly in view of the pessimistic statements which he himself has made since the last United Nations meeting. I think it is our duty to put certain specific questions to him to enable him to inform the Committee what hope, if any, he sees for the future in the field of foreign relations. This year’s White Paper, as I have said, certainly shows that there has been no improvement and gives no indication as to whether we may look forward to any improvement. It is true that in terms of the resolution of the Assembly no collective effect has been given to the sanctions resolution. There have been certain individual indications of countries taking steps in that direction: Burma refusing to take our coal, the Philippines refusing to take our fish and it looks as if the new Kenya Government intends to take steps as soon as they can: but broadly speaking there has been no collective action taken in regard to sanctions. But, Sir, arising out of these resolutions the question of the United Nations’ presence in South West Africa has been taken up by the Secretary-General, and his request has been categorically refused by the Government of the Republic. One is bound to ask what happens next. Is it possible that the matter is going to be left at that? What does the hon. the Minister think is going to happen next? You see, Sir, in these resolutions that are being passed as usual, we are getting periously near the Security Council. The Minister and the Government up to now have, I will not say pooh-poohed the threat of sanctions, but they have made little of this threat of sanctions against the country. Does he still think that as things are building up now any action in regard to sanctions is impossible? Meanwhile, of course, we have had this conference at Addis Ababa. There they established an organization of African States with a high-sounding preamble and principles and objects, and with an elaborate framework of machinery. How it will work out, of course, remains to be seen. It is very easy, at this distance and knowing nothing about it except what one has read in the papers, to criticize the set-up and what took place there. We can only view it superficially, Sir, because we have no inside knowledge of what actually did happen there. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has any inside knowledge either, because he was not represented there. As I say, how it will work remains to be seen. But from the resolutions, apart from the Charter, which were passed — some 12 pages of them, I believe — it seems to be quite clear that the immediate objective of this new organization, possibly the only objective on which they really thoroughly agreed, are Portugal, Southern Rhodesia and the Republic. These resolutions include, inter alia, resolutions condemning apartheid and race discrimination; the setting up of a special fund to help antiapartheid movements and the promotion of a volunteer corps in each State to help what they call the African liberation movement and to train African nationalists — I am quoting the actual words of the resolutions —which I presume is another word for training saboteurs and so on and so forth. Then there was a resolution to send a delegation of Ministers to the Security Council to emphasize what they call the “explosive situation” in Southern Africa. One might ask, Sir, if there really is an explosive situation in Southern Africa who is trying to put the match to it? One might very well ask that if there is danger of an explosion in South Africa whether it is not the States of Africa who are trying to set off that explosion and not the people whom they are attacking so violently in their conferences in Addis Ababa. One wants to know what the Government’s reaction is to this proposed delegation to the Security Council. Are we going to protest ourselves on the subject, are we going to protest against this threat of war? Arising out of those resolutions there are two other points which seem to me to be of immediate importance. The one is the proposed establishment of a committee which they say is going to be in Dar-es-Salaam by the States to foment unrest, sabotage and violence in the territories of Southern Africa, to which their attention is being directed. Dar-es-Salaam, I think, is about the nearest spot that they can get to these areas. That will be a channel through which finance and anything else can be sent to these territories, including the Republic, in order to foment rebellion, revolution and violence. I believe the Government has certain information of where saboteurs have been trained. We know they are being trained. Where they are being trained in African States one cannot very well protest. I suppose, but where they are being trained in other countries I wonder whether the Government is protesting! After all, Sir, they are all members of the United Nations. Where the Government has evidence that these countries are actually training people with the sole object of provoking revolution, rebellion and violence and chaos in the countries of other members, should we not make the strongest possible protest to the United Nations against the way in which these things are being conducted?

The other point of importance, and this may be the most important of the lot, is the call which is now being made by the African States to the Western powers to declare themselves. In respect of South Africa’s race policies and her position in South West Africa the Western powers have to a large extent sat on the fence. They have condemned us volubly in debates but they have refrained from supporting or advocating any action in the matter. As far as South Africa is concerned they have taken the line that it is a domestic affair and that they did not want to have anything to do with it when it came to interfering with domestic affairs. As far as South West Africa is concerned they have said that persuasion and discussion was the way to deal with that situation. A very clear challenge has now been issued to these people in various forms. Some of the forms of the resolutions taken at Addis Ababa come perilously near blackmail, I think. But still, they are being made. One wonders whether the hon. the Minister has had any indication from these Western powers of what their reaction is to these resolutions. All in all, Sir, it would appear that this next United Nations session in September may be a critical one for us. I think the hon. the Minister will probably agree with me when I say that. That being so I think this Committee, and I on behalf of this Committee, am entitled to ask what plans the Government has to meet this crisis? Are we going to attend, in the first place? If so, what representation are we going to have? There has been talk in the Government Press—the Government Press is usually well informed—of sending a team of Ministers, either to substitute or to reinforce the hon. the Minister. I ask myself what for? If such a team went would it have any fresh suggestions or any fresh approach? Because whatever criticism may be levelled at the hon. the Minister—and I have been one of those who has levelled criticism at him—nobody can suggest that he has not fully and faithfully, ad nauseam, set out and explained the policies of his Government to the United Nations in the greatest possible detail. I do not believe any team of Ministers can do more than he has done to put that forward. I doubt, unless they have some fresh suggestions or some fresh approach, whether such a team would do any good. I think it would do more harm than good, as a matter of fact. The impression which they may get may be worse than the impression they have of us at the present time. I am not talking personally, but collectively. If the time is critical and if reinforced representation is necessary I think there is only one man who should go and that is the hon. the Prime Minister himself. He has never been there. And unless he goes prepared to negotiate, particularly with the Western powers, to find out exactly for himself what the position is and in what circumstances he might expect support from them in connection with the problems which are in front of him, I doubt whether he will get very far either. On the other hand, it is possible, Sir, that if he did go he might be brought to realize what he is really up against and what we are going to be up against and shape his plans accordingly. You see, Sir, the Prime Minister, as I understand it, believes in his plans. Nobody questions that I do not believe his plans are good but he believes in them. Assuming they are good what he desperately wants is time. The only way in which the hon. the Prime Minister can buy time is to negotiate on the spot for that time with the people who can help him to obtain it. I think it may very well be argued that at this juncture the Prime Minister himself should go to the next session of the United Nations.

I just want to sum up and ask the hon. the Minister four specific questions. First of all, in regard to the Government’s refusal to accept the United Nations’ presence what does he think is going to happen next? Does he think that sanctions are still impossible? Does he think that anybody in the Security Council is still going to veto the plan if it comes up before them? Secondly, in regard to Addis Ababa, does he propose to make a formal, strong protest to the Security Council against the machinations of the African states? Thirdly, has he any indication how the Western powers are reacting to the demands which are being made to them by the African states to declare themselves in the matter of South African policies and the problem of South West Africa? Fourthly, how does he propose to face the coming United Nations session which may be a very critical one? Does he propose any change in the representation? Does he visualize any fresh approach to the Western powers? Can he give us any indication that he may come away from the next meeting of the United Nations with a better prospect of finding ourselves on terms, at any rate, with the Western powers whom, as we know, are anxious to help us if we give them an opportunity, than in the past? There are a number of other questions, but I think the hon. the Minister would probably like to deal with these before we go on to minor matters concerning his Vote. I shall therefore sit down and give him an opportunity of replying.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) would like to continue, I am quite prepared to sit down so that he can finish his statement.

I have finished my statement.

The hon. member has not adopted the same aggressive attitude, shall I say, as he did when last this Vote was discussed. His contribution consisted largely of a series of questions. For the rest he gave a review, much of it substantially correct, of the events which have taken place during the past year. I am now not referring to his opinions or to his accusations, but to the facts with which he dealt. He said he hoped I would give a general review of the situation. I am quite prepared to do that.

First of all, let me refer to his four concluding questions.

The United Nations resolution last year called for an effective United Nations’ presence in South West Africa. The hon. member wanted to know what we were going to do about it. I regret that I have to take up the same attitude that I took up last year and the year before namely that this resolution is very clearly a contravention of the sub judice rule, in view of the contentious proceedings at the International Court. I shall refer to it briefly afterwards, but I hope that members on both sides of the House will bear in mind that in view of the contentious proceedings at the International Court, it would be in the interests of South Africa that nothing be said which might be interpreted as an interference with the judgment of that Court, or which might be interpreted as a form of contempt of Court. That should be avoided at all costs. I shall deal briefly with this matter later on.

The second question put by the hon. member was whether the South African Government had sent a formal protest to the Security Council in regard to the resolutions and the statements made at the recent Addis Ababa conference. My own view is—and I notice that overseas newspapers are taking very much the same view—that while one does not want to underrate the significance of that conference it would, on the other hand, not be wise to overrate it. At the present moment, before I have further information, we certainly do not intend to lodge any protest. The hon. member wanted to know whether we were inquiring as to what actually happened there. So far we have been dependent entirely on Press reports, not only in our own papers, but also in the British and American papers. We have already taken steps to try to secure further information as to what actually happened at Addis Ababa.

If I understood him rightly, the hon. member wanted to know how the Western powers were reacting. I have no information as to their intentions, but if one is to judge from comments in the Press the Western nations are not attaching undue importance to that conference.

The hon. member concluded his statements by referring to the coming session of the United Nations. He wanted to know whether there was any substance in a newspaper report that the Prime Minister intended sending a team of Ministers over. May I suggest to the hon. member not to pay so much attention to newspaper reports, certainly not to this particular report. The hon. member then suggested that in the present difficult circumstances it seemed to him that there was only one way, viz. for the Prime Minister to go there himself. Mr. Chairman, I was at the United Nations when the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, Sir Edgar Whitehead, was there sitting as a member of the British delegation. I should hate our Prime Minister to have the sort of reception that Sir Edgar Whitehead had from the African states. They have no respect for persons. I do not approve of Sir Edgar Whitehead’s racial policy, but I could not help feeling sorry that he had put himself in the position to be treated the way he was treated.

As regards his question as to whether the Government intended sending a delegation this year, I can tell him that no decision has been taken as yet. That is a matter which will be viewed in the light of circumstances prevailing in the near future. I would, however, like to say what I said last year, namely that my experience over several years has been that the mere presence of a South African representative, be it the Minister of Foreign Affairs or one of our departmental officials, was sufficient to set off a train of insults and attacks on South Africa. That has been our experience in the past. In any case, those are aspects of the matter which will certainly be looked into.

The hon. member has to some extent, but not quite, reverted to the attitude he took up last year, namely that, judging by the voting, South Africa was standing alone at the United Nations, and he came to the same conclusion as last year, viz. that South Africa was in a position of isolation at the United Nations. Sir, that is quite true. As things have developed there—and I shall come to the reasons in a moment—South Africa has been standing alone. But I want to add this that South Africa is not the only country that has been standing alone. Portugal has been standing alone; she occupies a position of isolation. The British delegation, also before the last session, was also in a position of isolation when the Southern Rhodesian position was discussed. In fact, so much so, that on one of the votes South Africa was the only country that stood by Southern Rhodesia; even the British delegate did not have the courage to stand by Rhodesia. It was Sir Hugh Foot. His attitude was explained by the fact that he was in disagreement with the British Government’s policy, and he later resigned as the member of the British delegation. So it is not only South Africa that is standing alone. Portugal is in an even worse position to-day than we are. Southern Rhodesia is in a worse position, and will be in an even worse position at the next session of the United Nations if the British Government does not stand by its White population.

Hon. members should remember that right from the very beginning South Africa has had to face heavy opposition. When General Smuts represented South Africa at the first session of the United Nations he met with very stiff op position. I have already quoted to the House his words on his return when he said that he was “up against a solid wall of prejudice”, when he complained that the United Nations was carried away by emotion. He returned a disappointed and a frustrated man. Events since then provide the key to the whole situation. In 1946 there were only three African States so also when I went there in 1948. There were then only three African States and eight Asian States.

Mainly as a result of the anti-colonialism campaign in which the United States took the lead five or six years ago, there has been a great increase in the number of African States and also in the number of Asian States. When General Smuts was there in 1946 and Mr. Harry Lawrence in 1947, there were only three African States and eight Asian States. To-day there are 33 African States, 21 Asian States; there are also six States of the West Indies who always vote with the Afro-Asian bloc. Thus whereas the Afro-Asian bloc only consisted of a small number of 11 States when General Smuts was there and when I was there in 1948, they to-day number 60. In other words, the Afro-Asian bloc is to-day in control of the United Nations. There you have the explanation of the increased hostility to South Africa, viz. the determined campaign carried on by the Afro-Asians.

That is also the main factor in regard to another matter. The hon. member said that we were no longer getting the support of the Western nations. It is perfectly true that at the time of General Smuts and Mr. Harry Lawrence they received Western support, and so did I in 1948. In fact, in 1949, we managed to defeat two resolutions moved by Madam Pandit of India. She was very disgusted that anything like that should have happened. But in those days the Afro-Asian group was a small group. In those days the Western nations were willing to give their support to South Africa. Today there is a different situation. As a result particularly of the 33 African delegations, there is strong competition between the Western states for political influence in Africa. There is also strong competition for the African markets and for the sources of raw materials in Africa. South Africa is therefore in the very unfortunate situation that the Western powers do not wish to lose the favour of the African States, and for that reason they are unable to support South Africa. The feeling of the Afro-Asians is so strong against South Africa that the Western nations fear that they will lose favour with the Afro-Asians if they were to support South Africa. Mr. Chairman, that is what I was told by one of the Western delegates. I said to him: “If you cannot support us—I do not question your views on our racial policy—at least you could abstain.” Mr. Chairman, his reply was—and these were his words —“There is active competition for the African markets; we are developing industrially: we cannot afford even to abstain on the South African issues. We are obliged to vote against you, because of those considerations.” That is only one case. The others are the same.

There is another reason why Western nations are not supporting us. The demand of “one man one vote” has developed in Southern Africa. That is the demand of the African leaders. The rule at the United Nations is “one state one vote”, with the result that the vote of a small State like Mauritania, which has a population of round about 700,000, carries the same weight in the United Nations Assembly as the vote of the United States itself with a population of 185,000,000. “One State, one vote.” It will be appreciated that the South African issue is not the only one which comes up before the United Nations. There are also other issues in which the Western nations are keenly interested and in regard to which there is competition for the support of the Afro-Asian bloc. There is also the election of office bearers; the election of the members to the Security Council, which is a matter of very great importance to some of these States; there is the election of the Judges to the International Court. The Judges are elected by vote and as in the case of everything that happens there, it is largely a political vote. So hon. members will understand why the Western nations are so anxious to get the support of the Afro-Asian States. Take, for instance, the admission of Communist China. There was a move led by India to get Communist China admitted as a member of the United Nations. Mr. Chairman, you can have no idea of the lobbying that goes on before a matter of this kind comes to the vote. What is worrying the Western nations very much indeed, is that at the last session of the United Nations the Indian resolution received greater support than the previous year. Mr. Chairman, these are among the reasons why Western nations in their own interests, are not willing to support South Africa and are not even willing to abstain! There is one thing I have learned during the years that I have been at the United Nations, viz. that the United Nations is a group of persons, and in ordinary life the average person looks first after his own interests. You get exactly the same thing at the United Nations. Before a delegation votes on any matter it asks itself the question: How are the interests of my country going to be affected by this matter on which a vote is going to be taken? Self-interest is a very important factor in the discussions that take place there.

South Africa’s isolation is due ostensibly to our policy of separation, our policy of separate development. I referred just now to the fact that General Smuts, who was one of the founders of the United Nations, who in fact drew up the preamble to the Charter and who played a very important part in drawing up the Charter, in the past clearly came out in support of the idea of separation. I quoted these words of General Smuts once before in this House. Then the reply of the Opposition was always: “Yes, but what did he say later on?” But. Mr. Chairman, these words of General Smuts were spoken in London, way back in 1917. It is far back, but that was shortly before the discussions at Versailles in connection with the adoption of the mandate system. General Smuts at a dinner given at the Savoy Hotel in London said, inter alia—

He went on to say—

Mr. Chairman, one could almost imagine that it was the present Prime Minister speaking! This was General Smuts who was advocating a policy of separation, political and other separation.

In 1929, General Smuts again spoke, this time at Oxford, and there he said—

Then he goes on to deal with what happened in past years, how first they were slaves, and then after the French Revolution how they were regarded as equals and he then came with the idea of having what he called “separate institutions”. He said—

What did he say about one Parliament?

Yes, what did General Smuts say in 1933, what did he say in 1944? It is quite true that he then said something else. The fact is that when General Smuts spoke at Oxford, when he spoke at London, it was General Smuts the South African. When General Smuts spoke on these same issues in 1933 and afterwards it was General Smuts the politician. That is the difference.

