With the leave of the House I should like to make the following statement about the I.L.O.

It has become necessary for the Government to make a clear statement on its attitude towards the action taken by the International Labour Conference at present in session in Geneva in disqualifying the representative of South Africa’s workers from membership.

The International Labour Organization is unique amongst international bodies in that its annual conference is constituted on a tripartite basis, that is to say each national delegation consists of two Government representatives and one representative each of the employers and of the workers in the country concerned. Article 3 (5) of the Constitution of the I.L.O. requires, inter alia, that the workers’ delegate should be chosen “in agreement with the industrial organizations which are most representative of workpeople”.

As in previous years, the workers’ delegate to this year’s Conference was chosen in agreement with the two principal trade union organizations in South Africa, viz. the South African Confederation of Labour and the Trade Union Council of South Africa, representing between them approximately 325,000 workers, and, therefore, “most representative of workpeople”.

There is no other trade union federation in South Africa, but there is in existence a body which calls itself the South African Congress of Trade Unions. This body consists of a number of small organizations with a claimed membership of some 40,000. In spite of its claim to be a workers’ organization, it is in fact a political body, which has affiliations with the communist-dominated World Federation of Trade Unions. In recent years this Congress has frequently lodged an objection to the credentials of the South African workers’ delegate to the International Labour Conference, on the grounds that it (the Congress) was not consulted. The objection has always been unanimously rejected by the Credentials Committee of the Conference.

This year, the South African Congress of Trade Unions again lodged an objection to the credentials of the workers’ delegate, and the Credentials Committee of the Conference, which consists of one Government, one employers’ and one workers’ delegate, rejected the objection by a majority decision. The Constitution provides, however, that any decision of the Credentials Committee which is not unanimous should be placed before the Conference in plenary session. On 21 June the Conference rejected the majority decision of the Credentials Committee and invalidated the credentials of the workers’ delegate, Mr. J. H. Liebenberg. This decision was taken despite the fact that there has been no change this year in the method of choosing the workers’ delegate—a method which is in strict compliance with the requirements of Article 3 (5).

The fact that this decision was taken on the representations of a small minority organization in South Africa is indicative of the spirit prevailing at the Conference. The Afro-Asian states, with the aid of the Soviet bloc, are transforming the I.L.O. from an essentially non-political organization devoted to the interests of the workers to a platform from which ideological political disputes are conducted without regard to the primary purpose of the Organization.

Earlier in the proceedings an unsuccessful attempt was made, in an unprecedented demonstration, to prevent the South African employers’ delegate from addressing the Conference.

This latest decision of the Conference deprived South African workers of their representation at the Conference. In view of the fact that the principal objective of the International Labour Organization is to improve the standard of living of the workers, the whole purpose of sending a delegation to the Conference is defeated if the workers are not represented. The I.L.O. was created basically for the benefit of workers and to give them a platform to discuss their affairs and air their grievances. How can this be done on behalf of any country if it is made impossible for its workers’ representative to participate or he is forced out? In other words, the centre fabric and inner core of the whole pattern of the Organization is destroyed by such action.

The Government was, therefore, compelled to consider whether the remaining representatives should continue to attend the Conference with the essential workers’ representative absent. It decided that they should continue to attend in order to confirm South Africa’s constitutional right to be represented at the Conference, and also because the Government will not allow itself to be forced to recognize the South African Congress of Trade Unions for future appointments. Furthermore, the Government wishes to await the full report of the leader and members of the South African delegation when they return from Geneva, before deciding its future policy and action.

I move—

As hon. members know the Criminal Procedure Act of 1955 regulates the effective working of the Republic’s criminal procedure. As a result of new developments, however, the necessity arises from time to time to amend the procedure in order to deal effectively with changed circumstances. The amendments contained in this Bill, therefore, envisage the smartening up of our criminal procedure measures and their adaption to present circumstances.

Hon. members will notice that in many provisions of the 1955 Act there is still reference to the Governor-General, the Union, the British Queen and the granting of Royal grace. Apart from that the existing Act provides that the rules of court of the High Court of England shall apply here in respect of the admissibility of certain evidence and the competence, examination and cross-examination of witnesses in certain criminal cases or in those cases for which no provision is made in our Act. In other words they also operate as our common law as far as that aspect of the matter is concerned. Because of the constitutional change which came about in 1961 that state of affairs is now rectified in this Bill.

In order to ensure that no defects remain in our law of evidence it is considered advisable to peg the position in respect of the application of the rules of court of the High Court of England in certain cases. In other words—and hon. members will find this in the Bill—provision is made for the maintenance of the status quo as it pertained on 30 May 1961, that is to say, the day we became a Republic. (The provisions referred to are Clauses 1 to 3, 12, 16, 19, 20, 21, 23 and 24, 27 and 28, 30 to 33, 39, 49 to 52 and 54). Hon. members will find a number of clauses in the Bill which really follow logically upon the acceptance of the Children’s Act of 1960. Apart from replacing the Children’s Act of 1937 wherever that appears, the age limit in also brought down from 19 to 18 years in certain cases seeing that a “child” is now a person under the age of 18 years in terms of the 1960 Act. In this connection I refer hon. members to Clauses 7, 9, 14, 15, 18, 34, 35, 36 (a), 37, 40, 46 and 47.

Apart from certain other amendments with which I shall deal in greater detail in a moment, provision is also made in the Bill for the following: The right which private persons have to effect an arrest in certain circumstances is being extended so as to confer that right on the supervisor of property and anybody who has been authorized thereto by the owner or occupier. It is obvious what problems that will remove and it is also obvious that the supervisor must have the same power as the owner or the occupier of that property.

Secondly, the procedure to be followed in respect of a parent or guardian of a child who is summoned, i.e. the parent or guardian, and who neglects to appear differs from that pertaining to witnesses. This amendment envisages bringing the procedures in line with one another. It is not necessary for me to give any further reasons for this except to say that there is no reason whatsoever why the two cases should be treated differently.

In terms of Section 107 of the principal Act any portion of the bail which is forfeited can be remitted. It does happen in many cases, however, that remission of the whole amount is justified, but for some unaccountable reason or other the present Act provides that the whole amount cannot be remitted but only portion thereof. Clause 8 of the Bill rectifies that position.

The amendment to Section 110 (Clause 10) is consequential upon the amendments which are being made to Section 5 of Act No. 75 of 1959.

Section 112 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the decision of a special court shall be unanimous. Trials by a special court are usually long and drawn out and the possibility is not excluded that one of the Judges of the court may, during the trial and on account of ill-health, find it impossible to continue with the trial or one of them may even die during the trial. As a matter of fact during a recent trial by a special court of a number of persons on a charge of treason which lasted over a particularly long period, there was a danger that one of the Judges would not be able to continue on account of ill-health. If that should happen when a case is half-way through it means that all the evidence will have to be led again from the start and the case started de novo. In case a special court ever has to sit again—and I hope that will not be necessary—it is advisable, therefore, to rectify this position so as to cover the possibility of a Judge being unable to carry on or even dying.