Sir, the attacks on South Africa at the United Nations rest on this policy of separate development—separate, separate, separate, right through General Smuts’s speech! But that idea of separateness is also the basis of the policy of the hon. Leader of the Opposition and of his party. True his race federation policy will, as a result of the pressure from the Bantu later, later develop into integration. I have no doubt about that. But for the moment his policy discriminates between White and Black. He will not in his policy give the same political rights to the Bantu as he will to the Whites. He also discriminates socially. He separates them. Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition for a moment believe that if he went to the United Nations with his present policy that it would lessen the attacks on South Africa? He would have the same experience as Sir Edgar Whitehead had at the United Nations only last year. I was there. He told the Fourth Committee there that in 15 years’ time Southern Rhodesia would be under Black rule. This assurance made no difference whatsoever. The African delegations attacked him, and they are still attacking Southern Rhodesia to-day. They attacked Southern Rhodesia at Addis Ababa in spite of their partnership policy and in spite of Sir Edgar Whitehead’s assurances of eventual Black rule. As I have said, it was only South Africa that stood by Southern Rhodesia. Afterwards Sir Hugh Foot resigned as a member of the British delegation. Portugal is also standing alone. And their policy is not even integration. Portugal‘s policy is one of assimilation. But it makes no difference whatsoever. The attacks on Portugal are even fiercer than the attacks on South Africa. At the Commonwealth Conference South Africa was forced by the non-White members to withdraw from the Commonwealth on this same issue of “One man, one vote”, “full political equality”. At the last session of the United Nations the leader of the Nigerian delegation boasted that Nigeria was proud of the fact that it forced South Africa out of the Commonwealth.

I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether, with a view to securing a better atmosphere, he is prepared to go the length to which the African states would want him to go? In Rhodesia under the partnership policy the Blacks have been given seats in Parliament. They are not prepared to accept that. Nkomo has left the country carrying on an active campaign against Southern Rhodesia. They demand only one thing, viz. “one man, one vote”. Is the hon. Leader of the Opposition prepared to agree to that? Because that is all that the African states will be prepared to accept at the United Nations. They will be satisfied with nothing less.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Constantia talks about a more flexible policy. Let me assure hon. members that this will not make one whit of difference to the attitude of the Afro-Asian nations. It may gain a certain amount of sympathy from the Western nations, but they are in a hopeless minority. The attacks will continue just the same. The position is very clear as regards our position at the United Nations: South Africa will either have to abdicate, as Britain has done in the case of Kenya and as she is apparently contemplating in the case of Southern Rhodesia, or we will have to stand together and fight for our survival as a White nation in this country. There is no middle way. And the sooner our hon. friends on the other side realize that, the better. There is no middle-way. It is either “one man, one vote”, in other words abdication, or we must stand together and fight for the survival of the White man in this country.

Mr. Chairman, speeches in this House, even the more moderate statement made to-day by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson)—not the same aggressive type of speech as he made last time—everything that is said here to-day condemning the Government’s policy of so-called inflexibility is cabled overseas. Last year again, in the course of the discussions at the United Nations extracts were read to us of statements made by the Opposition in our own Parliament. I was faced with the Opposition’s attitude when I was fighting for South Africa. [Interjections.] I was there, and I listened to the statements. Opposition speeches were used to buttress, to enforce the attacks against South Africa. They said: “This is what your Opposition says. What have you got to say about that?”

Change your policy.

The hon. member for Constantia referred to an “explosive situation in South Africa”. Attacks were also made on us by the Press in the United States and in Great Britain on the so-called explosive situation caused by South Africa’s racial policies. May I say—it is with a certain amount of hesitation that I say it— that there is one thing that I cannot abide, and that is hypocrisy and self-righteousness. Mr. Chairman, you have seen what is happening in America, not only in the Southern States where you have a racial strife of old standing since the days of the Ku-Klux-Klan. But what is happening in the North? I have the information here. What has been happening in the north, in Boston recently, in Chicago, in New York. Philadelphia, Washington? Everywhere you have these racial clashes. It is no good President Kennedy telling the Negroes that he is trying to get full equal rights for them. They complain that in ordinary life they are treated as inferiors. There is building up today in the United States, in a city like New York, a strong anti-White feeling. There was a recent statement by a well known Negro leader who said that their attitude would in future be, “White man move aside”. There are only 18,000,000 Blacks there against 185,000,000 Whites. I wonder what the position would have been there if the position were reversed, and if the proportion were the same as in South Africa. Also in Britain there has been racial trouble—Birmingham, recently in Bristol and in London. There have been some cutting and nasty remarks by well-known journalists in Britain, condemning what they call “a policy of hypocrisy”. Mr. Chairman, the British Government itself has taken steps and is imposing a policy of racial discrimination. Legislation passed last year to limit immigration from the West Indies and from Pakistan was clearly racial discrimination. There is no danger for the White man in Britain I doubt if there are even 1,000,000 non-Whites there in a population of round about 50,000,000. But we have this extraordinary situation, viz. that Great Britain, judging by her actions, is prepared to sacrifice the Whites in Kenya, and also probably also the Whites in Southern Rhodesia. There is resentment also in Britain because of this vacillating policy of the Government.

When Mr. Macmillan was here he addressed Members of Parliament in the present dining hall. The theme of his speech directed to South Africa, and intended as a warning, was “the winds of change”. Now, Britain and Mr. Macmillan in particular, are getting the winds of change straight in their faces. They are to-day suffering from the winds of change in a greater measure than South Africa.

In his statement the hon. member for Constantia referred to South West Africa. I shall deal with that later on in the debate, but with a certain amount of hesitancy, as I will not be able to give him all the information he wants. I will also deal with the Addis Ababa conference and with the United Nations’ trade sanctions policy against South Africa. He referred also to the boycott movement in certain countries, particularly the Scandinavian countries. I shall also deal with that matter in the course of this debate. For the moment, I have given sufficient information to enable this debate to proceed.

We have been listening to the hon. Minister in the hope, the vain hope apparently, that he might have something fresh to tell us. Instead of which we have had the same old rehashed statement which we have had year after year and from which it appears first of all, that the hon. the Minister is a complete defeatist. He says we have either got to give way completely to the Afro-Asian bloc at the United Nations or else we have got to be prepared to die in our boots in South Africa, fighting for our preservation. He says there is no middle way. Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to accept the hon. Minister as an authority in that respect. It is typical of his mentality, I think, that he will day in and day out, year in and year out, quote what General Smuts said in 1917. But he does not quote what he knows perfectly well General Smuts said more than 30 years later, when he said in this House in 1949—

And, Sir, that was typical of General Smuts. When he came up against a new problem, he did not quote what was said 30 years ago. He got down to it and tackled it. Our complaint against this Government is that they have been sitting there for 15 years with this problem on their shoulders and they have done absolutely nothing about it except shrug their shoulders and say that there is no answer to it. I can only say that the hon. Minister’s statement this afternoon reinforces our belief that there is a middle way, but that before another way can be found, this Government has got to be got rid of. The hon. Minister is a diplomat, or he should be a diplomat. His main function is to grease the wheels of international relations, his main function is to represent us and to interpret us and keep us in good relations with other countries, and here he stood up this afternoon and made a quite unnecessary, quite gratuitous attack on the two main peoples who should be our main friends and supporters. What on earth does he think he is contributing towards the welfare of South Africa or the solution of our problems by accusing the United States and the United Kingdom of hypocrisy and self-righteousness? Sir, it makes one quite nervous to think that he can be allowed to speak in the name of South Africa. And then he dares to say that we on this side of the House must not criticize him for fear what the United Nations may quote against him. Sir, we must not criticize the Government for fear of being quoted at the United Nations, but do any hon. members on that side of the House scruple to make speeches which will rouse the wrath of everybody at the United Nations, not only of our enemies but our friends as well? No, Sir, I can only say, and I say it with the greatest possible regret, that I think the hon. Minister’s performance this afternoon confirms our worst fears, that whilst we have tremendous problems before us, problems that would tax the brains of anybody to solve, problems which require the greatest patience and goodwill and understanding, there is no doubt that our problems, that our difficulties are not made easier by the hon. gentleman who is committed with the task of representing us abroad.

During the past few days I have asked myself what exactly I expected from this debate, and one of the things I should like most of all to see is that we should move closer to a common approach to our problems in regard to foreign countries, that we should conduct ourselves here not in a spirit of mutual squabbling and recriminations, but in a spirit of how we could best handle the matter. We are, after all, in the same boat, and our problems are very urgent. Our downfall would be the downfall of all of us, and triumph ought to be the triumph of all of us. The introductory speech of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) gave me courage and hope that we were moving in that direction. However, we have not yet come to that united front in respect of foreign policy and the problems we are faced with. But it makes it no less desirable, particularly in the times we are living in. The greater the harmony we can achieve here in Parliament in connection with these matters, the more chance we will have of taking the public with us in all the circumstances that may arise.

I should like to speak, on this occasion, on Africa and our relationship with the States of Africa. I want to make certain admissions. The first is that I can understand the tensions in Africa. This continent of ours is under tremendous pressure. Like a fruit that is squeezed ripe, or should I rather say squeezed soft, so this continent of ours is being squeezed to maturity, and it is being squeezed in that way because it is caught, as all of us are, in the inevitable developments of history which cannot be warded off, and because it is caught in the grip of a new world order which has been brought about by two world wars and by the most fantastic scientific and technical achievements of our times. This continent of ours which is only waking up now must—if we find it difficult to adapt ourselves—find it difficult to adapt itself to these times. In the midst of all the developments in the world, Africa could not remain dormant. It had to wake up. And in this process of waking up or awakening, it has been squeezed further. Sir, by world ideologies and world power groups that have descended upon it, and it has been further pressed by the human and national motives and urges that are universal throughout the world. And because things are like that, I want to admit that I can understand many things in Africa, and that I want to be sympathetically disposed to many things we sometimes cannot understand.

Furthermore, I want to admit that I can comprehend and appreciate the aspirations in Africa to have independence. We in South Africa also had those aspirations, although under other circumstances and with different means. We in South Africa endorse that policy that nations should enjoy freedom and human dignity in their own countries and in their own territories. We recently once again confessed that creed in the Transkei Bill. For that reason I say that we can comprehend and appreciate that striving to gain independence and we are sympathetically disposed towards it.

However, there are certain things we cannot understand, and in regard to which we shall have to reply to Africa, and they themselves will have to account to us, because they want to take action against us, and they will have to account to their own consciences and to the conscience of the world. One question one would like to put to them is whether this otherwise quite warranted and justifiable aspiration to national self-fulfilment has now degenerated into a reckless imperialism? Are their aspirations still positively aimed at the promotion of what is their own, the development of their political institutions, or the development of their country and the strengthening of their economies, of the promotion of education and health of their nations, and at raising the standard of living of their people? Is it still these positive aspirations from which they derive their strength? Or are they at present deriving their power from a negative aspiration aimed against the White man and the removal of the White man from Africa, from those parts also to which the White man can lay claim with as much justification and with more justification than they can? There is no doubt that it is the policy and the intention of the African States that no White-controlled State shall remain on this continent of ours. One could almost say they believe in continental apartheid. I should like to ask the African States: If their aspirations amount to the removal of every White-controlled State on this continent, why do they stop there? Surely they want to make use of White capital, of White knowledge and of White skill, and it is right that they should utilize it. In the same way it would be right if they were to reconcile themselves to the physical presence of the White man in Africa, and to the presence of the White-controlled States in Africa. Otherwise they will stand exposed before the world to the charge that they are here demanding for themselves that which they are not prepared to grant to others. This presently quite reckless imperialism of theirs, because it ousts the healthy nationalism, the genuine positive aspirations, will wreck their whole effort in the long run.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to say that we want to tell the African States, in all sincerity and in a spirit of goodwill, that we are not a colonial power, nor are we the product of colonialism. We are a State and a nation in our own right, just like Australia, Canada and the U.S.A. are, which also started as settlements. I want to say to them also that we are an African State, just as they are. Our ancestors came here and occupied the country and developed it like their ancestors did in their own countries. On this point our cause is so just and so sound that it can never and nowhere be disputed in history. Secondly, we want to tell the African States that we in South Africa have no aggressive aims against them. We see it being said that we want to attack other countries. That is not so. South Africa has only one aim, and that is to defend itself. South Africa will enter into a non-aggression pact with any African State, in terms of its policy, because South Africa is desirous of living in peace with Africa. The third thing we want to say to Africa is this: We see they are very concerned about the freedom and the development of the non-Whites in Southern Africa and South Africa. Our reply to that is that we are not unsympathetically disposed in that regard. We are anxious to help all the people of South Africa on the road to political freedom, economic self-sufficiency and full human dignity. We and the African States really do not differ as to the aims, but we differ materially on the means to attain those aims. In that connection we say to Africa and to the world that South Africa does much for the human rights of its inhabitants. We are doing more than most other States for the human rights of every person here to receive education, to be cured and enjoy health, and to develop the country so that there can be employment and money and food for everybody. We provide housing and recreation. We do much for human rights in this country. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, after the Second World War we began to develop an external programme which, for the first time, carried the mark of positive foreign policy. It consisted, firstly, of solidarity with the Commonwealth; secondly, a growing participation in the affairs of Africa; thirdly, a strengthening of the hand of the West in its struggle against, not so much the physical as the ideological onslaught of world Communism; and, fourthly, perhaps the most important of all, a realization that the Second World War had set in motion a revolution in human relations which, if major powers like America, Britain and France were obliged to make their adaptations to it, a country like South Africa could not ignore without gravely endangering its future. I have no doubt myself that if South Africa had adhered as closely as possible to these four principles, as General Smuts would have done, we would have been able to weather the coming storms, and not have landed ourselves in the humiliating position in which our country finds itself to-day. But where are we now, and why? In the place of solidarity with the Commonwealth, the Government has achieved our elimination from it I have never blamed a man for lacking sentimental feeling for the Commonwealth, but in terms of practical politics it did bring us a certain contact and sympathy and an enhanced status abroad which benefited us in so many tangible and intangible ways; and it was worth an extra effort on our part to try to maintain our association with that organization. As it is, we are out and the Government has been unable to put anything of value in its place. As far as Africa is concerned, only 18 years ago, under the previous Government, South Africans were cheered sincerely and wildly by the people of Cairo and Addis Ababa and of Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam. But to-day our Government has achieved for us the distinction of having been chased out of every capital, every conference room and every council in Africa.

You coward!

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to say that an hon. member is a coward?

The hon. member is a nought and I take no interest in noughts.

Order! The hon. member should not make such irresponsible statements.

May the hon. member refer to the hon. member as “a nought”?

I will say he is two noughts.

And you are two cowards.

Order! The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

On a point of order, has an hon. member the right to refer to another member as “a nought” or “two noughts”?

Yes.

The major part of Africa will be out of bounds for South Africans, for our tradesmen, our ships and our aircraft. In fact, the Government Press itself recently described our position as a “Staat van beleg”, a state of siege, which will carry on for many years to come. As far as our position in the councils of the world is concerned, there is no truer and sadder comment on this state of affairs than the interview which the hon. the Minister himself gave the Press after the last session of UN, and this is what he said, in two consecutive interviews—

And the next interview added this—

The plain fact is, whether we like it or not, that we have reached the stage where even friendly diplomatic contacts are breaking down, because, to quote the Minister himself, in the community of nations people are unwilling even to be seen in his company. Sir, I think it is time for us to tell the Minister that he has a duty to South Africa which is greater than his duty to his political party. I want to ask him whether he has any foreign policy of a positive nature at all? We listened to him this afternoon for nearly an hour. He did a lot of explaining, but there was not a single point of positive policy to try to extricate us out of the mess in which we are. Judging by his speech, his whole attitude is: There is nothing we can do, we must wait for the worst to happen. Sir, I have made a close study of the debates at UN and it is my impression that over the whole range of diplomatic representation our position has been reduced to one thing, to the defence of enforced colour apartheid, and nothing more. That is what our whole diplomacy has come to. I think it is time that the Government and the Minister should realize what lies at the root of our international difficulties. It is that for five years the major part of the civilized world waged a war, not against the German people, because look at their position to-day, but against a system, the system of National Socialism, which was based on the theory of race superiority and which was expressed at its worst in the laws of race identification, job reservation and group areas—against the Jews of that country—and their expulsion from public life. A feeling of revulsion filled the whole world against such policies and practices applied against any people anywhere. Let us face the truth fearlessly. Leaving alone the incredible fact that three years after the war we copied these policies and reproduced them—against the non-Whites—not a thousand Ministers like Mr. Louw will ever be able to sell enforced colour apartheid to any part of the free world. When is the Government going to realize that it is useless to talk of friendly relations with Africa when in South Africa an African is not even allowed to enter a Government office by the same door as a White man? When will the Government realize that it is futile to plead that apartheid is a domestic issue? Nothing is so much of an international issue as the relations between people and communities. When will they realize that it is futile to plead that others also discriminate? The Minister repeated it here to-day that there is discrimination in other countries. Of course there is, but all civilized Governments have set their face against enforced legal discrimination, and wherever it exists they are trying to eliminate it. We are the only country which has made of it an institution of State, an institution of law and a political religion, the contravention of which is subject to criminal penalties. [Time limit.]

I am almost disinclined to react to the last speaker. I have already heard unpatriotic speeches in other debates, but in a debate on foreign affairs, to which the people in other countries and foreign representatives are listening, I have never heard a speech by any member which so much bears the stamp of unpatriotism as that speech. The hon. member has become a mockery in the internal politics of South Africa.

He is a real bird of passage.

Now the hon. member also wants to make a mockery of South Africa in international politics, and I now want to be very unkind to the hon. member, for he has asked for it. We shall take notice of him only on the day when he submits to the people who contributed to those funds the financial statements of his little party. I shall leave him at that, and I hope the representatives of overseas countries will note that the hon. member has not done so to this very day. I leave him there. I am sorry to say this, but I want the foreign representatives to understand whom they are dealing with when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) is talking. We have had such people in the politics of South Africa, and there are still such people to-day.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) has, by implication, made a very serious charge against the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

It is not important at all.

The hon. member has implied that the hon. member has acted dishonourably in connection with certain financial matters. Is the hon. member entitled to do so?

Order! I did not understand the hon. member to say that.

I made no insinuations. All I meant was that all political parties in South Africa submit their financial statements from time to time, and the hon. member’s party has died without financial statements ever having been submitted.

What the hon. member says there is a public lie. I do not say he is a liar, but he is that also.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw.

I think it is of greater importance in this debate that the countries overseas should understand why we are adopting the attitude we are in fact adopting. We are adopting it because we learn our lessons from what goes on in other countries. In Rhodesia, in the Federal Parliament, there were 12 Black members out of a total of 59. There were two Black junior Ministers. In Southern Rhodesia 15 of the 65 members were Black, and Sir Edgar Whitehead gave the undertaking that within 15 years the Black man would govern the country. That satisfies nobody. Foreign nations must understand why we adopt this attitude.

But I should like to add this. In this attitude we are adopting, foreign countries must also understand that never at any period in the history of South Africa have the Whites of South Africa, and I say the Black people of South Africa also, been more united against a possible attack from outside than now, and never in respect of foreign policy have we had such a mighty unity in South Africa as we have to-day. On foreign affairs, and specifically in respect of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his point of view, there has never been greater unity and there are really no political boundaries. There are numerous examples of it. One of the fine examples is the speech of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) this afternoon. He has told foreign countries very clearly that in respect of foreign policy there is unity in South Africa. But I wish to mention another example. The Argus, which is not a National Party paper, last week referred to “civil honours for these six South Africans” and the Minister of Foreign Affairs is one of them, and what does the article say—

On that Friday night the Argus tried, for political considerations, to water it down again, and then they said this:

The position of all Whites has worsened as the result of the Addis Ababa conference. The hon. the Minister warned us last year and said it is so. We cannot get away from the fact that although South Africa is the target, and Portugal and Southern Rhodesia as well, this conference has been a tremendous knock to the prestige of every White man in the world. It also applies to the White communists, for what are the facts of the matter? The Black nations of Africa have every opportunity at UNO. They have a majority vote there, together with the Afro-Asiatics. In the second place they have the privilege of being pampered at UNO. Do you know that at UNO the U.S.A. has not only one representative to handle the Africa States, but they are divided into groups? They have a special official just to look after a couple of them, and to pamper them and keep contact with them. The Black States have the privilege that the smallest little country has a vote at UNO and they have the privilege of being carried. They may vote as they please at UNO without making their financial contribution. They are years in arrear. They do not pay for the Congo yet they have a full say there. They simply slap the world organization in the face and they say UNO is not enough for them; they also founded a Black UNO. [Time limit.]

I would have thought that after what happened at UNO, the drubbing and the ticking off that the hon. the Minister had from the U.S.A. delegate when he tried to draw an analogy or an odious comparison… [Interjection.] The United States delegate took very strong exception to the Minister’s observations, and the Minister was eventually called upon to excuse his statements he made about the U.S.A. One would have thought that after all that the Minister would have learnt his lesson and would not have risen in this House this afternoon to make the obvious attack he did make on the U.S.A. and the United Kingdom. I say it is regrettable that the hon. the Minister had to resort to that type of tactics, especially when he had had a drubbing in regard to the matter at UNO. But the whole issue that arises here this afternoon as the result of the Minister’s statement is what is the Government’s policy in regard to our attitude as far as UNO is concerned, which is a world body for the preservation of peace? If we have to take all the Minister’s arguments and observations to their logical conclusion, that UNO is nothing more than a body of Black states where the West has very little to say at all, that it is merely an international trading forum, you scratch my back and I scratch your back, and that it is merely a place where the world abuses South Africa, then will the Minister tell us whether he sees any value in continued membership by South Africa of the UNO? It is important to us to know this, because if the Minister and the Prime Minister say it is our policy to stand by the West in their fight against Communism, and that we align ourselves completely with the West, then I think the Minister should realize, too, that the entire foreign policy of the Western nations is based upon upholding the prestige of UNO as a world organization. There may be talk of a revision of its rules to make it a more effective body, but the whole basis of the foreign policy of the Western states is to uphold the status of UNO as a world organization. If any hon. member has any doubt about it whatever, I have here a list of public statements made by the President of the U.S.A. and by the foreign ministers of nearly all the Western countries in regard to how they view UNO as a body which must be continued to preserve world peace and to develop the peoples of the world. And what is more, in the words of the President of the U.S.A., it must be the protector of the small and the weak nations and the safety valve of the strong nations.

What did Lord Home say?

I will tell the Minister what Lord Home said about it. He said this—

That must surely be the position for us as a country, that we must continue our membership of UNO and work with it as we find it. And UNO is a body which has White, Asian and Black states. We have no choice about the matter, and it serves our interests as little for the Minister to profess our loyalty to the West, but when he stands up here and says that amongst the Western Powers there is strong competition for the support of the African states and the Western nations are not prepared to give South Africa support because they seek only monetary gain out of the Black African states. Why do they support the African states? Why is there this criticism of our policy? It is for the obvious reason that the West seeks to protect itself against communist ideology. The West is not seeking monetary gain in Africa. It is seeking the minds and the hearts of the peoples of Africa for the West in the fight against Communism. It is therefore a matter of great concern to us as a country in Africa when you get the Assistant-Secretary of State of the U.S.A. saying that unless there is a discernible movement towards more progressive policies in those parts of Southern Africa not enjoying majority rule, and unless there appears to be more vigorous leadership from the West to accomplish that progress, there is a good possibility that Western influence could be replaced by Communism on the African Continent. He went on to say this—

Sir, when you get statements such as those made by the delegate of the United States at the United Nations a statement which the Minister did not record in his White Paper, namely that their attitude is to see that world opinion is brought to bear more and more on the South African Government to change its outlook, then the position is serious for us in this respect that the approach of the West to South Africa, and particularly the White people of South Africa is that we exist as an expendable commodity. We will continue to be regarded as an expendable commodity unless we, the White people of South Africa can show the Western world that we do adopt a humanitarian approach, the approach of the Western world, to non-European issues. If we can show the Western world that we as White Africans are prepared to recognize the position of the non-Whites in this country and to accord human rights to them according to Western standards then and then only will we not be regarded as an expendable commodity by the West in its fight against communist ideology. Sir, it is submitted by hon. members on the Government benches that we face a crisis in the international sphere; the Minister admits complete and utter failure; he admits that we stand alone and that there is nothing that we can do about it, and one would have thought that he would have come here this afternoon with some constructive suggestion; that he would have come here with some positive statement that may be acceptable to the other nations as a basis for further negotiation and further diplomatic action in order to lift us out of our dilemma, but instead of that we have this attitude of complete and utter defeatism on the part of the hon. the Minister. If hon. members opposite want South Africa to extricate herself from her present position, then it is clear that there are one or two things that they have to do. They have a responsibility in their party. They must look at the Minister who conducts South Africa’s affairs as far as foreign relations are concerned; he speaks for South Africa, not only for the Government when he goes beyond our borders. But, Sir, look at the record! We have had a record in this House of statements by the Minister in regard to an African policy; what has become of that African policy? Has it succeeded? Has it made friends for us in Africa? We had the support of the whole Western world for the proposition that South Africa should act as the diplomatic link between the emerging peoples and those who have reached independent status already, a link with Western civilization. Did the Western world accept that? Did the African states accept that? When propositions of a constructive nature were put forward in this House that we should make some positive contribution towards these emergent nations in Africa for which the Western world was fighting, did we have any contributions from the South African Government? The Minister gets up at the United Nations and talks about our wonderful contributions in the C.C.T.A. I dealt with that matter in the Budget debate and the Minister did not give me a reply because he has no reply. In point of fact our contribution to the emergent peoples of Africa virtually amounted to a minus quantity

You know that that is not true.

The Minister says that that is not true. I have here the Minister’s own letter in his own handwriting. Let us put it to the test. I asked the hon. the Minister for the sum total of our contribution and I have here a document signed by the Minister.

Read it.

I will quote it. [Time limit.]

The arguments which have been advanced here by hon. members of the Opposition are just bouncing up against a stone-wall, and, Sir, I am going to adduce the proof. In the Argus of 20 May there was an article by the columnist, Wanderer, and this is what he said—

Sir, who were the readers? Thousands of Blacks, thousands of Coloured people and thousands of Whites.

Who were the other people.

The other people selected were Mrs. V. M. B. Ballinger…

Vause Raw.

No, Vause Raw does not come into the picture at all. The others were Mrs. Ballinger, Dr. Thomas Boydell, Dr. L. C. Hall, Mr. Eric Louw, Mr. H. F. Oppenheimer and Dr. H. J. van Eck. The Wanderer goes on to say this—

Hon. members of the Opposition come along here and try to belittle the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. But in an attempt to back out of this article, the Cape Argus came along with a leading article on 3I may, an article entitled “On the second anniversary.” What does the Argus now say in an attempt to back out of what the Wanderer had had to admit after a public poll? The Argus says this—

Why then did they undertake it? The Argus goes on to say—

Then the leading articles goes on to say this—

Sir, I say that hon. members of the Opposition should thank the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs for bringing about that broadminded unity. The Argus goes on to say—

Sir, could I adduce better evidence to show that the attacks which have been made by the hon. members of the Opposition on the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his policy are absolutely without foundation. Can I adduce any better evidence to show that the public of South Africa. Black, Coloured and White, have chosen the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs as the man who deserves the thanks of his country more than anyone else in this country, bar the Prime Minister because he was not in the picture.

At this stage I might refer to the matter raised by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) in regard to our position in respect of South West Africa. But before doing so, I want to refer to the remarks made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) who said that the Minister had not mentioned a single point of positive policy. May I remind the hon. member that a few years ago he visited America on an American “Leader Exchange” grant. He also visited New York and was in close touch with me and my delegation during the discussions of these issues in the United Nations. In fact I called him in for consultation. I treated him almost as a member of the delegation. If he had all these doubts about my policy, if he felt that I had not made a positive statement about our policy, why did he not tell me so at the time? No, Sir, at that time he was in full accord with our policy at the United Nations.

No. May I quote from my speech? I have a copy of my speech here to support this.

As far as the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) is concerned, I want to refer briefly to one point only, and that is by way of correction. The hon. member said in the course of his remarks, if I heard him rightly, that the Minister had been obliged to withdraw a statement which he had made about the United States delegate at the United Nations.

I did not say that you were obliged to withdraw it.

Very well, he said that I had withdrawn my remarks. The hon. member referred to that statement. I take it that he has the White Paper; he probably has it in front of him now. What are the facts? Mr. Plimpton, the delegate of the United States, came up specially to the rostrum and protested against what he termed a comparison which I had made between United States racial policies and South African policies. I did nothing of the sort, and if the hon. member will take the trouble to read the White Paper he will see that I later went up to the rostrum and said the following. Why did he not tell the Committee that…

I did say that.

No, the hon. member did not. Why did the hon. member not tell this Committee that I said the following—

I then quoted what I had said; I said this with regard to our policy—

I went on to say—

I then went on to say—

That is to say, in America. I said further—

I continued—

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has the White Paper. Why now give the impression that I had made a comparison between the racial policies of the United States and those of South Africa?

What did you do to-day?

I come now to the question of South West Africa. May I also, in reply to the hon. member for Constantia, make it quite clear that when I spoke this morning about hypocrisy and self-righteousness, I had in mind, in the first place, the almost vicious attack made on South Africa in the United Nations by Mr. Plimpton, the United States representative both in 1961 and again in 1962, when he expressed his disgust at South Africa’s racial policy and used even stronger words to the same effect?

I also had in mind the almost weekly attacks of Mr. Mennen Williams, also known as “Soapy” Williams, who regularly addresses audiences in the United States—a very talkative gentleman! In almost every one of those statements he has strongly attacked South Africa’s racial policy and also expressed, to quote his words, his abhorrence of South Africa’s policy.

On behalf of the United States Government.

I had in mind similar attacks made on South Africa in the United States Press in very strong terms. When you have attacks of that kind from Mr. Plimpton, the official representative of the United States in the United Nations, and from Mr. Mennen Williams, the Under-Secretary of State for the United States State Department, then I say to them, “Before you attack South Africa’s racial policy you had better sweep before your own doors and clear up your own back-yards”. In that regard may I say that never in the history of the Union of South Africa or of the Republic have we had anything approaching what has been happening at Birmingham recently. True there was the Sharpeville affair, but we know what transpired at the inquiry. There was no order to fire. Some young policeman evidently lost his head and fired. I also have the full reports from the American papers as to the happenings in Birmingham, Alabama, and thereafter in North Carolina and in other Southern States. I say that before Messrs. Plimpton and Mennen Williams accuse us they must clean up their own back-yards. As regards Great Britain, there I was trying to say that I have no complaints to make against the British Government, although their delegates to the United Nations have on several occasions made cutting remarks about South Africa’s racial policy. I particularly had in mind the vicious attack by Mr. Harold Wilson when he addressed that crowd on Trafalgar Square. I have the full statement of his speech here, and I think hon. members would be surprised if they saw to what lengths Mr. Harold Wilson went. It must be remembered that he is the Leader of the Opposition and may be the next Prime Minister. Then there has also been severe Press criticism and there have been attacks by their delegation on South Africa in the United Nations. I had in mind the racial discrimination contained in the changes made last year in British immigration policy. And then there were the happenings recently at Bristol, Birmingham. Nottingham. Notting Hill and in London itself.

Having replied to those points, I come now to the question of South West Africa. I said this morning that I find myself in somewhat of a difficulty because of the stand which the Government has consistently taken on the sub judice issue. We in South Africa, as in England too, hold very strong views on the matter of not commenting on, or discussing a case while it is pending before the Courts. Any person or newspaper doing so would find himself or itself charged with contempt of Court. That is the basis of our legal procedure in our country.

Mr. Chairman, in dealing with the South West issue, in view of the sub judice rule. I will not be able to do more than to deal with certain facts which are generally known. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition about two years ago, if I remember rightly, inquired by way of interpolation what the sub judice rule was in connection with the International Court. I dealt with that matter when I addressed the Fourth Committee two years ago and I then quoted the obiter dicta of certain Judges of the International Court, and also the opinions of well-known international jurists. I more particularly relied on the Anglo-Iranian Case, which as regards the sub judice rule is in many respects on all fours with the case against South Africa at the International Court. In order to make our position perfectly clear, I will quote from the statement which I made to the Fourth Committee. I there quoted the statement by the late Judge Lauterpacht, a very well-known international jurist. In his book, “The Development of International Law by the International Court”, he deals with a case which was before the International Court, the Electricity Company of Sophia and Bulgaria, where the International Court, according to Judge Lauterpacht, invoked

I went on to point out that all the organs of the United Nations had observed the sub judice rule, and then I came to this case of the Anglo-Iranian dispute. While this matter was before the International Court, one of the parties to the dispute took the matter to the Security Council, which is an organ of the United Nations. When the Security Council discussed this case. Sir Benegal Rau, who later was a Judge of the International Court, said—

At the 565th Session of 19 October 1951 the adjournment of the debate was then proposed until such time as the International Court of Justice had ruled on competence. Sir Benegal Rau then pointed out that the basic question was whether the matter was sub judice. The proposal that the debate be adjourned was then carried by eight votes to one, only the Union of Soviet Republics voting in the minority.

I quoted also other opinions. I have also the opinion of our law adviser. There can be no doubt whatsoever that while the South West Africa case is pending before the International Court, particularly in view of the Anglo-Iranian decision, where the Security Council, which is part of the United Nations Organization, declined to discuss it because they said it was sub judice, so also it is improper of the United Nations Fourth Committee, or of the General Assembly, to discuss this question and to pass resolutions. At the last session, even the two parties to the dispute now before the Court, viz. the delegations of Ethiopia and of Liberia, the complainants, actually took part in these discussions!