The object of the amendment contained in Clause 13 is to bring the provisions of subsection (4) of Section 117 into line with those of sub-section (2) of it. It merely deals with jury lists and is of a formal nature.

Anybody charged with having received stolen property knowing it to have been stolen can be found guilty of theft if the facts prove it. That is the law at the moment. The amendment contained in Clause 21 will make it possible to find a person guilty of contravening Section 37 (1) of Act 62 of 1955 (the absence of reasonable ground to assume that goods have been lawfully acquired) if the facts prove it. The two crimes are very similar and in respect of the statutory offence the sentences to be imposed for receiving stolen goods are laid down. No problem will arise, therefore, if we link the two. I want to draw hon. members’ attention to the following aspect, namely, that evidence on any fact which is discovered by means of an investigation or process requiring activity in certain sciences, such as for example chemistry and physical science, is admissible, in terms of Section 239 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, by means of a sworn affidavit in any criminal case in which that fact figures. The admissibility of such evidence is subject to certain provisos as for example the right of the accused to object to such admissibility and the right of the court, if it deems it fit, to order that the witness concerned be called to give evidence in the usual way or that questions be put to him. In other words, the possibility is not excluded that the witness will not appear at all; the court has the discretion, at the request of the accused, to call that witness. There are many examples, of course, as far as that is concerned. Evidence in connection with the identification of finger and palm prints is, however, not admissible in the way provided in Section 239 (4) with the result that the finger-print experts of the police have to appear in court to give evidence in connection with the identification of finger and palm prints. These experts are only stationed at certain centres in the country and they consequently often have to travel very long distances to give formal evidence in this connection. As hon. members will know we in South Africa have progressed very far as far as finger prints and palm prints are concerned and that we compare favourably with other countries in the world in this respect. Evidence on the identification of finger and palm prints has long since been accepted by the courts and in the case of Rex v. Morela, 1947 (3) S.A., page 447, the Appeal Court very clearly indicated that notice could be taken of the fact that there were no two persons with identical finger prints. The courts depend to a great extent on the evidence of experts as far as the identification of finger prints is concerned, as appears from the case of R. v. Smit. 1952 (3) S.A. 451, (A.A.). In view of the safeguard in the relevant proviso, namely that the accused is at liberty to request it and that it is in the discretion of the court to call that witness if the accused wants it to do so, there is no reason why evidence on finger and palm prints cannot also be regarded as expert evidence. Hon. members will find that in Clause 22 (b). Linked with that you have the question of evidence on the weight and value of precious metals and precious stones which frequently figure in criminal cases. Normally such metals and stones are submitted to the State valuator to determine the weight and value thereof. Evidence in connection with the weight and value of such metals or stones cannot, however, be given by way of a statement in terms of Section 239 (4). That means in practice that the State valuator has to be called as a witness. This can cause great disruption in the office of the State valuator. As hon. members who belong to the profession know an accused seldom questions the weight or value which has been placed on such metals or stones. There is no valid reason why such evidence should not be admitted by way of a statement, subject to the same proviso, of course, that the accused can request that evidence be given in the ordinary prescribed way. Hon. members will find this aspect dealt with in Clause 22 (c) of the Bill.

In large cities such as Johannesburg and Cape Town the serving of thousands of summonses for parking offences gives rise to many problems. I think many hon. members of this House are painfully aware of this situation. Many local authorities have consequently adopted the system of serving summonses by post although such service is illegal. Because of numerous practical problems it is impracticable to legalize service by post. The problems can, however, be overcome to a great extent by empowering traffic officials to make use of the notices referred to Section 309bis. The notice must be handed to the offender and serves the purpose of a summons. Hon. members should note that this system is limited to those offences in which the court can impose a maximum fine of R30. The police are already following this system very successfully. Hon. members will find this in Clause 36 of the Bill.

In terms of the proviso to Section 312 (1) no offence other than murder can be joined to a count for murder in an indictment. The said provisions have existed in our criminal procedure law for a very long time and its origin is probably due to the fact that prior to 1935 the court had no discretion in the sentence it could impose where anybody was found guilty of murder. Hon. members will remember that a charge was brought about in 1935 when the question of extenuating circumstances came into the picture and when that became part of our law in that connection. The death penalty is not therefore compulsory today if there are extenuating circumstances. What was not the position in 1935 is the position to-day, namely, that the death penalty can be imposed to-day in certain circumstances for various other crimes, such as robbery, for instance, with aggravating circumstances. Where a person is charged with robbery, however, there is no legal provision which prevents his being charged in the same indictment with another offence. Hon. members who are interested in the profession will know that it is customary, where an accused appears before the court on a charge of robbery with aggravating circumstances, charges for other crimes which usually accompany robbery, such as theft, are included in the same charge sheet. It often happens these days that anybody who causes the death of another commits other offences as well, such as house-breaking and theft, in the same process. If the charge of murder is not proved against such a person he is usually subsequently charged with the other crime or crimes and often found guilty. That, however, means—and this is important—a new trial with the same witnesses and it very often also means, particularly when such an accused person is charged before a Circuit Court, that he has to wait for the next Circuit Court to sit before he can be tried. Not only is that very inconvenient to the witnesses but it also means a long delay as far as the accused is concerned. In my humble opinion there is no valid reason in present-day circumstances for the retention of the proviso. Hon. members will find this in Clause 38. The only argument that may possibly be advanced against Clause 38 is that it may possibly be argued that the accused may perhaps be prejudiced if he were to elect to be tried by jury. In other words, that evidence pointing to a weak character or something of that nature may be led which can be to the disadvantage of the accused. In reply to that I want to point out that trials by jury are these days limited to the absolute minimum, as proved by statistics, and it will therefore seldom, if ever, happen that an accused person will possibly be prejudiced in that way. Furthermore, if it becomes part of our law that he can indeed be charged with other crimes, the accused will be aware of it when he has to choose whether he wants to be tried by jury or not. If he nevertheless elects to be tried by jury, knowing what the charges against him are—because at that stage he already knows it—he cannot complain or he cannot hold it against the State that he may perhaps be prejudiced, because he himself has elected to be tried by jury.

The detention of a convicted young person pending his removal to a reformatory gives rise to problems because it is not always possible to take him there immediately and it is not always practicable to take him to any place of safety, which are only to be found at certain centres, if he can in any case be sent to a reformatory within a short time. It is necessary therefore to make provision for such young persons to be detained in places of safety (which include police stations, inter alia) until they can be taken to a reformatory. Hon. members should, however, take note of this that police stations are not equipped to accommodate youthful persons for a long period and therefore the time for which they can be detained in such place is being limited. The police and the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions are in agreement with this provision which hon. members will find in Clause 41 of the Bill.

At the moment the further suspension of a suspended sentence can only be considered by the court which imposed that sentence. Because of this provision convicted persons often have to be brought to the court concerned over long distances and at a great cost to the State and to themselves for that purpose whereas any other court is in an equally good position to decide whether any further suspension of the sentence is justified. I think hon. members will agree that it is not necessary to travel to Durban if the same thing can be done here in Cape Town. Hon. members find that provision in Clause 44 of the Bill. In terms of Section 353 of the existing Act the court has the right to order the employer in whose employ the convicted person is during the term of his sentence to deduct the amount of the fine in a lump sum or in instalments from the wage of the convicted person, but cannot, so it appears now, issue such an order in respect of a new employer if the convicted person has changed his employer while the amount of the fine has not yet been paid in full. In that case the whole process has to be gone through again right from the beginning. Hon. members will find that this position is being rectified in Clause 45 of the Bill.

Is that also applicable to Government servants?

Yes, it applies to every convicted person against whom such an order is made. The time within which a spot fine in terms of Section 387 (1) can be paid is regarded as too short. As hon. members will know it is 72 hours at the moment. The desired extension envisaged in the clause, namely seven days, will, we hope, contribute towards more offenders availing themselves of the opportunity of paying the fine. Hon. members will find this provision in Clause 53.

This, Mr. Speaker, is a brief survey of the provisions of this Bill, except Clauses 6, 25, 26 and 29. The provisions in those clauses may be regarded as contentious. I just went to deal with one of those clauses, namely, Clause 25, which deals with confessions made to a police official. In view of the fact that we have reached the end of the Session and in view of the fact that I have had two discussions, one with the acting chairman of the Bar Council and one with a delegation from the General Bar Council, I have decided to delete these clauses from the Bill. I shall therefore move the deletion of these four clauses from the Bill when we come to the Committee Stage.

I want to state clearly that in my humble opinion there is no legal reason why those sections should be in our criminal procedure law. I wonder whether hon. members have taken the trouble of ascertaining how it came about that, particularly, the confession section came to be in our Statute Law. The reason is not that the position was abused when our law was different. The position was, and this must be clearly understood, that it was not part of our Common Law or of our Statute Law prior to 1917. The provision that a confession made to a police official was not admissible as evidence was only introduced in our Statute Law in 1917. It is interesting to know how that came about. I say this with due respect because hon. members opposite are not to blame for this. Had the members of the old South African Party done their duty that section would never have been in our law. It happened in this way: In 1917 the Criminal Procedure Bill was referred to a Select Committee. That section was not in the original Bill which was referred to that Select Committee. The then Minister was Mr. Klasie de Wet who subsequently became Chief Justice of the Union. The Bill was referred to a Select Committee of which he was the chairman. I want to repeat that this particular proviso was not in that Bill. According to my information that Select Committee consisted of 13 members—eight of the then governing party and five of the Opposition. The Opposition consisted at that time of the Union Party and the National Party. When they discussed this particular section in the Select Committee only four Government members and five Opposition members were present. The Unionists suggested this provision, the Nationalists agreed with them and because the members of the Government were not present, the Minister opposed it and the end of the story was that the section was inserted in the Bill by five votes to four. The Minister himself voted against it but, being a good sportsman, he obviously accepted the position.

Being a good lawyer.

The fact that he was a good lawyer was proved by the fact that he voted against it. He accepted the position because his people had obviously not attended the Select Committee. In passing I just want to point out to hon. members that this provision does not apply in the Rhodesias. To the best of my knowledge it does not apply in Basutoland either, and to the best of my knowledge it does not apply in Bechuanaland either. The only places where it does apply is, in the first instance, in South Africa and, in the second instance, in Swaziland which has all along taken over our law of evidence. It does not apply in the rest of the world, not in Britain or any other country. Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend proceeding with that clause. During the recess the General Bar Council will make further representations to me in this connection. I shall also have discussions with the Attorneys-General and with those Judges who are interested in the matter. If necessary I shall come back to this House, either next year or the year thereafter, with a Bill which we can then discuss fully on its merits. At this stage, however, it is not my intention to proceed with Clauses 6, 25, 26 and 29 all of which more or less deal with the same aspect of the matter.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill has been in our hands for some months. I should like to express satisfaction that in respect of a measure such as this we have on this occasion had ample time to study it carefully. I should like to express the hope that this is an example of the Minister’s which could be followed by him in respect of all future legislation which affects our legal system. I believe it is very important that there should be that opportunity. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that we are very glad indeed that he has agreed to drop these four clauses to which he has referred. I believe that our correct approach in respect of these measures should be not lightly to depart from practice which has been found satisfactory over a long period of years. As the hon. the Minister knows these provisions are provisions which have quite a long history. Most of them come from legal systems which were in operation before the criminal system which we are following in the country in terms of our 1917 Act. It is, of course, true that in the one case it was almost by accident that the provision in relation to confessions came into our law but I do believe that that has prevented many innocent persons from being found guilty during the years. I believe that the provision has been found to be satisfactory. I am very glad that the hon. the Minister is going to have further discussions during the recess. I sincerely hope that the General Council of the Bar which takes exception to these clauses will be able to convince the hon. the Minister that he must not proceed with these provisions at all. Nevertheless we are very glad that they are not being proceeded with at this stage. I can only say that all of them would have been opposed by this side to the utmost of our ability. We would have done everything possible to convince the hon. the Minister that they should not be left in the Bill.

The remaining provisions of the Bill have been dealt with very fully by the hon. the Minister. I should like to say that in respect of this traffic practice to which the Minister referred whereby it is sought to find a simple method of dealing with traffic offences, we had some misgivings, but on considering them fully we came to the conclusion that it was worth a trial; unquestionably it will suit the convenience of many persons. Of course, Sir, they always have the opportunity, if they so wish, of having their case heard by the court.

There is another provision in respect of which there was some misgiving. I refer to the provision in relation to joinder where the one charge is a charge of murder. This again is a provision which has been in our law for a considerable time. The hon. member has pointed out to-day, and in private discussions, that there have been cases where it has clearly not been to the advantage of the accused that this provision should remain in our law. I hope. Sir. that the hon. the Minister will regard the inclusion of the provision he is inserting as being of an experimental nature. I think we will have to watch it very carefully to make quite sure that the new practice does not lead to any injustices. On the whole, Sir, I would say there is some difference of opinion, as the hon. the Minister knows, between legal people and in fact between the members of the Side Bar and the Bar in respect of this matter. As the majority appears to regard the provision as satisfactory we do not feel that it should be opposed at this time. For the rest we feel that the provisions of this Bill are sound. There are certain other provisions too, Sir, which will have to be watched in the light of practice and experience. I can only express the hope that these provisions will prove as satisfactory as the hon. the Minister says they will. Finally, Sir, I reiterate that I do most sincerely hope that on reflection the hon. the Minister will not feel it necessary to come back next year to incorporate in the law the four provisions which he is dropping. For our part, Sir, we are convinced that our law is better as it stands and that it would be unfortunate if a change is made in future.