I have made my position clear, viz. why the Government takes the stand that while this case is pending before the Court it is improper to discuss it. I do not wish to put myself in the wrong with the International Court. There are certain aspects of this matter which I therefore find impossible to discuss in our own Parliament. I do not want to have the charge brought against me afterwards that, as Foreign Minister, I myself did not observe the sub judice rule.

In regard to this South West Africa issue I think it is necessary to remind hon. members particularly new members—as to what is actually the history of this issue. The South West African issue has been before the United Nations since 1946. At the San Francisco Conference General Smuts reserved South Africa’s position in regard to South West Africa. The following year, when he went to the United Nations, he made it known that he would move for the annexation of South West Africa—he actually used the word “annexation”, There was such widespread opposition that he dropped that idea, and softened it somewhat by saying that he would move for the “incorporation” of South West Africa. With a view to that he took a vote of the tribes in South West Africa, through their Chiefs, as to whether they were prepared to be incorporated in South Africa. By a large majority the tribes in South West Africa agreed to that. There was, however, much opposition at the United Nations and in 1947 our representative there, Mr. Harry Andrews, was instructed to write a letter to the Secretary-General in which he said that South Africa would withdraw the proposal for incorporation. I do not know what the reasons were, but I do want to say that if only General Smuts had adhered to his original idea of annexation, or even of incorporation, we would have been saved a lot of trouble in later years and to-day. Unfortunately he did not do so. As a result the attacks on South Africa in regard to South West Africa have increased over the years. As I pointed out earlier his afternoon this has been due mainly to the huge increase in the strength of the Afro-Asion bloc. In regard to the South West African issue, they have also been securing not full support but a measure of support from certain of the Western nations. There is much that I can tell the Committee regarding UN discussions and activities in regard to the South West African issue; for instance the Committee of Seven and the Carpio affair; after that there came the Committee of Twenty-four, which is in session at the moment. But the discussion of those matter would mean a transgression of the sub judice rule.

The hon. member for Constantia has raised the question of the resolution passed at the last Session of the United Nations calling for what they termed “an effective U.N. presence in South West Africa”. I do not want to discuss it but I think, without transgressing the sub judice rule, I can quote from certain official letters which passed between U Thant, the Secretary-General, and myself, I shall quote without any comment whatsoever. Dr. Protitch, the Secretary of that Committee, went to see our Acting Representative to the United Nations, and in a friendly way conveyed the idea that it would perhaps be a good thing for South Africa to agree to the appointment of a resident representative in South West Africa. I told our representative orally to inform Dr. Protitch that, after the Carpio experience, the South African Government could hardly be expected to agree to the appointment of a UNO residential technical assistant representative in South West Africa. The Secretary-General modified it to a technical representative, but he had to be a representative of UNO resident in South West Africa. The letter goes on—

Subsequent to this I received a personal letter from U Thant in which he said—

U Thant then quotes the resolution regarding the appointment. Then he goes on—

That brings in the South West Africa issue, South West Africa is now no longer under the old UNO Committee for South West Africa; it is now under the Anti-Colonialism Committee. The reply conveyed by our Permanent Representative to the United Nations was dated 3 April and it read as follows—

I am also obliged to remind the Secretary-General that South Africa’s administration has never been conducted in secrecy and as recently as last year was exposed fully to a Commission of the UNO. The findings and the recommendations of the Odendaal Commission will be published in full when completed, and the Government will announce in public the extent to which it will implement the proposals for which sufficient funds will be made available, as stated by the Prime Minister to the Carpio Commission.

I am also constrained to remind the Secretary-General of the case at present before the International Court.

Mr. Chairman, that was our attitude. We relied particularly on the fact that the Odendaal Commission had been appointed, that it was busy with its work and that its interim report had already been laid on the Table of this House. So much for this aspect.

I think in another debate I also pointed out that we could not take the risk of another experience such as we had with the Carpio Commission. As hon. members will know the United Nations Committee of Seven when faced with the Pretoria joint communique in which the Carpio Commission, including Mr. Carpio himself, said they could find no threat to the peace in South West Africa; that there was no evidence of the extermination of the population as had been alleged, and that there was no evidence of militarization, turned round and said that such a communique did not exist! They were not going to take any notice of it! That was as far as we could get with the Pretoria communique! As I have said I can deal with all those matters but that will mean transgressing the sub judice rule.

This applies also to the case finding before the International Court of Justice. I can do no more than to state what has already been made public. The first phase of the action before the International Court of Justice was completed earlier this year. It dealt with the Court’s findings on the exceptions to the Court’s jurisdiction which had been made by our legal team. By a majority of only one vote, South Africa’s exceptions to the Court’s jurisdiction failed. I want to say that to me personally and also to the Government, this was a matter of satisfaction that our exceptions failed by only one vote. I wish to take advantage of this occasion to pay a tribute to our legal team for the work which they have put into this case, and which they are still putting into it. I have some idea of the work they are doing; I frequently have discussions with them. I do not think members have any idea of the amount of work that still lies ahead, in connection with the second phase of the case. Before I come to the second stage I want to mention that the seven judges who voted in favour of South Africa were the United Kingdom, Australia, France, Italy, Greece and then, of course, the “ad hoc” Judge of South Africa. On the other side there was also an “ad hoc” Judge from Nigeria. I have gone through the whole record of International Court decisions, since the Court was established and I have not found a single case where a decision on an important issue was arrived at by a majority of only one vote. Having regard to the Judges who voted on our side I think we can regard that as a moral victory even if, unfortunately, it was not a real one.

There now remains the second phase. We are faced with the charges brought by Liberia and Ethiopia on what are called the merits; they consist of the different charges against our administration of the territory and so forth.

I want to ask speakers on both sides of the House, in view of the information I have given to-day, to refrain from any reference to this second phase, i.e. on the merits of the case. Hon. members can be assured that any statement made here will immediately be cabled out to the representatives of Liberia and Ethiopia. They will be used against South Africa in this case.

May I ask the Minister a question? Could the Minister give us some indication of when he expects the final judgment in this case to be given?

It will be guess work. But having regard to the large number of matters raised on the merits, each of which has to be dealt with individually, it is quite likely that this case may last for another two years. I have discussed this matter with our legal team; as a matter of fact we have appointed two extra advocates to that team, because of the volume of work. We have been given a time to reply to the many Ethiopian and Liberian charges. All our replies have to be printed. There has been some trouble in getting the printing done in time. When all that has been done, the replies will be handed to the complainants. They in turn have an opportunity to reply to our replies before the matter comes before the Court. I doubt whether the Court will reconvene before about the end of this year or even later.

As regards the Odendaal Commission a preliminary report has been tabled. Amongst other things their instructions envisaged the supply of water for Ovamboland from the Kunene River. An agreement was entered into in 1926 with the Portuguese Government in terms of which South Africa was entitled to half the floodwater from the Kunene River. But unfortunately there is no more floodwater. The tributaries of the Kunene River have to a large extent become silted up so there is very little floodwater. That was the reason for my recent visit to Lisbon, viz., to discuss with the Portuguese Government certain proposals we had made regarding the diversion of water from the Kunene River for the use of man and beast in Ovamboland. We have also made certain proposals relating to electrification for the northern part of South West Africa. These discussions stretched over three to four days. I also saw Dr. Salazar, the Prime Minister, in connection with the matter. I am happy to say that agreement has now been reached, and we hope to get on with the work as soon as possible.

These are the main points in regard to the South West African issue. As I have said, I do not want to deal with all the United Nations’ reports and our reactions to them; I do not want to lay myself open to the charge that I myself have transgressed the sub judice rule. I sincerely hone the House will be satisfied with the information I have given.

I certainly do not propose to touch upon the South West African issue, but I would like to refer to some remarks which the hon. the Minister has made. The Minister has made two speeches this afternoon. In one of them he made an appreciable attack on the United States of America and Britain. We thought it was quite unnecessary for him to have done so. I am very glad to say that he has in his second speech toned down the extent of his criticism. I think the question arises why the hon. Minister speaks with two voices in the same afternoon. I think this must be linked with the speeches of the hon. members for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) and Karas (Mr. von Moltke). They were very delighted that writers to the Cape Argus appeared to think that Mr. Louw was doing very well. Naturally we hope he will do extremely well. But the thought comes to one’s mind that one gets this criticism of these two big countries, which should be our friends, in order to gain popularity amongst the voters of this country. I think that is an extremely unfortunate note to strike when there are such big issues at stake. We naturally support the hon. the Minister to the utmost when he is endeavouring to state our case at the United Nations but we hope he will not go out of his way to pass remarks against important Western powers simply to build up his own image at home. I am sure he will appreciate that that is the last thing that should be done.

There is no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that we need not stand alone in South Africa, One of the most influential organs of the Government has said that we cannot stand alone. I refer here to the comments by the political correspondent of the Burger. Towards the end of 1962 Dawie said the following—

We feel very much that the hon. the Minister should be trying to win friends particularly amongst those Western powers. I think it is very regrettable in this connection that our relations with the United Kingdom appear to be deteriorating. I want to quote what Sir John Maud, the British Ambassador, said on 26 March 1963—

I suggest that unnecessary criticism of our friends does not improve those relationships. I think there have been quite a number of incidents where it has seemed that the Government Press, to some extent, and certain hon. members opposite, have taken a certain delight in continuing the old feud with Britain. I want to refer in this regard to the film “Sabotage in South Africa”. Although that film was made and first released in America it seemed as though the Government waited until the film was screened in Britain before the great cry was raised and the atmosphere worked up in that regard. The film then went to Holland and Australia and no further mention was made of it. I suggest that we should approach this matter in the spirit of working positively in order to maintain good relations, as Sir John Maud said. After all, we were promised at the time we became a Republic, that this gave us an opportunity to have especially close and good relations with Britain. I wish we could see a sign of improvement. I do not see any, and I hope the hon. the Minister will work carefully to secure it.

I want to touch upon another aspect to which the Minister referred in his speech. I think one can deduce from his first speech this afternoon that he is of opinion that the present Government policy of separate development or apartheid has completely failed to win a single friend amongst the nations of the world and that he is completely disillusioned as to that. This I infer from the various things he said, and from the context in which he said them. He said that it was either a question of abdicating to “one man one vote” or a fight for the survival of the White man; that there was no middle way. He said that the sooner the Opposition realized this the better. I would like to remind this Committee that the hon. the Prime Minister indicated in a statement to which I shall refer that this policy of the present Government was not one he wanted to follow but that it had been forced upon him by world opinion. I think we have had it clearly in several utterances by the Minister of Foreign Affairs that this policy had in fact got us nowhere at all. I want to read an extract from this statement by the Prime Minister. I refer to his reply to ex-Senator Smit who had criticized Government policy. Dr. Verwoerd said—

What is the date of that?

This is an extract from a paper of August, 1962. The actual date has unfortunately been cut off; I cannot see the exact date.

What paper?

The Sunday Times. I shall be very glad if hon. members opposite would quote anything to me to show that this is wrong. I challenge them. That statement is well known. I think it is quite clear that this policy was embarked upon by the Government in face of world opinion, as they said. It has completely failed to win us a friend in the world.

May I ask a question?

Let me just finish what I want to say. The Minister of Foreign Affairs also said that he thought the position would be no better under a change of Government. With great respect I think the position would be better for two reasons. Admittedly there is a difference in the House, but we believe that our policy will be better received by the world outside. We differ on that but the point I believe is true is that the people of the world, particularly of the Western nations and those with whom we fought in the last war, even if we adopted the identical policy of the Government, will be more well-disposed towards South Africa. I have no doubt about that.

Why? Why?

Because, for the obvious reason, that we were comrades in arms with them; they have an understanding of us which can certainly not be said of members opposite. I have found that time and again. I shall now reply to the hon. member if he wants to ask me a question.

How many friends did the partnership policy win Rhodesia?

If the hon. member will only look at the voting on that issue he will realize that a tremendous number of nations who did not support us in the voting on South West Africa and other matters, did in fact support the partnership policy. I am not concerned with the partnership policy at all actually; [Time limit.]

Before I come to the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) I should like to say a few words in regard to the speech of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) who repeated a statement here this afternoon which he also made during the Budget debate, namely that South Africa during the years 1959, 1960 and 1961 gave the African States paltry aid to the value of an amount of only about R125.

I did not mention that amount.

In any event, he again repeated to-day that the contribution we made in respect of other African states was a negligible amount. Now I shall be very pleased if in the first place the hon. member will produce to the House the source from which he derived these figures, because he said it was signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and in the second place I should like to ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs, when he rises again, to furnish the House with this information. These reckless statements are sent abroad and they create an atmosphere of hostility to us on no grounds, and this side of the House objects strongly to that.

There is another aspect to the matter the hon. member has mentioned. We have within the borders of our own Republic a big underdeveloped population and the contribution made by every White man in South Africa to the development of our own under-developed people, is of the greatest in the Western world. Will the hon. member accept that? Whereas the contribution made in France by every Frenchman is R12, while the Americans make a contribution of R9.17, the English R3.8, the Netherlands R3.22, Germany R3.10, Italy R.74, Belgium R1.98, the contribution every South African makes is R22 per annum. Then the hon. member comes along and says that the contributions we made in respect of the states in Africa are negligible, and he forgets that in our own country we are making per capita the biggest contribution towards the development of our own under-developed people, greater than in any other Western country.

What does that mean? They are our own citizens.

It shows our goodwill towards our own under-developed people. But let me proceed with the hon. member. He says irresponsible things here in this House— and it is extremely regrettable that the hon. member has not followed the example set by the hon. member who introduced this debate this afternoon, for he introduced the debate on a very high level and in a very moderate tone; he made his points of criticism and asked for information—and it is a pity that this hon. member participated in the debate in the spirit in which he did. It was no contribution to a debate of this kind, particularly under the circumstances in which the debate is being conducted. Let me mention another aspect. The hon. member has said: We must work with the United Nations as we find it.

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, our country played a great role in the drafting of the Charter of U.N., but there was the express understanding that it was one of the basic principles and corner pillars of that charter that there would be no interference in the domestic affairs of member countries. That was our construction, and we have always adopted that point of view, but the hon. member comes along this afternoon, and in spite of the point of view the United Party also adopted in the past in respect of that particular provision in Article 2(c) of the Charter, he says: “We must work with the United Nations as we find it”. In other words, the hon. member is this afternoon completely rejecting that whole principle we have always jointly adhered to. What impression is that attitude going to make abroad? You see, Mr. Chairman, we do not mind the hon. members participating in the debate and exercising criticism upon the policy pursued by the Government in respect of foreign affairs, but when such utterances are made and when there is rejection of a principle accepted by both parties in the past, then I feel we must object most strongly. For when you do those things, you are doing nothing but playing into the hands of the enemies of the Republic of South Africa.

As regards the hon. member for Pinelands, he devoted a large part of his speech to isolation. I do not wish to cover the same ground covered by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but I honestly think it is time that we should see this slogan of isolation in its proper perspective. We are at issue with the rest of the Western World with whom we are maintaining relations, as well as with certain countries in the East, on one aspect, and that is only our racial policy. In respect of all the other matters there is the closest co-operation. We are maintaining at the present time—the hon. member is so concerned about that—the very same good relation with Great Britain we maintained at the time when we were still a member of the Commonwealth. In some respects I think the relationship is better. From the economic angle I should like to point out to the hon. member the amount of capital which has flowed into our country from Britain in recent times, to factories that have been transferred directly to South Africa, lock, stock and barrel. We are working in the closest co-operation with other Western countries in many respects, particularly also in respect of education. There is still a reciprocal arrangement of exchanging teachers between ourselves and other countries. We are cooperating in the scientific field. In every possible respect there is the closest co-operation, save in respect of this one matter, namely the problem of race relations. There is a difference of opinion in that respect, and we admit it is there. But my question to the Opposition is this: Is it warranted to inflate that one issue to the great cry of “isolation”, and to say that South Africa is standing alone? We have not reached that stage yet, nor can I see us reaching it in the future. South Africa is much too important a territory economically and otherwise, as well as from a strategic point of view, to the Western world for that to happen [Time limit.]

I want to deal with the first speech of the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs and particularly his reference to General Smuts’s speech made overseas. He quoted to this House in defence of the policy of his Government a speech by General Smuts and he said afterwards, when this was challenged, that in South Africa General Smuts spoke differently, but that overseas this was his point of view. I have here the collected speeches of General Smuts, and in this speech on the Native policy in Africa, he dealt with the question of parallel institutions. That was in 1929, and this is part of the Minister’s quotation—

Now the hon. Minister has access to this speech, and I want to ask why he quoted the reference to parallel institutions and failed to quote the following statement in the same speech by General Smuts…

He quoted from the 1917 speech.