Mr. Speaker, this is essentially a lawyers’ Bill and I do not intend making any lengthy speech on it although I would have been forced to do so had it been debated by the House in its original form. The hon. the Minister has given the House the assurance that he intends to delete certain objectionable clauses which I personally would have opposed strongly had they remained in the Bill. In that case I would naturally have voted against the second reading. As it stands, Sir, I wish to identify myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) more particularly where he expressed the hope that it would not be necessary for the Minister to return to the House next session with a Bill incorporating the objectionable clauses which he is now going to remove from this Bill. I hope in the ensuing recess the Minister will learn that simply going at things blindly is not the answer to the problems of this country and that he will therefore not introduce that Bill next year.

I shall therefore identify myself with the Opposition.

There is one matter I should like to put before the hon. the Minister. It is not something which cannot appropriately be dealt with in the Committee Stage but I should like to deal with it very briefly now. The Minister deals with the question of assessors in this Bill in Supreme Court criminal cases. Provision is made as to what is to happen if one of them dies or becomes incompetent and so on.

To which clause are you referring?

Clause 10. The hon. the Minister dealt with this in his speech. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether in view of the fact, as he says, that there are more and more trials by Judges and less and less trials by jury in this country, that provision which was left out of our law a few years ago which made it compulsory for a Judge, in cases where the death sentence could be imposed, to call to his assistance two assessors could not be reinstated in our law. The hon. the Minister knows that it is not very long ago that that provision was left out of our laws. I am inclined to think that it was rather in the nature of an oversight that this happened because I know the Bar Council was not aware of it until it had happened; it happened very quickly at the time. The Appellate Division, as the hon. the Minister is, of course, aware, has already expressed the opinion that it is desirable in all cases where the indictment alleges a crime for which the death penalty can be imposed that assessors should sit in those cases. It seems to me that in those circumstances it is desirable that this should be part of our law and not merely a directive which Judges may or may not follow. I think the hon. the Minister will appreciate that all the assessors do in any case is to decide upon facts. A number of Judges have said that a jury is quite as capable of deciding the facts as the Judge is. In those circumstances, Sir, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would, when he replies, give us some indication whether he would be prepared or whether he is prepared to reinstate our law in relation to assessors.

I shall first reply to the speech by the hon. member who has just sat down. I want to tell the hon. member at the outset that I agree entirely that whenever the death sentence is imposed I do not think that any Judge, no matter how capable he may be, has the right to sit alone. I do not think it is fair to him and I do not think it is fair to the Executive Council which later has to confirm or commute the sentence. No matter from which point of view one considers the matter, I do not think it is fair that a Judge should sit alone. There was a sound reason why that provision was amended, namely the fact that many cases come before our courts—and hon. members are aware of this—in which the death sentence may be imposed but in which we can already deduce from the evidence given at the preparatory examination that no such sentence will be imposed. I have no objection to Judges sitting alone in such cases. But I can assure the hon. member that very few Judges sit alone under the circumstances he has mentioned. I am concerned, however, at the fact that there are still one or two who do so and I give the hon. member the assurance that I intend introducing the necessary amending legislation next year in order to stop this practice once and for all. I think that assessors serve a very good purpose from whatever point of view one considers the matter and that it is not right that under such circumstances a Judge—I repeat, no matter how capable he may be—should take upon himself the sole responsibility for such a sentence. As regards the question of the confessions made before a police officer I should just like to point out that it is only here and in Swaziland that that provision applies. Circumstances in this country are exactly the same as those prevailing in the Rhodesias or elsewhere in Africa and seeing that they do not have that provision, I cannot from a juridical point of view see any reason why that provision should apply in our country. In view of the fact that our law of evidence is the same as that of Great Britain and no problems in this regard have been experienced in Great Britain, and in view of the fact that this has been the legal position for all these years just as it was in our country prior to 1917, I cannot see why it is necessary here. If hon. members can come to the House and say, “Look, prior to 1917 there were problems when the Bantu were far less developed and our police far less trained than is the position to-day”, and if hon. members can prove to me that this was the position as a result of problems which arose prior to 1917, then I shall be glad to concede the point, but until I am given that proof I must maintain my attitude, namely that I think the position must be put right. However that may be, it is not relevant to this debate because for the reasons I have given I am not proceeding with the clauses concerned. I thank hon. members for the support which has otherwise been given to this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I do not intend to keep the Committee long. The statement made by the hon. Minister during the second-reading debate has in no way contributed towards changing our point of view on this side, namely, that the Bill in its present form is an undesirable one. You will permit me, I hope, Sir, just in passing to mention one small matter and that is that I suppose hon. members who have read this morning’s paper, were very surprised to see that this Bill is continuing to-day. There has been a report which is factually so wrong in the Press on this Bill, a report regarding the procedure and not the contents of the debate actually. In this morning’s paper the following appeared—

I only wish in passing to draw the attention of the House to this report by Sapa and I trust that this report will be corrected.

As I said, I do not wish to detain the House long. I do believe that this particular provision in Clause 1 is going to place an unnecessarily new burden on your radio dealers throughout the country, that it will increase the red tape, will increase the work of the radio dealers and will probably increase the work of the Department too which has to administer this particular Bill, whilst it will in no way contribute towards solving the problem which this particular Bill is supposed to solve. As things are, it will only increase the very large number of licences that the poor citizens of South Africa will have to carry along with them whenever they travel from their homes. They will need to carry their radio licence along with them, a licence for their second servant, a licence in respect of their motor-car registration, their driver’s licence, their identity card and their firearms licence, and one does not know how many other licences. So I merely want to say that we are opposed to this clause.

I do not know if the hon. the Minister is aware of it, but unfortunately it was only brought to my attention a couple of minutes ago that the Minister is asking for the inclusion of a new Section 12, and para. (1) reads “that no holder of a radio dealer’s licence shall sell or give or in any manner whatsoever supply any radio apparatus to any person who is not in possession of a valid listener’s licence”. The effect of course of that clause will make such sale invalid and if by some accident a person should buy a radio without having a licence and he takes that licence out only a little while after having bought the radio apparatus, he would not be obliged to pay for it. Sir, I believe that this clause must of necessity cause a great deal of inconvenience. I take it that the hon. Minister’s intention is that persons who wish to buy a radio apparatus should first go and obtain a listener’s licence and then do the purchase. But at the very least I think there should be wide publicity given to this clause, because there is no question that the effect of this provision, while it is convenient from the broadcasting company’s point of view, is one which must put the public to great inconvenience. Most of the public are of course honest people, but this will put them to a great deal of inconvenience as compared with the provisions of the section which is being repealed.