I am talking about the reference to parallel institutions by General Smuts in his speech at Oxford in 1929. I will come back to the 1917 speech. This speech in 1929 dealt with the question of parallel institutions. It was complementary to the initial speech in 1917 dealing with the White man’s task in Africa, and it set out the question of separate institutions. General Smuts posed the question—

He answered the question as follows—

I submit that this speech is available to the hon. Minister. If he is interested in General Smuts’s views on parallel institutions, he should have known that this was the conclusion to which General Smuts came, that this was the end to which he worked. Now I go further and I say that in the speech from which the hon. Minister quoted, the first speech, General Smuts referred specifically to “land-ownership, settlement and forms of Government”. That was the 1917 speech. He specifically limited his remarks to those three fields, as part of one country, and I submit that it is completely irresponsible for a Minister to come to this House and to quote in defence of his stand extracts out of context from a speech which give a different impression from that which the speaker intended to convey, and in particular to use the words of General Smuts in order to try and bolster up his point of view. Where the Minister, I say incorrectly and wrongly, tried to boost his case by quoting General Smuts, General Smuts in fact went on to state his conclusions as quoted by me. But the hon. Minister went on to follow this up with the philosophy of extremism, and he claimed that this was a recognition of the fact that ultimately you had to have total separation or you had to have one man one vote. I challenge the hon. Minister now in this debate to state here, in this debate, to this House and to South Africa that the Western countries of the world, those former friends of ours, have at any time demanded of the Minister of of South Africa a policy of one man one vote. I do not believe that the responsible countries of the world demand that of us, want it of us, or have ever demanded it of the Minister.

I referred to the Blacks who make this demand.

Then I am correct in saying that the responsible countries of the world, the traditional friends of South Africa, do not demand of us “one man one vote”. By implication the hon. Minister with his interjection accepts my statement. But I put it to him again, and I challenge him to tell this House that the Western countries, our traditional friends, demand one man one vote from us. What right has the hon. Minister to tell this House and to tell South Africa that that is the only thing which will satisfy the world? I say that he is correct to say that that is the only thing that will satisfy the Black states of Africa, the extremist states, those who are making such vicious and bitter and unjustified attacks on South Africa. You will not satisfy them with anything. But I say to the Minister, and I believe South Africa has the right to know this from the Minister, that the responsible countries of the world ask no more of South Africa than a change of heart, a change of direction, an indication that South Africa has not closed its mind to moving forward in peace and in progress with the non-White races. [Interjections.] I am dealing now with the hon. Minister who is the only person who should tell South Africa this.

What is Britain demanding from Southern Rhodesia?

I am not here interested in Southern Rhodesia, I am interested in South Africa. We are not a colony. We are an independent country and therefore I am not interested in what other countries may be saying to each other. I believe it is the Minister’s duty to tell South Africa that in fact the Western world does not demand “one man one vote” of South Africa.

The Minister never said it.

So I am correct in saying that they do not demand it of us. The Minister will not say that they do demand it, but when I ask him if it is correct that they do not demand it he will not answer me. You cannot have it both ways. Either the Western world demands one man one vote, or it does not. The Minister says that he did not say that they demand it. Therefore I say that one can draw the conclusion from that that they do not demand it of South Africa. And if the Western world does not demand “one man one vote”, then the hon. Minister is making political propaganda for his own political party inside South Africa by trying to give that impression. I say that this fallacy, this philosophy of extremes, is part of the Nationalist Party’s surrender to Afro-Asian propaganda. Afro-Asian propaganda is that there can only be one man one vote, or domination—and nothing in between and the Nationalist Party has swallowed the propaganda of the Afro-Asian states that there is no alternative other than one man one vote. The hon. Minister is using that propaganda of the enemies of South Africa in order to try to strengthen his political position in South Africa. [Time limit.]

The hon. member is very fond of “challenging”, He has no more right to say that the Africa States are not demanding one man one vote than anybody else has to say that they in fact are doing so, but what the hon. member cannot evade is that UNO demands it, because the Afro-Asian States and the Russians and the Eastern Bloc together have a tremendous majority there and all of them are demanding it. Let the hon. member just look at this afternoon’s Argus, the interview Mr. Field gave to the Press, then it is clear that this is the stumbling-block as far as Rhodesia’s position for the future is concerned. The hon. member may also look at the difficulties of Portugal. But he tries to argue a lot of illogical things here in a logical way. There is no point in what he has said, and I would rather not waste more time on what he said.

I want to deal with the point made by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) and the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson), in criticizing the Minister because he has criticized the British and American Governments, and the hon. member for Pinelands had the audacity to go so far as to say that even if the United Party also were to pursue the National Party‘s policy, then the world, and more particularly England, yet would be much better disposed towards South Africa then they are under this Government. What right has he to say such a thing? What does he think of himself? Does he think he is such a good Englishman, better than anybody else? I should like to ask the hon. members why they criticize our Minister of Foreign Affairs in this manner while when the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) two weeks ago rose here and criticized England and said that here we now had an instance where England again (and “again” means as they did to us in the past) had left Rhodesia in the lurch, they sat quiet. Why did they not attack him when he said that? No, it came from one of their own members and then it is good, but when there is the slightest criticism from our side, then it is anti-English. The greatest foolishness under the sun.

I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to something on which I think the two sides of the House ought to be in agreement. I wish to point out that in 1925 the Prince of Wales was here, and the next year the Balfour declaration was issued which made a Commonwealth of the British Empire comprising various independent States. In 1947 the Royal Family visited us on an extensive tour and the next year the National Government came into power, in 1948; in 1960 Mr. Macmillan was here and the winds of change began to blow here and in 1961 we became a Republic. In view of the fact that there are no prejudicial consequences, in so far as South Africa is concerned, when such eminent visitors from overseas visit us, I should like to ask whether we should not consider getting some of the actual government leaders or State leaders from the Western world to pay us a visit, but then they must come and visit us properly, so that they can see what is going on here and so that they can convey the lessons they will learn here to the rest of the Western world? My time is very limited, but I should like to raise a second matter. I hope the Minister will not take it amiss of me when I say something about the Addis Ababa Conference, but I do not think the practical effect of that conference on South Africa is such, in the sense they intended it there, as those nations hoped it will be. It seems to me more like a war of nerves rather than a real war; because in a real war they do not have a chance. But I should like to make this point: They passed certain resolutions there which are nothing but positive aggression against South Africa. I am thinking now of the resolutions to train people to attack South Africa and to get South Africans there and to teach them how to commit sabotage etc. The Minister of Justice has already given us evidence of such people who have been captured and in connection with whom these things have occurred. But the important resolution is that for these purposes of aggression against South Africa these people are all contributing 1 per cent of their Budget. Where do their Budgets come from? All the countries that are former French colonies, receive a direct subsidy from the French Treasury in order to balance their Budgets, and I understand that 60 per cent of their Budgets are derived from France. The other countries which are becoming independent are being assisted on a large scale by England and by America etc. But the countries receiving assistance now want to render financial assistance to the countries that wish to perpetrate aggression against South Africa, and in this way they want to enable those countries to perpetrate aggression against South Africa. Now the question arises, whether the Minister does not have a very strong case to lay a charge against them at UN—I am now referring to the Africa states—owing to the aggression they wish to perpetrate, and to ask these great powers to discontinue their contributions to those countries, because the money is being utilized for purposes in conflict with the Charter of UN. I feel this is a matter the Minister could very well give his attention to.

There is a further matter I should like to raise, which is seldom discussed in this House save under the Bantu Affairs Vote. If we look at Africa, we find that there is unrest in the territories from which the Whites have already been driven, throughout Africa. It seems to me that the unrest flows from local quarrels they are trying to camouflage, and for that reason they are keen to concentrate upon another country which they can vilify and in regard to which they can incite people, and that is why they are concentrating their attacks upon South Africa in an effort thereby to preserve internal peace, but there is no peace in their countries internally, because in many instances their national groups are people who virtually are not mutually assimilable. Years ago when the so-called scramble for Africa took place, there was the position that they just took what they could get without looking which nations were living there. The result was a conglomerate of ethnic groups, all of whom fell within one geographic and one constitutional unit, and it seems to me that is one great source of dissatisfaction in Africa. If we could achieve this, namely that the world should realize this, and that the position is rectified, many of the difficulties could be eliminated. I have never yet seen a map indicating the ethnic grouping of the various national groups in Africa. I do not know whether there is one, but I should like to know from the Minister whether anything can be done in this direction. We have an Africa Institute, the UN has a Division for Africa Affairs. Cannot they make a study of the ethnic grouping in Africa, and its geographic division, so that a policy for the future could be based on it—not that we should give them the policy, but we can show them how well ethnic grouping works in South Africa and they could then follow that good example.

Mr. Chairman, I will not follow on the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever), who seems to consider that the problem of a new Africa can be solved by drawing a series of maps of the Continent based on ethnic grouping. But I do want to come back to the remarks of the hon. the Minister and say that it was pathetic to listen to the defeatist attitude of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who tries to justify his inability to improve and strengthen good relations with South Africa’s natural allies and its traditional friends with the excuse that self-interest alone dictates the policies of other Governments and therefore South Africa itself is compelled to solve its own problems by adopting one of two extremes, either to abdicate or to fight. I say both policies are policies of despair and for that reason alone should be rejected. However, the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) has dealt adequately with the philosophy of democracy and I leave it there. But I do say this, that it is even more pathetic for the Minister to suggest that the policies of the Government play no role in influencing opinion and a reaction at UN, yet illogically and almost in the same breath the Minister suggests that criticism by the Opposition on the actions of the Government is really influencing opinion at UN. Therefore I come to the point that it seems to me that no one can reiterate often enough or forcibly enough that the policies of this Government are culminating and culminating rapidly, in two disastrous situations for South Africa: (1) Explosive race relations internally, and (2) alarming isolation externally. The second disastrous situation is the one we can discuss under the Vote of this Minister, although of course the two matters are so inextricably mixed up that they cannot be discussed separately. My visit abroad last year left me in no doubt that 1963-4 are regarded both in Britain and in various parts of the Continent as the years of destiny for Southern Africa.

By whom in Britain?

That is the opinion of responsible and well-informed people.

Like whom?

I am not going to disclose my private conversations with people. I am telling you that is the impression.

Then you are talking absolute nonsense, because I was there also.

Then the hon. member can state his case, and give his impressions, but I am stating mine. I say that whether we like it or not, events here have influenced what is taking place in the rest of Africa, just as what is taking place in the rest of Africa will have repercussions here sooner or later. I mention this because inevitably in a time of destiny everyone would dearly like to believe that South Africa has friendly support in international circles. Although 15 years ago we unquestionably had that support, the question we are now repeatedly asking ourselves and which I ask the Minister is this: Is it correct that we still have friendly support in international circles? The Minister in his reply as much as indicated that we have none, and if that is the answer I say to him: What does the Government intend doing in order to regain and restore the former support we had? I add to the plea made by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) that there should be a new approach to the problem and that the Minister should look forward instead of over his shoulder. I think he would then realize that in order to conduct negotiations with other countries, one must do so with headlights on and not with the tail-light on only.

In asking that question, I would remind the House that during last session of UN during October and November, it was a representative of the Western states who left no one, least of all South Africa, in doubt about the growing repugnance with this Government’s racial ideologies are viewed “by all right-minded people everywhere”. Another member expressed this view in regard to the Government’s policy of apartheid. He said that it was “morally abominable, intellectually grotesque and spiritually indefensible”. As I see it, and I say it with great regret, under the régime of this Government South Africa has been brought to the position where we only have “reluctant friends” at UN, namely those few Western states who are still influenced by traditional association, who still are averse to creating new precedents in international relations, and who still see good to all concerned in maintaining economic links with South Africa. I believe that I would be serving both my country and my conscience ill if I did not place on record the firm conclusion to which I was constrained to come during my visit overseas, namely that seen from abroad the major factors that are adversely affecting Western world opinion about South Africa and which are responsible for the lack of overseas confidence in this country’s future political and economic stability, can be placed in this order: (1) The persistent and serious ways in which the principles of democracy and the rule of law are being eroded and whittled down by the Nationalist Government; (2) the methodical way in which an uncompromising Afrikaner nationalism has become entrenched in power, and the unbridled determination to enforce apartheid, a policy of race discrimination which is seen to have White minority rule as its keystone; (3) the dangerous international repercussions which are inherent in the South West Africa issue. As regards the last matter, we still have before us uncertainty as to the outcome of the main issue over S.W.A. before the International Court of Justice and the Hague, and I would have left the matter there, but the Minister himself introduced into the debate what happened in 1947 when the Government under General Smuts withdrew the application for the incorporation of S.W.A. into the Union. The Minister seemed to insinuate by his remarks that it was General Smuts who was responsible for the present distressing situation we are facing and therefore I should like to remind the Minister that in the 50 years since 1914 his party seems to have come full circle historically as regards South West Africa. In 1914-8 when South West Africa came under the control of the Union, it happened in spite of bitter opposition on the part of Afrikaner nationalism of that day; and now 50 years later it is because of the fateful and uncompromising policies of the present-day Afrikaner Nationalists that South Africa’s control over South West Africa has come into jeopardy. I say this goes to show that both then and now it is Afrikaner nationalism that has been on the wrong side of history. Sir, one does not have to go abroad to realize that there is not the slightest hope of making the Government’s racial ideologies saleable outside South Africa, and therefore in so far as the other two aspects or factors I have mentioned are concerned, I would remind the House firstly that the free world is not impressed by the Government’s authoritarian powers and its enforcement of law and order regardless of elementary justice. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) has challenged the hon. the Minister to say which Western nation has demanded “one man one vote”. It may be true that some of the more stable Western nations have not made such a demand but I want to say this: They do not demand it but they have constantly yielded to two large groups; they have yielded to the pressure of the Afro-Asiatic bloc which forms an international political force and pressure group, and secondly they have yielded to the extremistic Pan-Africanism as it has manifested itself at the latest Addis Ababa solidarity conference. That is my reply to the hon. member. I do not say that they themselves have made any demands but they have yielded to the demands of these two groups, and that is much worse. We regard any concession which that side of the House wants to make and any concession which they advocate here as the thin end of the wedge, just as we also regarded the statement made to the hon. the Prime Minister at the last Commonwealth Conference when they said to him, “To begin with we shall be satisfied with just a small concession, because that will set in motion a whole process”. It is the thin end of the wedge.

Like the Bantustans. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) said that the Minister had not put forward any constructive ideas. I ask the hon. member: What constructive ideas? Does he mean that we must give some indication of a willingness to make concessions? Does he want the Minister to rise here and say that he is prepared to make concessions? Is that what he calls a constructive idea? What does the hon. member demand when he talks about constructive ideas? I think I can best answer the hon. member by dealing with the last report of the so-called Watchdog Committee of the United Nations. This meeting was held on 2 April 1963. This Watchdog Committee is constituted as follows: The first member is the representative of Algeria, the man who says that they should die a little, that they should offer the blood of 10,000 people, in spite of the fact that they have no food to form that blood; the second member of that committee is the representative of Ghana, a militant semi-communist dictatorship; the third member is the representative of Guinea on the west coast, a country which at the moment is the base for the strongest Russian submarine fleet in the Atlantic Ocean and from which the revolution in Angola was initiated a year or two ago. The next member is the representative of the Philippines. Well, we know the Philippines of Carpio fame. Then there is Somalia who quarrelled with Britain and on whose behalf Russia quickly intervened. At the moment Russia is establishing a submarine base in Somalia to fill the vacuum, as the Russians call it, in the Indian Ocean, a fact which is causing America many headaches. Then there is Hungary, where the smell of blood is still fresh; there is Malaya, where millions are dying of hunger; there is Nepal, which is quite unimportant—most hon. members here perhaps do not even know where it is—and finally there is Costa Rica, which is insignifiCapt. That is the constitution of the so-called Watchdog Committee. They have now brought out a report after their first meeting, which was addressed by Mr. U Thant on 2 April 1963 when he said—

The hon. the Minister reacted to this in the Press on 4 April 1963 when he expressed surprise at the remarks made by U Thant, as a paid official, to whose salary and subsistence allowance the Republic contributes. Furthermore, the Republic is not in arrear with its contributions. The Minister of Foreign Affairs replied to him effectively but after this meeting they issued a statement in which they repeatedly and ad nauseum used the phrase, “serious repercussions on international peace and security”. What did they discuss at that meeting? They talked about the removal of the Bantu from Besterspruit to the Vryheid location; they discussed the removal of the Bantu from the western Cape; they discussed the resettlement of Indians in the Cape and the Transvaal; they discussed the taking over of a mosque in Piet Retief. They discussed the Bantu Laws Amendment Act, the Froneman Report on foreign Natives and the question of reference books for Bantu women. They discussed the Transkei, the General Law Amendment Bill, the Paarl riots, Poqo, and the increasing oppression of Bantu by the Republican Government. They repeatedly referred to discrimination which was practised in South Africa, a discrimination which the United Party does not want to do away with either. They referred to the “persecution of the South African political refugees in neighbouring colonial territories”—they mentioned Rhodesia—and asked for a speedy end to it. They went so far as to discuss our Defence Force and our Police Force and they said—

They drag Sharpeville into every discussion.

What is your point?

I am coming to my point. Let the hon. member remain silent. They say that we are spending just as much on our Defence Force as we spent on World War II. They say that our Defence Force is stronger than our peace-time force. In referring to the Budget of the Minister of Finance they say that we have entered “a period of cold war” and that the Minister has introduced a Budget which calls for certain steps as though we are engaged in a war. They go on to say that, “They cannot accept the military build-up in South Africa as normal security measures”.

But what is your point? [Time limit.]

I am afraid I cannot answer the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling), because he has not made his point. He told us he was leading up to it, but he never got there, therefore I cannot reply to him, because I do not know what his point is. But one thing is certain in this debate, and that is that some of the old misconceptions of hon. members opposite about UN have again come to the fore and I want to mention one or two of them. The first is that the Afro-Asian bloc dominates UN. The second is that only the Afro-Asians and the communists are hostile to South Africa’s policy, and thirdly that nothing less than one man, one vote, will satisfy UN. I want to deal briefly with these misconceptions.

The facts indeed show quite the opposite as far as the domination of UN by the Afro-Asian group is concerned. An interesting pamphlet has been published by the Institute of International Affairs on a talk given by Dr. Ballinger, who is the senior lecturer in history at the University of the Witwatersrand, entitled, “South Africa and the United Nations: Myth and Reality”. He spent many months at UN listening to the debates there and what he found is that in fact on very many issues there is no unanimity whatever in the so-called Afro-Asian bloc. It is quite true that as a single bloc the Afro-Asian group totals nearly one half of the 110 member-states of UN, whereas formerly of course there were only 12 in the first year the UN sat. So it is the largest single geographic bloc in UN, and therefore a substantial majority could be obtained by this group voting as a bloc, but in fact they do not always vote as a bloc. It is only as far as the communist bloc is concerned that on every issue one finds unanimity in their voting. There are many differences between the African states in geography, history, race, culture and religion which often lead to different affiliations as well. There is the Monrovian bloc and the Casablanca bloc. They are at odds with each other and do not combine on every single point. Nine of the Afro-Asian bloc are members of the Arab League and three are members of the South East Asian Treaty Organization. The Arab states themselves have differences amongst themselves. Then we have India having disputes with Pakistan, and Pakistan with Afghanistan, and so on, so there is no unanimity. Research done at the UN shows that they vote quite differently on many issues, and they vote differently also from the Soviet Union, which moves amendments which do not always get the support of the Afro-Asian bloc. Now it is true that on one major issue one finds the Afro-Asian bloc voting almost entirely as one, and that is on issues where colonialism and race discrimination are involved. In these two instances unanimity is almost obtained, but not always, because on several occasions the amendments of the Soviet Union on colonialism for example and making 1962 the year of freedom were not supported entirely by the Afro-Asians. So it is completely untrue to say that they always vote as a bloc, and that is one misconception that hon. members ought to get rid of as soon as possible.

The other misconception which has also been disproved is that the Afro-Asians and the Soviets always vote together. They certainly do not. There are many differences of opinion between them, as a voting analysis showed during the last two sessions. [Interjections.] I am trying to show that it is not a bloc which blindly votes together and it does not dominate UN. But on this issue of race discrimination many of the Western nations are also with the Afro-Asians. That is the point. We deceive ourselves if we think that only the Soviet Union and the Afro-Asians are against South Africa.

And you rejoice at it.

I do not rejoice, but people must realize that the Western countries are also against racial discrimination. They do not want one man, one vote. Even in regard to Rhodesia, the Western nations abstained and did not vote with the Afro-Asians. But we must not fool ourselves that only the Afro-Asians and the Soviets are against us on race discrimination. The Western world is against us, too, and this is where I want to take issue with the hon. the Minister when he raises the question of other countries also having trouble as far as race discrimination is concerned, and says that they must clean up their own backyard before attacking South Africa. I do not think this is the way to deal with this problem at all. To talk about Alabama in the U.S.A., or the Mississippi riots, as being something which is condoned by the Government of the U.S.A. and arises out of the official policy of that Government, is of course nonsense. Everyone knows that the official policy there is against racial discrimination. There is the Civil Rights Commission appointed by the U.S. Government to go into the whole question of discrimination in the field of justice, housing, employment, education, etc., and every year legislative measures have followed their recommendations in order to stop race discrimination. Therefore to get the idea that because there are riots in Alabama, that means that in the U.S, the tendency is to support race discrimination is nonsense. Of course there are racial troubles, both in the South and in the North, but more particularly in the Southern States. Surely hon. members know that last year when the Mississippi riots took place the American Army was sent there to see that one American Negro could enjoy his constitutional rights and be entered at the university as a student. [Interjections.] Strong measures will now be taken against the Southern States which do not follow the law, and hon. members must not deceive themselves that because there are race riots in the U.S.A. that is segregation asserting itself. It is nothing of the kind. It is in fact the dying gasp of segregation, because every time there is a riot at a university or school, hundreds of other institutions desegregate. There has been peaceful desegregation in other areas because intelligent citizens in the Southern States have realized that it does their towns no credit to have rioting and civil dislocation, to have the schools closed and to have commerce and industry disrupted, and they know that they have to abide by the law of the land which is the removal as fast as possible of race discrimination in all its forms. I do not say that race discrimination does not still exist. Of course it does. There is impatience amongst American Negroes because they do not feel that the pace of desegregation is fast enough. Nevertheless, hon. members and particularly the Minister cannot use as an analogy the fact that there is race rioting in the U.S.A. and say that therefore the U.S.A has no right whatever to criticize South Africa. The sooner we realize that the Afro-Asian countries do not vote en bloc, and that they do not always vote together with the communists, and sooner we realize that South Africa’s racial policy is disapproved of not only by the Afro-Asians and the communists but by the Western countries also, we will get a little reality in this country. [Time limit.]

On the strength of one brief visit to the United States, the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) is now posing as an expert on the United Nations. She also appeared this evening as a defender of the Afro-Asian bloc.

On a point of order, may an hon. member call me a communist?

I said she was almost a communist.

Order! The hon. member for Langlaagte must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

She is obviously in a difficulty about Alabama, which one can also understand, having regard to her views. [Interjection.]

On a point of order, the. hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling), as the result of the remark made by the hon. member for Langlaagte, says that it is almost the truth.

No, I did not say that.

The hon. the Minister may continue.

Her point was that the Afro-Asian group does not dominate the United Nations. I am prepared to concede that in certain matters they differ from one another, but in regard to certain matters, and particularly on any question of colour or race, they stand together as one bloc. On certain issues they hold caucus meetings as one bloc, and not separate meetings of Asians and Africans. I know that for a fact. Let me quote a few examples. On the Suez question, the African Nations stood practically as one bloc, and also on the Algerian question, as well as on the Indonesian question. So the hon. member is quite off the track if she wants to suggest that they do not vote as a group. It is perfectly true, as she said, that the Latin-American states also form a bloc, hold caucus meeting, and generally vote as a group, particularly in regard to matters affecting South America. But to suggest that the Afro-Asians do not exercise an undue influence, particularly as regards South African affairs, is a complete misstatement of fact. They are to-day a bloc of 60 against the relatively small Western group.

If there were any further doubt, just look at the headlines in this evening’s Argus, spread over five volumes: “Afro-Asians the main snag, says Mr. Field”; “obstruction of Southern Rhodesia’s rights”; “Afro-Asians standing together as one bloc against Southern Rhodesia”. So it is no good the hon. member coming here with her championship of the Afro-Asians. She is a member of the Progressive Party—it is her outlook and her policy—but she must not try to give the impression that the African States do not stand together as a bloc at the United Nations in regard to a great many questions.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) challenged me. He said I made a statement to the effect that the Western countries insisted on “One man, one vote”. I said nothing of the sort! I said the Afro-Asians and particularly the African countries insisted on it, and in that connection I said that if the Leader of the Opposition were to go to the United Nations with his policy of race federation, they would oppose him as much as they opposed Sir Edgar Whitehead, then Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, when he was there last year. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) referred to a statement which was made by the hon. member for Turffontein previously in regard to assistance given by South Africa to the African states. Normally I would not have taken much notice of it, but unfortunately his statement has appeared in the Press. It goes out to the world that South Africa has been doing very little for the African countries. I have his statement here as it was taken down by Hansard. Therein he stated—

The he asked—

And then he proceeds to give the value of our assistance for the years, 1959, 1960 and 1961. Now, I do not know where the hon. member got his information from.

I got that information from you.

I want to point out to the hon. member that South Africa as the most highly developed country in Africa has always been ready to play an active and constructive part towards helping the African states. A number of experts from our Department of Agricultural Technical Services have assisted other African territories. I have here a list of the countries which we have helped. As regard participation in inter-African meetings, South Africa attended altogether 39 meetings during 1960-1. As regards technical assistance given to African countries, I have here a list of the countries which we have assisted. This list includes such countries as Kenya, the Ivory Coast, Uganda, Tanganyika, the Congo, Mali, Katanga, and others. It is a very formidable list. There are also other services which we have provided free of charge to C.C.T.A. bodies. The South African Government has also made technical officers and advisers available to other countries in Africa. These include Southern Rhodesia, Mozambique, the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Bechuanaland, Tanganyika and Swaziland. In total 26 officers were made available to assist altogether eight countries in Africa. There is also the assistance given by the supply of vaccines for animal diseases. During 1960-1 South Africa provided altogether 2,500,000 doses of vaccine to altogether 13 African countries.

So also as regards relief. In the case of the Madagascar disaster, we gave relief totalling R13,115. In the case of South Kasai, even after they had turned against us, we provided relief to the value of R12,692. To Katanga we sent relief totalling R18,000. I have here special letters from the French Embassy regarding the Madagascar disaster thanking us very warmly for the relief we provided in the case.

The hon. member alleged that we provided assistance only in small amounts. In the case of vaccines the total amount of assistance provided in certain cases to the value of R791,000. Vaccines were provided also for blue tongue, anthrax, chicken pox, etc., were provided to Basutoland, Bechuanaland, Swaziland, the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Mozambique, Uganda, Kenya, Tanganyika, the Congo and the Sudan. The cost involved was R204,928.

We also rendered diagnostic services in 637 cases to Basutoland, Bechuanaland, Swaziland, the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Mozambique, Kenya, the Congo and Nigeria. We provided technical advice in a great number of cases. I have here 10 to 12 foolscap pages detailing the technical advise which we have provided to different African countries.

I am giving the House the facts; I am not misleading the House, as the hon. member did on such an important matter. In many cases, however, we did not receive any thanks. There was the case of Tanganyika, for instance, where we were asked to provide certain assistance. Dr. Truter from South Africa had been designated by the International Geological Conference in Copenhagen to act as coordinator for the Southern Region, and Mr. Pallister of Tanganyika for the East Central Region. On 23 January 1962 Mr. Pallister of Tanganyika wrote to Dr. Truter about this matter, after it had been discussed with the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry in Dar-es-Salaam, stating—

That is the thanks we got! I need not continue further. I trust the hon. member will be more careful when he makes statements misleading the House as he has been doing.

It is not necessary for me to reply to the hon. members for Vanderbijlpark. Karas, Queenstown, Pretoria (Centre), Ventersdorp, and others, who spoke from this side of the House because they made statements with which I agree. I want to thank them for their contribution to the debate.

As it was raised this afternoon by the hon. member for Constantia, I will now deal with the matter of trade boycotts, and with UNO sanctions proposals. Sanctions and trade boycotts have been much in the foreground. Last year’s resolution which was adopted at the United Nations and to which the hon. member for Constantia referred, was adopted by a fairly large majority. But what really happened? This resolution first of all condemned South Africa’s racial policies in five or six paragraphs. Thereafter it set out the different sanctions to be applied. Much lobbying took place between the Western delegations, particularly those countries doing good export business with South Africa. They were quite willing to vote for the clauses condemning South Africa, but they did not wish to vote for the clauses recommending sanctions, because if they did so, they would have been morally obliged to apply them. So there was a lot of lobbying going on for separate votes on the different clauses, but as a result of the great increase in the strength of the Afro-Asians the Western nations could not secure a majority in the Assembly. The result was that they were obliged to vote against the resolution as a whole. But some of the delegations immediately went to the rostrum in accordance with the “explanation of vote” procedure, to explain why they had voted against the resolution. They said it was impracticable, and so on. As a matter of fact, they wanted to satisfy their people in their home countries that for certain reasons they were obliged to vote against the sanctions resolution.

If these Western delegations had voted for the separate sanctions paragraphs, what would it have meant? The hon. member for Constantia mentioned it here this afternoon, namely cutting off export and import trade— not only their exports to South Africa, but also their imports from South Africa. That was all provided for in the resolution. It would have meant stopping their shipping services; it would have meant stopping their air services. Can hon. members imagine the British Government voting for a resolution which would mean the Union Castle Line having to stop its service to South Africa and the B.O.A.C. stopping its air service to South Africa? The same applies to the Netherlands which has two or three shipping lines touching at South African ports, and also the K.L.M. service to South Africa.

The secretary of my Department has just sent me a note. Our annual contribution to the administrative costs of the C.C.T.A. was over £200,000, not rand. Where they are going to get their money from now that South Africa has been expelled, I do not know, because they will not get much from the other countries.

Certain countries have been staging unofficial boycotts of South African goods. This applies to the Scandinavian countries, particularly Norway and Sweden, that have been especially hostile to South Africa for some years. Recently the Swedish co-operative wholesale organizations decided that they would no longer stock South African goods. I have here a telegram which I have received from our Minister in Stockholm, reading as follows—

The Foreign Ministers of the Scandinavian countries met recently, and issued a very clever statement, which on the one hand condemned South Africa‘s racial policies, but saying at the same time, that it would not be much good embarking on a boycott campaign while other countries, such as United States of America and Great Britain, continued to trade with South Africa. In other words, if those countries would stop trading with South Africa, the Scandinavian countries would be prepared to do so as well.

The latest example of this boycott campaign against South Africa was Mr. Harold Wilson’s Trafalgar Square speech. One has to read this speech to realize what he actually did say in his attack on South Africa. It is almost unbelievable. This is a man who is the leader of the Opposition in Great Britain and who may be Great Britain’s next Prime Minister. I do not want to refer to political issues, but I can only say “God forbid” as far as South Africa’s relations with Great Britain are concerned.

No wonder there has been such a hostile reaction in British business and other circles against Mr. Wilsons’ statement. This includes Lord Home, the British Foreign Minister, Mr. Julian Amery, and others. A number of well-known business men have protested. They realize that if this policy were to be carried out, it would mean curtailment of exports, and that would result in considerable unemployment in certain British industries. It would also mean, that the people who would mainly suffer in this country would be the Bantu. Our Minister of Defence gave a timely warning after Mr. Wilson’s statement. He pointed out that if such a policy were to be implemented, it would mean that the Simonstown Agreement would be endangered. Under that agreement, Great Britain enjoys dockyard facilities in Simonstown at no cost to herself. She enjoys all these facilities free of charge. It would also mean that Britain might lose the use of this very valuable naval base—a base which is of the greatest strategical importance in any war between the East and the West. What happened at the time of the Suez crisis? Hon. members will recall how our ports were congested with shipping, and how dock workers had to work 24 hour shifts to keep the shipping moving. Great Britain has already lost certain naval bases elsewhere and it seems to me that she is in the process of losing others. In the circumstances, I should think that Britain could ill afford to lose the valuable and strategically important Simonstown naval base.

Mention has been made of the Addis Ababa Summit Conference. That conference adopted a programme of principles—a very amusing programme of principles! Amongst the principles are the following:

1. The sovereign equality of all African and Malagasy states,

2. non-interference in the internal affairs of states,

3. respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each state and for its inalienable right to independent existence,

4. peaceful settlement of disputes by negotiation, mediation, conciliation, or arbitration

5. unreserved condemnation of political assassination in all its forms as well as of subversive activities on the part of neighbouring states or any other states.

In all seriousness they adopted these principles which were sent out into the world. I do not know whether one has to take the Addis Ababa conference seriously. There were also the military threats. Ben Bella spoke about “dying a little”. I think it was the same Ben Bella who proposed a 1 per cent levy on all African States in order to build up a fund for the purchase of war materials. He also said that his country would raise 10,000 men in order to attack South Africa. The Prime Minister of Uganda, not to be outdone by Ben Bella, offered Uganda as a training ground for the troops that are to attack South Africa.

The African States are very fond of declaring their adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter. The Charter in paragraph 4 of article 2, to which they all subscribed says—

In all solemnity they protest their adherence to these principles and then they proceed to pass resolutions which are in direct conflict with the principles of the United Nations!