The words “radio apparatus” in Clause 12 again are very vague, it is an extremely wide phrasing. To-day if you buy torch batteries which you fit into a transistor set, that could be described as “radio apparatus It goes further than that. The person who sells torch batteries in order to sell them would have to have a radio dealer’s licence. What is the position there if a company, a general dealer, sells torch batteries for a radio? He commits an offence because he has no radio dealer’s licence. A person who has an amplifier requiring a bulb, or requiring a bulb for a tape recorder and goes to buy a part for his amplifier—he may not even be a radio listener-will have to take out a radio listener’s licence in order to repair his amplifier or his tape recorder. I am only pointing out to this House what a clause like this can bring about. It is ridiculous! It can simply not be applied. Every general dealer who is now selling torch batteries and every person that sells a part for an amplifier—because it can be described as “radio apparatus”—now becomes a criminal. Such a person must have a radio licence. Once this Bill becomes law and you walk into any shop in Plein Street and you buy a couple of torch batteries for your transistor and the general dealer there has not got a radio dealer’s licence, he will be committing an offence if he sells you those batteries.

Mr. Speaker, the behaviour of the Opposition proves to me really that the Opposition are not serious at all. I think that it is the end of Session spirit which has taken hold of them. Take the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney). I want to indicate how hollow his argument is. The hon. member could not have been listening yesterday, because I read to him the definition of “radio apparatus”, Allow me to read it to him in English from the Act—

Is the lamp to which the hon. member refers a radio set? It is not a set. The hon. member apparently does not want to understand. After all one cannot argue that a lamp is a set. The provision goes on to say—

The hon. member can rest assured that the Minister will not declare an ordinary cell to be “radio apparatus”. And until that happens the arguments used by the hon. member are really of little value.

May I say this to the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker): We appreciate that this legislation will place a burden on the dealers, but is it a greater burden than that which is placed on the arms dealers? Before the hon. member can buy a firearm, he has to go to the shop. He first examines the firearm he wants to buy and after he has seen it he goes to the magistrate. The magistrate then has the power to refuse to grant a licence, but if the magistrate approves his application he goes back to the shop and buys the firearm. In this case it is much easier. Here one goes to the shop, one orders the radio set and one pays for it. The post office then cannot refuse to issue the licence. What the dealer then does is the same as a motor dealer does in the case of a motor vehicle. He takes a licence out on one’s behalf at the post office and in the afternoon when one arrives home, one’s set, one’s licence and everything else are waiting there. It is very easy. May I just remind hon. members of what a motor dealer does? The motor dealer does not send one to take out a licence if one does not have a licence. He simply goes and takes out a motor vehicle licence on one’s behalf. He takes out the insurance, he takes out the third-party insurance and he has the number plates put on. When one arrives in the afternoon and hands over the cheque, one gets in the car and drives off, and everything is in order. I repeat that we appreciate that this is an additional task which is being imposed on the dealer, but it is really not such an onerous one. Allow me to remind hon. members once again why we are asking for this. It is a very sound reason. I have already said that according to the invoices we receive and which the trade has sent to us, the trade in South Africa sold 366,000 sets last year. The dealers on the Rand tell us that at least half those sets were sold to Bantu. And do hon. members know that during 1962 only 14,000 licences were issued! That is surely a very good reason for taking other steps. I have pointed out to hon. members that conditions have changed greatly since 1952. In 1952 we had big sets which were all connected to the mains, but in the meantime transistors have become fashionable. There are small transistor sets which one can put in one’s pocket and they are not connected at all. It is the most difficult thing in the world for an inspector to establish that a man has a set. I therefore assume that hon. members opposite are not really in earnest in opposing this Bill.

The hon. Minister made an amazing admission that his Department has received 366,000 notifications of the sale of radios. He has a Department with 81 inspectors who had the names and addresses of the buyers of these 366,000 radios supplied to them. He knows their names, he knows their addresses, he knows what type of radio they have bought, because he has got an invoice indicating that sale. With that information at his disposal he has, according to his own statement, only been able to trace, including those who voluntarily have taken out licences, 14,000. In other words 352,000 names and addresses supplied to him are untraced despite the fact that he has a Department to deal with this. In regard to the other comparison, I appreciate that he compares a radio licence with a weapon licence, the secret weapon of propaganda, compared to the physical weapon of the gun. But it is a completely different purchase in every respect to anyone except a person who regards it as a weapon. It is the same as saying: If you are going to buy any article of household furniture, you must have a licence for it. The Minister has a Department, he has a law making it compulsory to take out a licence, he has the machinery to deal with it, and all he is trying to do with this clause is to shift the onus of his responsibility on to the trade, and we are not prepared to accept that.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

The same applies in regard to this clause as applied to Clause 1 in regard to which I indicated the feelings of this side of the House. There is one matter on which we have not had a satisfactory reply from the hon. Minister yet. I indicated the problem yesterday. As the Committee knows it is possible to own more than one radio set under a single licence. It may well be that three radio sets of a family may be distributed throughout the country at a given moment. The gramophone radio may be in the home of the person who took out the original licence. He himself may be in his motor-car a couple of hundreds of miles away from his home, his son may have borrowed a third radio, a transistor radio and is on holiday. As the Bill stands at present, if any of these radios break down, a repairman cannot repair that radio unless the licence can be produced. That is how I read this particular clause. One can imagine the inconvenience that will arise should a person who is hundreds of miles away from his home in his car finds that his car radio is not functioning well and he wants to have it repaired. This matter was raised yesterday, and the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) made a very remarkable comment on that. He said that that difficulty can arise, and that would be “just too bad”. I trust that the hon. Minister will be able to furnish a better reply to this particular problem which can arise, this inconvenience which can arise in relation to ordinary owners of radio sets.

May I ask the hon. Minister whether he has considered the question which I put to him yesterday as to whether an amateur, an unofficial person who has not got a repairer’s licence, may repair a radio?

Order! This has got nothing to do with the clause.

The hon. member for Orange Grove has asked the following question: A man has a family and he gives a radio set to every member of his family. They then all go to different parts of the country. In the first place I want to tell the hon. member that I do not think that that is in keeping with the spirit of the Act. The relevant section in the English version of the principal Act reads as follows—

The Act does not say in this section that a man can have a set for every member of his family. The Act provides that every person who has a set must have a licence for it. Of course one closes one’s eyes, but it is not in keeping with the spirit of the Act that a parent should give children who are going on holiday sets which they take to different parts of the country.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that that has nothing to do with the clause.

Clause put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

I move—

More than two members having objected, Bill to be read a third time on 26 June.