In their resolutions at Addis Ababa and also in the debates at the United Nations, there is a statement which we find again and again, namely that “world peace and security are being endangered” by the policies of South Africa. Hon. members will remember that when the Carpio and D’Alvez mission from the United Nations came to South Africa about 18 months ago, they frankly admitted in the joint communiqué that they could see no danger to world peace in the policies being followed in South West Africa. But, our enemies continue to use the argument that South Africa is endangering world peace. They do so, because it is only on that basis that the Security Council could take action against South Africa.

In connection with the threats at the Addis Ababa conference, one has to remember that the great majority of African States are underdeveloped and that most of them are living on “hand-outs” from the United States, France and the United Nations. A little while ago, there was an article in an American journal which referred to the African countries as “bum and beggar countries”. It was not very far from the truth. These are the people who are threatening South Africa!

It is clear that at the Addis Ababa conference, there were serious differences of opinion among the member countries. At one time there was the danger of the conference adjourning without having accomplished anything. Then they hit on the bright idea of consolidating their position by making common cause against South Africa. As Julius Nyerere of Tanganyika said, the South African situation was “the common denominator” at the conference. That was perfectly true. It was only by joining forces in regard to the South African situation that they were able to reach agreement.

Nationalist Party policies or South Africa’s policies?

The African countries suggested setting aside part of their national income for financing the use of force against South Africa. South Africa in the past has contributed to the funds of the United Nations which are used to assist under-developed countries. However, I would say—here I am speaking for myself, as this is a matter for the Minister of Finance and the Cabinet—that I shall certainly be most reluctant to support the grant of any more money for these under-developed countries if one per cent is to be devoted to the building up of military forces to be used against South Africa.

While I have said that we must not overrate the importance and significance of the Addis Ababa conference, it would also be a mistake to underrate it. The newly independent African countries are in such a state of ecstasy, that anything might happen. That is why I personally am very glad to see that the Minister of Defence is taking timely action.

There is also another aspect of the boycott. I do not know whether Mr. Wilson will become the next Prime Minister of Great Britain, but I have reason to believe that the protests against his Trafalgar Square speech, are not confined to Conservative Party statesmen and to businessmen, and that in the Labour Party itself there are people who are more sensible, who are more practical, and who realize the dangers inherent in Mr. Wilson’s speech. It will be recalled that Great Britain has a very favourable trade balance with South Africa. In 1962 her exports to South Africa increased by over £10,000,000. This is a very valuable export trade which Great Britain has with us and they are not going to sacrifice that trade. Britain has extensive investment interests in our country. Furthermore, Great Britain buys South Africa’s gold. If South Africa did not sell her gold on the London market, it would be a very serious blow to Great Britain and to the sterling area.

Those in authority seem to realize that. I want to say that if certain countries wish to indulge in boycotts, the South African Government will not advise nor do anything in the way of arranging counter boycotts. However, Mr. Harold Wilson must realize that Great Britain is not the only country which exports goods to South Africa. The goods which she sells to South Africa can also be bought from France, Germany, Italy, and Japan. Those countries are, in fact, anxious to export to South Africa. This applies also to other countries. The South African Government is not in favour of counter boycotts, but I would point out that there is a growing resentment amongst the buying public of South Africa against threats of boycotts and also the application of boycotts, particularly in the Scandinavian countries. The public of South Africa will refuse to buy the goods of such countries. I can see it in my own home. When my wife buys sardines, she wants to know whether they come from Norway. She buys Portuguese sardines. As far as I am concerned, I would not have a Volvo motor car, if it was given to me as a present, in view of the violent campaign being conducted against South Africa by Sweden. It is no use businessmen from those countries saying that they do not support the boycotts and it is no use their having stands at the Rand Easter Show where they advertise their goods, while their Governments and trade unions attack South Africa. The public of South Africa are beginning to resent these criticisms.

I wish to refer briefly to the C.B.S. television show which has been in the news. I wish to mention something which is not known. When our Consul in New York was approached for a visa, the application was referred to my Department. Having had some experience of the C.B.S. in the past—we were once obliged to deport one of their men—we were careful. However, a letter was received from Mr. Friendly on behalf of the C.B.S., in which he said—

This letter was written by the executive producer of the C.B.S. I say that it was a deliberate deceit, a deliberate lie. Hon. members have seen that television programme, and they will realize that he deliberately deceived our passport officer in New York. In fact, when he wrote that letter, he was a deliberate liar. Hon. members who have seen the picture, will be able to judge for themselves to what extent it gave a fair picture of South Africa.

One of the sponsors of this programme was a well-known pharmaceutical company whose products are being extensively sold, and have been sold for a long time in this country. The company in question said that they did not know what was in the picture. I am prepared to accept that they did not know what was going to be in the programme, but as soon as it was produced, then they knew what was in the programme. Despite that, they still continued to act as sponsors of this television programme, also when it was shown in London and in Holland. They had the right to stop the showing of the picture at that stage but they did not do so. They can hardly blame the people of this country if they refuse to buy their products.

The same applies to other concerns that do business in South Africa. I am thinking of Mr. Mennen Williams. Hardly a week goes by that he does not make violent attacks on South Africa, but his shaving soap and his Aqua Velva are being sold all over the country. I think that business people who attack South Africa should realize that our public is becoming tired of this sort of thing. The Government is not in favour of counter boycotts but the buying public are beginning to resent it.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Revenue Account No. 44.—“Coloured Affairs”, R17,660,000,

The Vote which is now before us is in respect of the Coloured people. Due to the existence of the Rules of the House I shall only have time to deal briefly with the few points I wish to raise. I shall do my best to put my points to the Minister as briefly and as concisely as I possibly can.

The first point I wish to put to the hon. the Minister is to ask him what his policy is in connection with the Natal Coloured people. He has now had an opportunity of getting the reins of his Department well in hand, as far as this matter is concerned. What has he in mind for these people; where do they fit into the picture? He is now the custodian of the welfare of the Coloured people and I am sure he will not object to that terminology. Take the question of their education for instance. Not only we on this side of the House but he as the Minister and the Government are concerned with the education of the Coloured people. I am sure there is not a single hon. member in this House who will deny that that is our responsibility. There are three items in this Vote that have been reduced since last year. One is in respect of Item J, Care of the Aged and Infirm. It may well be that this is only a bookkeeping entry and that money has been set aside under a sub-head of some other Vote. This means that there is a definite dimunition in the amount available to the Minister for this purpose.

As far as Item N is concerned, School of Industries and Reform Schools, I note that there is a dimunition of R4,600 and in the case of Item P, Financial Assistance to State-aided Vocational and Special Schools there is a decrease of R9,800. When you look at Item Q, you notice that ah amount of R18,800 is made available for technical high schools. As against these amounts which are made available for education, Sir, you will note that an amount of R8,365,700 is spent on war veterans, blind persons and old age pensions and disability grants. Let me make it clear that I am not decrying this. I am merely pointing out the great discrepancy in these amounts. I am sure the fact that only R18,800 is available for technical higher education is the reason why we have a shortage of technically-trained men in this country. As far as university education is concerned I am pleased to see that there is an increase of nearly R124,000 to R500,000.

I now want to deal for a moment with the Coloured people of my own province. If ever those people were to have a motto of their own it would be that they were the forgotten people. This group always seems to fail to occupy any position in our minds when it comes to dealing with the Coloured people of this country. It is wrong to regard those people as part of our Cape Coloured people and I hope the Minister will do the right thing by those people who are, after all, our close relations, if I may put it that way.

Lastly I come to the question of the land of the Dunn family in Natal. This is a question which I have raised on numerous occasions. The land belonging to the Dunn family is no longer in a scheduled area and those people are now entitled to their title deeds.

I do not want to reply to what the hon. member for Natal South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) said. He put certain specific questions to the hon. the Minister and I am sure that the hon. the Minister will reply to him himself. I want to start by referring to the officials of the Department of Coloured Affairs who have up to the present been led by Dr. I. D. du Plessis. I am pleased to learn that Dr. I. D. du Plessis’ services will still be available to the Department after his retirement. I also want to make use of this opportunity to pay tribute to the work that he has done for the Coloureds and to help to build up this Department. I think that the fact that in recent times there has been a growing feeling of goodwill between the Whites and the Coloureds in the country is due to his efforts. I want to thank him for this this evening. This is one of the things for which he will always take the credit—the work that he has done during his period of service as Secretary of that Department. We hope that he will still be able to render great services to this Department although in a different capacity.

I want to start by enlarging on this idea of the increasing goodwill that has arisen over the past years between the Whites and the Coloureds in this country. Mr. Chairman, nobody in this House will deny this evening that there has been a noticeable change in this respect over the past years. We are all glad of it. The relationship between Coloureds and Whites in this country, particularly the Whites supporting the National Party, was at its lowest ebb in 1948 when this National Party Government took over. There was one important reason for this, a disruptive factor which kept these people apart, and it was a political factor, as the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) has admitted here. Since the Coloureds have been given their representatives in this House there has been a change in the relationships and the feelings between the Coloureds and Whites. I can state here this evening that there has been a tremendous change of heart on the part of Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners towards the Coloureds. I also want to say here that the Coloureds have never been as well represented in this House as they have been since the time they were given separate representation through these four members. Mr. Chairman, in order to indicate the change that has taken place over the past years I want to remind you of the antipathy that existed in regard to the Coloured Advisory Council which was originally set up. The vast majority of Coloureds wanted nothing to do with the Department or the Coloured Advisory Council and the Coloureds’ Representatives in this Parliament did not want to recognize the Department either; they did not want to co-operate; they criticized the Department and many of them did not have a good word for it. What is the position to-day? Because of the good work done by this Department under the guidance of Dr. I. D. du Plessis, not only has there been a change in the attitude of the Coloureds towards the Department and the Coloured Advisory Council, not only has there been a swing around on the part of Coloured leaders who previously attacked the Department, those leaders who wanted nothing to do with the Department and who to-day are co-operating with the Department, but there has also been a change in the views of the Coloureds’ Representatives in this House. They have changed their tune to-day and I laud that fact. It is to the advantage of the Coloureds that these people have changed their minds and that they are prepared to-day, notwithstanding the views they hold, to co-operate to a large extent with the Department and with the Coloured Advisory Council. I say that we are all very grateful for these good feelings. What struck me this evening was the manner in which this debate was introduced by the hon. member for South Coast. No false notes were sounded.

I also want to say that good relations have been brought about through the positive approach of this hon. Minister and his Department to this matter. It was said at the start by people who were hostile towards the Department that the hon. the Minister was introducing negative legislation; that he was dealing with petty apartheid. And what did the hon. the Minister do? He simply continued to do the one positive thing after the other in the interests of the Coloureds. So much has never been done for the Coloureds in the sphere of socio-economic upliftment as has been done by this Minister and the Department. The Coloureds’ Representatives admit that. The Coloured leaders outside this House admit it, and they are grateful. These people hold different views to-day.

There has also been a great change of heart on the part of the Coloureds in the rural areas as the result of the changed circumstances prevailing in the rural areas. I wonder what would have become of the Coloured rural areas if it had not been for this hon. Minister and this Department? The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux) will certainly not be doing the right thing if he and his colleagues do not continue to thank the Department and the Government for what they have done for the rural Coloureds. [Time limit.]

I know, Sir, that according to hon. members opposite, in order to know anything about the Coloured people, you have to live within ten miles of the Peninsula! But it is not really relevant to the case which I want to put to the hon. the Minister, as far as the Coloured people are concerned, whether you live in the Cape Peninsula or 1,000 miles away. The question of the position of the Coloured people in South Africa, and more particularly the question of their relationship with the White people of this country, is a nation-wide problem, and not just a local matter for the Boland or the Western Province. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with that, even if some hon. members do not.

I think this is an appropriate time, now that we are discussing this Vote, and when we have just disposed of the Foreign Affairs Vote in which we heard the Minister’s doleful story of how South Africa had absolutely no friends, to turn our minds to the Coloured people of this country. It makes one think, Sir, at this time, of how valuable the friendship of the Coloured people can be to the White people —and vice versa, of course. I am inclined to agree with the statement made by the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) when he said that the hon. the Minister had been very active in the field of establishing good relationships between the Coloureds and Whites. I will concede that immediately.

The question still remains: what is the direction of the Minister’s policy? One of the pointers which emerges very clearly is the position of the Coloured people in our economy. There is still an enormous discrepancy of earnings, skill for skill, between the Whites and the Coloureds, not only here in the Cape Peninsula, but throughout South Africa. This is felt and known by the Coloured people. The fact that they are aware of this is obvious from the sort of article which you see in the only newspaper which serves the Coloured people, namely, the Banier. I think the hon. the Minister will concede that this is not an anti-Government propaganda journal. He knows that better than I do. Here, for instance, is an article which appeared in two sections in two different issues this year, about the economic position of the Coloured population. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister has read this. If not, it will be rewarding for him and his Department to read it. Now that I mention his Department, may I at this stage identify myself with the tribute paid by the hon. member for Parow to the former secretary of the Department and to express the appreciation of this side of the House for his outstanding work. The economic position of the Coloureds people is obviously a matter which concerns them very greatly, because when you look at the Banier you can see from the amount of space they devote to this particular matter, in regard to the plea which they make for a better approach by the Government towards this problem, that it is something which concerns them greatly.

We have recently heard something about the effect of job reservation, and this is the concern of the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs. It is surely in the interest of the Minister to see that the Coloured population is protected in every possible way, because in the framework of Government policy, he is presumably regarded as the champion, if he is not in fact the champion, of these people. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister what his attitude is? I do not want to anticipate and give him my opinion of what his attitude and that of his Department ought to be. What is his attitude towards the Coloured people in so far as the effect of job reservation is concerned? Furthermore, Sir, I want to ask him a second question to which I think he should give a very full answer: What is the attitude of the hon. the Minister of Coloureds Affairs and of the experienced officials of his Department towards the removal of the Bantu from the Western Province, on the basis as we have been told by other hon. Ministers, that this is being done to protect the Coloured worker? Does the hon. the Minister agree or not that, in effect, the removal of the Bantu who do a certain type of work and who receive a certain level of remuneration, is designed purely to achieve the purpose of bringing Coloured people into those jobs, and that we do not know on what terms of employment or at what remuneration?

What an argument!

The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) will have an opportunity of refuting this argument: but I am asking the question! I hope the Minister will answer it; failing him, I would appreciate an answer from the hon. member for Somerset East. This is a serious matter—to argue that 75,000 workers who live at a certain subsistence level of which they complain, should be sent away from the place where they work because there is a certain number of Coloured people, according to the argument of the Nationalist Party (not of this side of the House), who are there to take those jobs. Nobody has suggested so far that in this removal of Bantu and their replacement by Coloured labour, the Coloured people are going to be paid more than the Bantu people for the work they are doing to-day. The hon. member for Somerset East will remember that his own colleagues have said that this is the sort of thing that should be done in order to obtain labour at economic levels of remuneration. This is a very important aspect. I do not hold a special brief for the Coloured people of the Cape Peninsula.

I can see that you hold no brief for them.

No, I do not hold a brief for them; nor do you, because you have not been elected by them either. I say the relationship between Whites and Coloureds, especially in the present circumstances surrounding South Africa in the first place, and the White group in the second place find themselves, is of paramount importance—and the surest way of securing what is called “goeie gesindheid”, which some people say does not exist—I do not say that; but some people say it does not exist—is to ensure, in the first place, the moral and physical well-being of these people who are the closest neighbours of the White community in South Africa.

Having asked these questions—and I do not know whether I shall have an opportunity of coming back into this debate—I want to ask the hon. the Minister not to give me—what the Americans call the “brush-off”. If he will not give me a reasoned and concise answer, I hope he will give it to this House, to the country and more especially, Sir, to the Coloured people of South Africa.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Gorshel) was quite right when he said: “I hold no brief for the Coloured people.” That is the only statement he made in his speech which is quite correct. The hon. member launched an attack to-night on the economic condition of the Coloureds. He argued that this Government is doing nothing in regard to the economic position of the Coloureds. Then he comes along and asks the hon. the Minister what the Minister’s attitude is towards job reservation, and he says the Minister must please see to it that there is employment for the Coloureds. When we were dealing with the Labour Vote, we heard that the attitude of his party was that there should not be job reservation; nor should there be job reservation where the Bantu is ousting the Coloureds from their employment. He and his party are compromised there. It makes no difference to him and his party whether the Bantu occupies the whole of the western Cape where the Coloureds have their natural home and where they have to make their living. The Coloureds can disappear from any industry, whether it be from the hotel industry or from petrol stations; it does not matter to the United Party. Although the standard of living of the Bantu is lower and his labour accordingly is cheaper than that of the Coloured person, it nonetheless does not matter in the least to the hon. member. They say there should not be job reservation and then the hon. member comes along and poses here as the person who is terribly concerned about the economic condition of the Coloureds.

Then he asks what the Minister’s attitude is regarding the removal of the Bantu from the western Cape and whether the Coloureds will then be compelled to sell their labour cheaper if the Bantu is removed. I then said to him: “What an argument,” and I now wish to repeat the question.