I move—

This Bill is the customary measure which is introduced at the end of the Session to give effect to the decisions taken during Committee of Supply by making the necessary funds available. It is not customary for the Minister of Finance to make an explanatory speech on this occasion. After all members were given all the necessary information during the Committee Stage and on the basis of that information they approved of the expenditure.

I should like, however, just briefly to outline the financial position of the country as at the present moment. In my Budget speech I estimated the surplus on revenue account for 1962-3 at R28,000,000. The latest estimates which have not yet been finalized show that both revenue and expenditure were slightly underestimated and that on balance the surplus will now be approximately R3,300,000 higher, that is to say, approximately R31,300,000. Unfortunately, however, this fortuitous increase does not entail any corresponding relief for the Revenue Account because since my Budget speech certain further expenditure which was not foreseen at the time has arisen, expenditure for which provision has had to be made in the supplementary estimates. In total these items for which provision has been made in the supplementary estimates and for which provision was not made earlier amount to R2,800,000. The most important of these is the R900,000 extra statutory subsidy to the Cape Province, R650,000 in respect of self-government in the Transkei, R380,000 in respect of defence buildings, R390,000 for the Atomic Energy Research Fund, and R300,000 in respect of the canal scheme in Ovamboland. These are all items which were not provided for in my estimate. For the rest the position as I outlined it at that time remains on the whole unchanged. As I prophesied there is evidence of a definite upsurge in all sections of the economy and I think we can face the rest of the year with confidence.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to react to the statement made by the hon. Minister in respect of the financial position as indicated by him. I can only say that he does not seem to have missed by very much more than usual in his Estimates of either Income or Expenditure. We have got to know him as someone who believes more in outers than in scoring on the bull.

I want to-day to direct the attention of the House in another direction, and I want to recall that during this Session there had been various occasions on which this side of the House has indicated its concern at the internal security and the position that has developed in connection therewith in South Africa. This matter has been discussed on several occasions in the course of the Sitting; on one when the interim report put in by Mr. Justice Snyman was made available, and to-day we have had tabled the final report of Mr. Justice Snyman into the riots at Paarl. I want to say, Sir, that through the courtesy of the Minister of Justice, I was given an advance copy of that report yesterday, which has enabled me to read it, though not to study it exhaustively. I think that while that report makes no great contribution to the store of our knowledge on a national scale, it is an extremely thorough, clear and incisive examination of the position at Paarl, as to what happened on the night of the riots, as to the general circumstances surrounding the position there, and it goes a long way to clear up a number of doubts that I think many of us had in our mind. I think firstly it gives a very clear account of the actual events on the night of the riot at Paarl, in connection with which there was considerable uncertainty and in connection with which there was a feeling that the police might perhaps not have been as active as they might have been. I must say that the report makes it clear that the police were not negligent, that they were justified in the shooting and that they were not negligent in protecting the citizens of Paarl after the attack on the police station, when so many of us could not understand how the attack in Loop Street could have been pushed home and not prevented by the police. I want to say though that as informed at present, it seems a little hard to understand why more exhaustive steps were not taken after May 1962, after that deputation of Bantu citizens from the location saw Colonel Carstens. While not mentioning Poqo, they mentioned these lorry-loads of visitors who came to the location and who indulged in unlawful meetings. The Commission admits frankly that the attack was a complete surprise to the police, the location authorities and to the municipality, and it suggests that the police could not have expected an attack that night. I think there are only two comments I should like to make in that regard. It seems that even after the reinforcements which were drafted to that district during the six or nine months before the riot, the force was still woefully small, and it seems also that their means of communication with each other were certainly not of the best and certainly not what one would have expected. The report deals at length with the administration of the location by the Paarl Municipality and indicates that there was virtually a complete lack of consultation between the municipal council members and the authorities responsible for the location and above all the inhabitants of the location, and it does draw attention to the fact that while it was common knowledge in Paarl that corrupt practices were taking place the councillors seemed to know nothing about it at all. And he stresses the estrangement between the Bantu and the authorities, which as I say, has led to the complete breakdown of consultation on many important issues which might have created a different atmosphere. The report, however, does contain certain facts which are of importance to us. The first is that it confirms the information we have been given in this House on other occasions that Poqo has operated from headquarters outside South Africa on occasion, that it is getting help from outside states and that it will not be an organization which it will be easy to destroy entirely. Then there is the very significant passage in the report, in paragraph 115, in which the Commissioner indicates that he wishes to guard against creating the erroneous impression that the P.A.C. is the only or even the most dangerous organization plotting the violent overthrow of the Republican Government. The Commissioner draws attention also to administrative difficulties and to the difficulties the police have because of the divided control in the municipal locations.

I wonder whether we can draw any conclusions from what the Commissioner has reported? It seems that quite clearly the lack of consultation led to estrangement. It seems also that that estrangement and the lack of patrolling played into the hands of Poqo in that they were able to conduct their recruiting in Paarl in a manner which did not get to the ears of the authorities in time and was not acted upon in time. It seems also that the Commissioner is very conscious of the problems of rural Bantu going to work in urban areas, and one gets the impression that he is complaining of unsympathetic and mechanical administration. He says the White man does not appreciate the great difficulties confronting the immigrant Bantu in adapting himself to urban life, and that the White man does not appreciate the urgent need for sympathetic guidance. Personal leadership is completely lost sight of. Then he draws attention to the resentment of the Bantu in respect of the interference with their mode of living, their freedom of movement and what he calls “the many regulations”. He says that some resistance from the Bantu is to be expected. He says it is also fair to say that the majority of the Bantu are not critical of the South African Police and regard the Government as their friend.

He also says that these measures are necessary for the sake of the Bantu.

I am not leaving that out of account. He then goes on to plead that those people who administer policy should be specially trained for the work, and stresses the fact that the aspirations of the Bantu are not satisfied by being regarded just as members of an unskilled labour pool; and in paragraph 173 he says that subversive activities can never be successfully combated unless there is a happy and understanding friendship between the White and the Bantu peoples and an acceptance by both of the inter-racial policy of the country. Later on he describes the message of Paarl as being that a special drive should be instituted to educate and reform the attitude of both the White and the Bantu sections of the community in respect of inter-racial relations.

That is all I wish to say about the Commissioner’s report, except to congratulate the Commissioner on the speed with which he brought out his report and the enthusiasm with which he has tackled his work. I think it is quite clear that that report, coupled with the interim report with which it must be read, and the information we have had in this House from the Minister from time to time, makes it clear that a dangerous situation in South Africa was averted only by the magnificent work of the police and by the immediate and firm action taken by the Government. But it reveals also that while that immediate danger may have been averted, there is the risk of more trouble and danger ahead either from attempts by the P.A.C. to re-establish itself or from the A.N.C., or from other organizations mentioned by the Commissioner. The Government took drastic steps to deal with the matter. We supported it in those steps which we thought were correct. We did not support them in those steps which we thought were wrong. I think in the ultimate result one can say that time has been bought by these activities to get to the fundamental cause of our difficulties and to examine them and find remedies for them.