I shall say that again.

The hon. member may repeat that speech of his a hundred times. What he said amounts to this, that if the Bantu is removed from the western Cape, the Coloureds will have to do the work which is now done by the Bantu, and at a lower wage, the wage the Bantu is receiving at present. I cannot understand his argument. In fact, he himself knows it is absurd.

What he and his party advocates is free influx of the Bantu, so that there may be superfluous labour for industry and the employer to draw upon. They want to create labour reservoirs. That is the capitalistic approach: superfluous labour. Then there will be competition on the labour market, so that the employer will not require to pay the employee what is really a fair wage, according to the hon. member; no, in order to compete, he must be able to obtain the labour at the cheapest price. That is what nauseates me about their policy. Whether it refers to the White man or the Coloured man or the Bantu, it nauseates one. The capitalistic avarice shown by that side nauseates one. It avails the hon. member for Hospital nothing to laugh. The party of which that hon. member is a member think they gain the support of the Coloured by giving them the vote, by placing them on the Common Voters’ Roll, and by giving them direct representation in this House…

Who said that?

Does the hon. member not know what his own party’s policy is? Those are the things whereby they hope to catch the Coloureds. No, Mr. Chairman, as far as the National Party is concerned, we reject that. We are going to see to it that there is a livelihood for the Coloureds. We realize fully that the natural home of the Coloured is in the main in the western Cape. Here he has to make his living alongside the White man. Here he has the right to sell his labour. But it is not what he or his party wants. Nor is it only the Minister, or my party or his party, which must see to it that the Coloured man gets his due, but it is the responsibility of the whole White community. I want him and his party to say whether they wish to do their share in that regard. The hon. member is quite correct when he says: “I hold no brief for the Coloured people.” I wish to conclude. The Coloureds have a right to existence, the Coloureds have a right to share with the White man his way of life. For that reason they are making use of the educational facilities provided for them by this party. For that reason they are making use of the housing facilities created by this party for them in their separate residential areas, not on a basis of equality that will only cause racial friction, but on a basis of good neighbourliness, whereby he can also live his life to the full. We have already discussed this party’s policy under other Votes, in regard to job reservation and in regard to separate housing. [Time limit.]

Order! I should like to point out to hon. members that yesterday we had a full discussion of job reservation and I feel I cannot permit a whole debate to be conducted on that matter under the Coloured Affairs Vote. Hon. members must discuss Coloured matters.

Before I deal with a number of points I wish to raise under the hon. Minister’s policy, I wish to associate myself with the tribute paid by the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) to the former Secretary for Coloured Affairs, Dr. 1. D. du Plessis. He was associated with Coloured Affairs and with the Coloured people for very many years and perhaps he will be best remembered for his great interest in, among many other aspects, of Coloured life, in the Malay Choir. I believe we can also say that it is due to his interest in the Malay Quarter that the Malay Quarter has been preserved as a national monument in Cape Town. I think my vocabulary is insufficient to pay adequate tribute to the excellent work done by Dr. du Plessis. At the same time we want to welcome his successor, Mr. Bosman, and I sincerely hope that he will have as successful and fruitful a term of office as Dr. du Plessis.

Having said that, I want to say to the hon. member for Parow that he must not continue repeating his constant phrase about the trouble that existed between the Coloureds and the Europeans in South Africa during the régime of the United Party. I think that in the interest of the Coloured people, the hon. member for Parow should stop this nonsense because nobody sought the Coloured vote more than the Nationalist Party I know; I fought in elections and I saw how the Nationalist Party candidate was trying to woo the Coloured people for him, and I remember how they put their arms practically around the neck of the Coloured people saying “Stem vir ons, en ons sal baie vir julle doen”. Hon. members opposite went all out to get the Coloured vote against the United Party in those days, but despite all that, even to-day the Coloured people do not want to vote for the Nationalists. After all, we have had several elections since 1958 when the Coloured representatives were first elected to Parliament, when the three of us were opposed by Nationalists. The Nationalist candidates lost their deposits.

What did it cost you?

You should not ask me what it cost us. It was illegal at that time. In 1961, a Nationalist stood against the hon. member for Karoo and the poor chap also lost his deposit. I do not want to say too much about that candidate because he has since then departed to another sphere. I want to thank the hon. member for Parow for the kind words he has said about the Coloured Representatives. I think it is the first time that he realizes—and I am speaking quite seriously now—that we on these benches do endeavour, to the best of our ability, to further the interests of the Coloured people. We do not always agree with the Government. Sometimes we do, but I want to tell the hon. member that the most important thing is not what you do for people but what you do to people. That is the most important thing. You can give the Coloured people everything, but if you deprive them of their political rights and other rights and if you bring in laws which affect the very existence of the Coloured people, then I say they will not thank you for what you are doing for them, but they will curse you for what you do to them. I do not intend to pursue that subject at all. I would prefer to address myself to the hon. Minister who, I believe, with all the faults I have found with him, is sincerely anxious to help the Coloured people within the framework of Nationalist Party policy. And here I want to say that the Department of Coloured Affairs has grown and that the hon. Minister has the benefit of the assistance of many excellent men in his Department, and there is no reason why if the hon. Minister wants to take heed of our advice, he should not be able to make a success of his Department. But the hon. Minister must not believe that he can do everything without the good advice on this side of the House. If he takes our advice sometimes, he may be able to do something.

Those were just my introductory remarks. I now want to deal with the hon. Minister’s policy in regard to the future political rights of the Coloured people. The hon. Minister made a speech at Paarl which was reported in the Argus on 13 May and the headlines read “Legislation this year in regard to the political rights of the Coloured people”. The Minister said that it was the intention of the Government to introduce legislation next year to put the political rights of the Coloured people on a sound footing. I am just now going to read a portion of the article, but it is very clear from this report that we are going to have a Coloured Transkei. I thereby mean that we are going to have a Coloured Bantustan, a Colouredstan. That is clear from this report. It says that it is the intention to introduce legislation that will serve as a counter to the demands of the Coloured people to be put on the Common Roll. [Time limit.]

In order to assist discussion, I think I should first refer to a few matters which were raised by hon. members, so that other hon. members who perhaps wish to raise other aspects can do so without there being any confusion with the points already raised.

On a previous occasion I already expressed my thanks towards the ex-Secretary of the Department and I do not think it is necessary to do so again. I also conveyed my congratulations to the new Secretary in whom we all have the fullest confidence and from whom we expect great things.

The hon. member for Boland began by referring to my Paarl speech. Let me tell him that I never referred to a Colouredstan at Paarl.

I say so.

The hon. member may read it into the speech if he wants to, but what I did at Paarl was to give a summing up of the policy stated by the hon. the Prime Minister in his speech to the Union Coloured Advisory Council, and further, a summary of my two statements of policy which I had already made in this House on former occasions.

Do you mind if I deal with it?

Of course the hon. member can deal with it, but I hope that when he participates in the debate again he will not, due to a lack of sound arguments, say anything which can only harm the good relations which we all admit are beginning to be established. Let us stick to the facts. Then I have no objection to the hon. member making his contribution. There is no idea at all of a Colouredstan, there never has been such an idea, and the Government does not envisage it at all.

Will it not arise automatically in terms of the policy of apartheid?

The hon. member should rather try to reconcile the conflict between the standpoint he adopts here and the standpoint he adopts as chairman of a bank.

Then I want to come to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) and say something about the Dunn lands. The hon. member for South Coast knows that I am just as keen as he is to reach finality in regard to the Dunn lands. But the hon. member also knows that the compensatory land offered to the Bantu was not accepted by them, and he further knows that if under the present circumstances one has to take action there, one will perhaps have to remove those people by force.

Yes, remove them.

I am glad the hon. member says that. I shall convey it to my colleague the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and tell him that the leader of the United Party in Natal feels just as I do, that they should be removed.

You cannot help it if they break the law with impunity.

The hon. member therefore wants us to proceed with the removal of those people. I can give the hon. member the assurance that the moment we can do so, I will make use of the legislation we now have in order to take action. But I shall convey the hon. member’s words to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration. I already have all the powers to act in terms of the relevant legislation.

Then the hon. member referred to Item J and he referred to the reduction in the amount for the care of the aged and the infirm. The position is that we have two homes for the aged to-day, one at Kraaifontein and the other at Faure. The amount was reduced because certain buildings, recreation halls, etc. have been completed. The reduction in the amount does not mean a reduction in the services rendered, but is due merely to the fact that the work there has been completed. That also applies to Item N in respect of industrial schools and reformatories. Furniture and other supplies had to be purchased, and now there is a reduction because those things had to be bought. In regard to reformatories, I want to tell the hon. member further, that my Department no longer concentrates mainly on the establishment and expansion of large reformatories, because we do not think that is the right thing. We have reformatories at Porter and Faure, but we feel that with the transfer of education we can plan the education in such a way that emphasis need no longer be laid on reformatories, but that it should rather be laid on industrial schools and on the differentiation we want to introduce in this education, so that in this way provision will be made for one not having to take action only at a later stage in connection with a child when the only solution is the reformatory.

Then the hon. member also referred to Item Q, “Departmental Higher Technical Schools”, and more particularly to the Technical College in Cape Town and the technical high school. We are already building the Technical College at Athlone. It is being established. The Technical College does in fact exist in certain buildings temporarily in Cape Town, and to the extent that this Technical College expands we will make more funds available, so that this should not be regarded as the total amount envisaged by us. It is only the initial process.

Then the hon. member for South Coast asked me how I view the future of the Coloureds. I am afraid that in the short time available to one in a debate like this it is not possible to give a detailed exposition of what we envisage. But let me just tell the hon. member now that I think that I, more than anyone else, have on previous occasions tried to paint a picture of what we envisage in respect of Coloured affairs. Let me say immediately that to philosophize in regard to the distant future of the Coloureds is not of much use. I am unable to do so, because I cannot see further than is humanly possible, and this Government is called upon to take action in respect of the period for which it is elected. Therefore if the hon. member looks at the Vote and what it covers, he will find that we are tackling in a practical way the problems facing us, and we are trying to so so within the framework of Government policy, to which I lend my full support. Let me just tell the hon. member this briefly: When we talk about the Coloureds and their lives, we are dealing with numerous facets, and whether one does so from the angle of the United Party standpoint, which is in favour of gradual integration with the Coloureds in all spheres, or whether one views it from the angle of separate development for the Coloureds, as is advocated by the Government, it still remains a fact that we are all bound to ensure that there is a programme of development for them, because the Coloureds were neglected in the past. In the past too much emphasis was laid on the political rights of the Coloureds, but no emphasis was laid on building up his self-respect and his realization of his own worth and his will to help himself. Not enough emphasis was laid on those aspects, and that is what we are trying to do in this programme, and that is our approach. I do not believe in providing services for the Coloureds unless they play their part as well.

I do not believe in keeping them going by various means and making them feel that they are weaklings who have to be spoon-fed. I believe that they themselves should use the means we offer them to develop their own community, and they must also achieve something on their own. I want to illustrate it in this way: In the rural areas, the reserved rural areas, the form of assistance we give them, except of course in times of serious drought or famine, is such that it is technical assistance, financial assistance, betterment works for which they can take loans which have to be repaid, and in terms of our system we make it very easy for them to repay those loans gradually. But they must be made to feel that it is they themselves who are doing these things, and that what is being built up there is being done with their labour and their co-operation. In other words, we are in the first place satisfying the land hunger of the Coloured on our settlements and in our rural areas to as great an extent as is financially possible and within the carrying capacity of the country. Let me say immediately that the improvements effected in recent years in the rural areas are not only encouraging, but that they are also appreciated by those people. Great progress has been made in the rural areas as the result of the steps we took. By means of soil conservation, water conservation, fencing, the planting of trees, the improvement of stock, etc., great improvements have been made. By that means we are trying gradually to satisfy the land hunger of the Coloureds. It is no use making available large tracts of extra land as long as the land which has already been reserved for them is not developed to such an extent that it has a fairly high production capacity. That is what we are doing in the first place.

Then we have the urban Coloureds. The hon. member asks me how I see that development. The urban Coloureds, whether they are in the professions or whether they are ordinary labourers, in my opinion have the basic need, in the first place, to be settled in communities, because the difficulty in the past in all the years of South Africa’s history has been that they have been scattered over all our towns and cities, and in many cases they have lived in slums. That applies not only to the Coloureds of the Western Province, but also to those in Natal and the Transvaal.

One community for all of them?

I am pointing out that in the past they were scattered over all our towns and in the cities, where they lived in slums. Therefore in regard to the urban Coloured, our first task is to settle them in communities, whether in rural towns or in urban areas, but we must first settle them together in communities and give them a communal life. One cannot deal with people who are spread all over and live in slums. Then they constitute a nuisance to the people living nearby and become a danger to themselves. I think if there is one achievement of which this Government can rightly be proud, it is that in recent years we have succeeded in a fantastic way in settling both the economic and the sub-economic groups in communities in our towns and cities. My primary object is first to settle them in communities, and when that has been done we can create new outlets for them in the towns and in the urban areas and in the rural areas. Hitherto they have practically been able to make a living just as ordinary labourers or as teachers, but when once they have been settled in these rural and urban communities one can give the Coloureds the opportunity to develop in commerce and in the professions in those communities. Therefore we have an instrument like the Development Corporation, which has been in existence for just a little more than a year and which has done good work in helping to create those opportunities.

In the third place, one has the rural Coloureds who are no longer in their own rural area but who are dispersed over the platteland as farm labourers. I am one of those who believes that the Coloureds have made a great contribution towards developing the Western Province, particularly in the agricultural sphere. We do not deny that contribution; we appreciate it, and because we appreciate it we realize that they have the right in future to play their role in that industry, and perhaps under better circumstances than was the case in the past. I think our farmers also realize it. That is why many of the farmers of to-day on their own initiative provide better housing for their labourers. But we go further and say that in the western Cape, particularly in the more densely populated agricultural areas, we should try, where there is intensive farming, also to establish housing schemes for farm labourers. Now we fortunately have in the Cape the system of divisional councils, by means of which it is possible, by way of granting loans to the divisional councils, to settle such rural communities which can work in agriculture. At the same time one can assist the intensive agricultural areas in regard to housing, one can provide schools and halls for the communities. And let me tell the hon. member that since this scheme was announced a little while ago various divisional councils have already been negotiating with us in this regard. That is in so far as the socio-economic life of the Coloured is concerned. We have other means except education and the university college, which was a great success and which to-day has approximately 300 students, and the technical college and the technical high school and the industrial schools, because we are trying to do everything in our power to lead this community along the road of self-help, and to develop its highest production potential.

As far as the political rights of the Coloureds are concerned, we know that they have their representatives here and it is not planned to bring about any changes in this system. I recently observed in a newspaper that it is now being alleged that next year I will bring forward amending legislation in this regard. That is utter nonsense. The Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that it will remain as it is. But What we do indeed say is that the present Coloured Advisory Council will not be able to remain just an advisory council. We must also give this body a measure of responsibility, and therefore we propose reorganizing this council so as to make it, in the first place, more representative of the Coloureds, and so that, in the second place, it will be in a position to take over certain administrative or other functions from time to time and assume a sense of responsibility towards its own community in the rural and in the urban areas. In that way the Coloureds can be helped to assume a greater sense of responsibility towards their own people. That includes the local authorities that we intend establishing for them. And with that I will conclude. I had to put up a big fight last year when I introduced legislation whereby it became possible for the Coloureds to have their own local authorities, and I was accused of wanting to take away the powers of the provinces. Afterwards the provinces came to me and said: Give us an opportunity to implement the provisions of that legislation. I replied: “Good. If you want to do that, I am prepared to give you the chance.” The Transvaal, the Free State and the Cape Province have passed their ordinances and are busy implementing them. We hope within the near future gradually to begin establishing those local authorities in towns and urban areas and which will eventually be able to link up with this council. But I regret to say that Natal has not done anything yet. I want to ask the hon. member for South Coast, in view of the fact that I am now willing to assist him in regard to the Dunn lands, to assist me in regard to Natal. Natal does not want to do anything. I also met them, together with the other Administrators, and I hope that the hon. member will reprimand these people. I think they should at least draft an ordinance and discuss it with us. I hope the hon. member will keep them warm about it, and if nice words do not help, go for them, just as he wants us to do in regard to the Bantu on the Dunn lands. In that way we will perhaps next year be able to announce a scheme and reveal an even better spirit in regard to handling these matters than has already been revealed.

My time is very restricted, The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) asked me to adopt a standpoint in regard to the question of the western Cape. The position in the western Cape in regard to the Natives has been discussed here on a previous occasion and I do not intend repeating it, except in the sense that we have a Cabinet Committee, of which I am a member, where the closest co-operation can be achieved between my colleague the Minister of Bantu Administration and myself to co-ordinate this process which has to take place in the western Cape, and to let it take place wisely, but it has to be done.

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