The question I want to pose to-day is what are we going to do with that time? I want to pose it pertinently, because how we use that time is going to have effects outside South Africa, effects upon our external relations and effects not only on our internal security but also on our future external relations. I have often indicated what I would like to see done in respect of the urban Bantu. I do not think it is necessary to repeat the steps proposed by this side of the House, the development of a responsible class of citizen with home ownership and an undisturbed family life and freehold tenure. [Interjection.] Judging by the yawn of that hon. member opposite, I can estimate very accurately what effect this has on the Government, because my suggestions do not fit in with the pattern of the Government and its policy. If only I could get them to accept enough change, a very different situation might develop. But we are faced with a Government which has elevated its old policy of baasskap into a philosophy which dictates and controls everything it decides and has placed the Government in a position where it has built up prejudices and attitudes amongst its own people which it dare not run counter to at present. The result is that it is very much hidebound by the things it has been doing and has set itself to do. The tragedy is that these matters are important not only internally, but also externally, because we see that support is already being given to these people by countries which we regard as being friendly to South Africa, and we can expect more difficulties of that kind while the present pattern continues. I think it has been brought home to us by what happened at the Conference at Addis Ababa and the decisions taken there. Pledges were taken there and a committee was formed to operate from Dar-es-Salaam and to help the so-called “freedom fighters” in South Africa. There are Press reports of a preliminary payment by Tanganyika of R60,000 towards the funds, and in implementation of the pledge each of those African states will contribute 1 per cent of its income to assist the freedom fighters in South Africa.

Now there have been many assessments of this Addis Ababa Conference. Our Minister of Foreign Affairs says we must not underrate it, but at the same time he seems to regard some of these decisions as something of a joke and he is extremely unimpressed by what happened. I am not going to attempt to evaluate it. I have not the information. I do not yet know whether the Government had observers there, and I wonder whether they really know what happened there. But there are two things I would like to say. That is that when newly emergent states are drunk with the heady wine of their new-found independence, they are apt to do unexpected and extraordinary things. Secondly, when newly independent states encounter internal difficulties and freedom does not mean the improved economic position that so many of the inhabitants have been led to believe it would, very often they seek a diversion, and they seek that diversion by centring upon an enemy whom they can share with others in like plight to themselves. It seems to me that at Addis Ababa we provided that diversion. What worries me is that more practice in exploiting the diversionary angle may enable them to be more of a threat than we imagine now. The hon. the Minister of Defence was never more right than when he said yesterday that it was necessary for us to achieve a break-through to the African states, but at the same time we must be prepared to face the present situation. But I do not believe those states have the strength to threaten us physically at present without powerful allies, and I do not believe that they will have that strength for some considerable time to come. But I believe the danger is that they can attack us through our friends by bringing pressure to bear upon our friends which results in their taking action which is not favourable to the Republic or to our future. The tragedy is that I believe it is exactly that which is being made possible by present Government policies. I know it seems laughable to think that these newly emergent states can influence or use the countries of the Western world against us, by which I mean the results they can achieve by bringing pressure to bear upon our friends, by playing off the East against the West and by playing off the communist countries against the noncommunist countries. We had an example of that in the last few days. Enormous pressure was brought to bear at the International Labour Conference at Geneva for South Africa’s exclusion from the conference, something which is not competent according to their constitution. The pressure was given meaning by the walk-out of African and certain Arab and Asian states, which left the I.L.O. as an emaciated shadow of its former self. But when even in that rump, in the circumstances about which we heard this morning, the credentials of the workers’ representative, representing the workers in South Africa, were challenged, there was not a single state of the Western world which got up and spoke for South Africa. When it was proposed that the matter be referred to the Security Council with the object of obtaining South Africa’s exclusion from UN, the Government representative of the U.S.A. made a statement to the effect that he would use all the influence he had with his Government to get them to press for our exclusion. What influence he has I do not know, but it is quite clear that these African states are deliberately trying to embarrass the Western states. They say they want the Western states to come down off the fence and say where they stand. We know that Mr. Stevenson has made a statement to the so-called Apartheid Committee at UN about sanctions which we shall hear about later. We know they are trying to force the issue on the question of the sale of arms to South Africa by other countries. I am giving just a few examples, but what happened at the I.L.O. Conference was in a sense a triumph for those who sought to use the nations of the Western world against South Africa.

I think what we have to ask ourselves this morning is what does that portend for us in the months that lie ahead, and perhaps even in the short months before Parliament meets again. We know that there will be a session of UN during that time. We still do not know the Government’s plans in that regard. We do not even know whether we will be represented there at all, if I judge correctly from what the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs said in this House earlier, but at the same time one cannot help wondering really of what use it is to be represented there; because if there is one tragic fact which emerged from the discussions during this Session it is that there has been a complete breakdown in our foreign policy. Our Foreign Minister is like a jockey riding in a race and who has thrown the reins on the horse’s neck and goes on shouting at the other jockeys in defence of his position, but he does not know which way his horse is going.

Is it not your horse as well?

It is not our jockey.

The horse is not South Africa, but the Government’s foreign policy, and that horse was ill-conceived and badly bred and during the years it has been badly trained, and it now has the better of its jockey and is destroying him. Now I do not want the Prime Minister to imagine for a moment from what I have said that I advocate South Africa’s withdrawal from UN. I am not doing that, and I want no misunderstanding about it, but I do feel that our foreign policy has broken down to the extent where we are virtually completely isolated to-day. In fact, it is difficult to imagine our being any more completely isolated in the councils of the world than we are now. The only further possible step would seem to be sanctions of some kind applied to us, and God forbid that that should ever happen. But these ever-increasing external pressures will have a reaction on our internal position and will undoubtedly aggravate the situation internally. To a House constituted as this one is, it is not necessary to remind hon. members what the effect has been on South Africa of events to the north of us or of the promises and assistance given to subversive organizations here. I do not propose to deal with that, but I want to draw attention to the fact that there will be a reaction; and I draw attention to that fact because it may mean that the time we are buying by the extraordinary measures we had to take to maintain our internal security may be shorter than we think at present, because statesmanship demands an answer to certain of these problems, an answer which we do not yet seem to have found.

I believe the hon. the Prime Minister sought an answer when he first enunciated his Bantustan policy, a policy he said he would rather not have adopted were it not necessary as a possible means to ease world pressure mounting against South Africa. I have never forgotten the significant phrase he used in this House when he said—

What was done was to formulate the policy of granting independence to the Bantustans to be created. Unfortunately that policy has already been clearly rejected by the Western nations, and perhaps it could hardly be otherwise because these people see separate development as something which is an intensification of apartheid, and not as a solution to our problem. They do not believe that these Bantustans offer a home or a viable economy for the Bantu who will be attached to them. They believe that they are being used merely as an excuse for imposing restrictions upon the urban Bantu, many of whom are permanently settled outside the reserves.

That is just your story.

The hon. member says it is my story, but I wish he would talk to any of the diplomats in South Africa, or go overseas and talk to observers as to what they feel about this policy. I think he will find the voting heavily against it. He might find one or two who are carried away by his eloquence, but this is a serious matter for us, because I know that the Prime Minister felt that this provided the moral basis for apartheid. Unfortunately it seems to me that that is an untenable position because under this policy rights and privileges are being taken away from the urban Bantu in return for future rights in the Bantu homelands. This Session we had the Transkei Constitution Act and a start has been made with the conferment of some political rights to be exercised by the urban Bantu in the Transkei. What worries me is what the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, through his deputy, in reply to a question told this House only last week. It was a question put by the hon. member for Orange Grove. The Minister was asked what is (1) the ethnic grouping, and (2) the estimated population of each Bantu area for which self-government is planned, and (b) when is it expected that each of these areas will attain self-government comparable to that granted to the Transkei. The reply was that no self-government was at present being planned for any ethnic group, and (b) falls away. Now if that is the position, surely this will be a long-term business. If it is not planned now, when will the Minister start his planning? Even assuming that the political rights given to the citizens of the Transkei under the Transkei Constitution Act can be regarded as some sort of compensation for the real rights taken away from the Bantu in the urban areas, which is the moral basis for this transaction, it applies only to the Xhosa, what about the Zulus and the Tswana and all the others? Then he is admitting that there is no moral basis for them yet, but perhaps it will come for them somehow, some time. But they have been deprived of rights already, and they have been told that they will be given important rights in the homelands to be provided for them. Now what has happened? Is the Minister losing courage? Is he losing faith in the Prime Minister’s vision? Where now is the moral justification for applying this policy to those people in respect of whom he is not even yet planning self-government of the kind indicated for the Transkei? [Interjection.]

There is this further evidence in the forum of world opinion which counts against this policy, and that is its expressed intentions with regard to the urban Bantu. Here I would say this to the Government and to the Minister of Bantu Administration, that he does not cloud the issue. He states explicitly that these Bantu are in the eyes of the Government temporary sojourners in White territory. They are simply, as the Deputy Minister put it, interchangeable labour units, which means that they are nothing more nor less than a rootless proletariat in and around our big industrial areas. I think we are entitled to ask ourselves who are these people and what are their numbers. They comprise 30 per cent of the total Bantu population, and that is over 3,000,000 souls. Fewer than 10 per cent of them, if my figures are correct, follow a migrant labour pattern. Some 35 per cent of them, more than 1,000,000, have retained no ties whatever with the land and they must be considered to be completely and irrevocably urbanized. The most recent figures I was able to get—not of the last census, but of the one before—indicated that some 78 per cent of the labour employed in private industry were non-Whites. I know that includes the Coloureds, but it accounts for a large percentage of these people. Even the Minister of Transport, out of his total labour force of 210,000, employs over 100,000 Bantu, and that under an apartheid Government. The picture is plain for everybody to see. These people are essential to the continued functioning of our economy. But in terms of Government policy their position is to remain permanently one of insecurity as long as they live. There is a total denial of individuality. Each one is simply an interchangeable labour unit. The labour bureaux are intended to become the dominant factor in the economic lives of those people. We will have a system apparently of bureaucratic manpower control which, strangely enough for this Government, bears a marked similarity to what was done in Soviet Russia under Stalin’s first five-year plan. There, too, a worker lost his residential rights when he became unemployed, and if he was jobless he was liable to expulsion from the area, which meant in most cases that he was sent to Siberia where there was forced development of industry, rather like the Prime Minister’s plan of forced development of industry on the borders of the reserves. Under that plan, too, employment was made conditional on the possession of documents which combined the elements of a passport and a work permit. In fact, I think the only person in the world who really knows what the South African Bantu who wants a job in Johannesburg must feel like was the Soviet peasant under Stalin’s first five-year plan. The inevitable consequence of that sort of policy as applied, and as we believe it is going to be applied in South Africa—one only has to look at the first Bantu Laws Amendment Bill which the Minister published in the Gazette for information. While he has withdrawn that Bill, we have no reason to believe that he has recanted; he still believes in those ideas. What were the ideas he hoped to apply in South Africa? What did he think their effect would be on the outside world amongst our friends? It could develop disruption of our entire economy, especially if it was used for the purpose of forced industrialization of the border areas. It would place the South African industrialist under ever-increasing bondage to the State and to the Minister, because there would be complete State control of the vast bulk of the labour force. Under those suggestions there were to be prescribed areas for classes of Bantu where no further Bantu could be employed, and there were going to be labour quotas for all industry, and the Minister would be able to apply job reservation far more widely even than the Minister of Labour, and he would be allowed to interfere with contracts of service. Sir, the whole climate created was one of a controlled labour force and a situation absolutely abhorrent to a free-enterprise economy on which South Africa has always prided itself and which it has used as an inducement to attract immigrants to South Africa. But what are the purely economic implications? You see, this idea that your Native is just a unit in a labour pool, which Mr. Justice Snyman complains about, is something which denies every differential ability of the human being which denies his experience, his training, his potential, his motivations. What becomes of this division of labour on which the Western nations of the world have developed their prosperity? What has become of the credo of modern industrial psychology in which they believe that more attention must be paid to the ego of the individual worker? Is that not inevitably going to hamper the development of our whole economy? Sociologically the whole thing is indefensible and what are going to be the psychological effects of this basic insecurity? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members are conversing so loudly that one cannot hear the Leader of the Opposition.

Thank you, Sir. My trouble is that politically, internally and externally, the storm clouds which are gathering as a result of this sort of policy are appalling, and I want to say quite bluntly to the hon. the Prime Minister that our image in the outside world, I am afraid, depends not so much on his concept of a Bantustan policy as it depends on our treatment of our urban Natives in our big industrial areas. I am afraid that is the vital fact that we have to recognize, and it is because of the situation of the urban Native that the Western world on the whole has been unable to accept and defend the policies of this Government in the forums of the outside world, because they realize that the Bantustan policy does not improve the lot of the urban Native. Sir, the inadequacy of their policy is even more dramatically shown when we test it against the position first of all of the Cape Coloured people. Here you have people in respect of whom the Government tries to cover up this deficiency by concentrating upon social welfare and other activities, all described under the generic terms “community development”, but nobody can deny and nobody can deny the fact that for them this policy means that politically they are at a complete dead-end.

Then there is the case of the Indian community. The application of this policy to them, particularly in so far as the Group Areas Act is concerned, has led to its being applied in such a way that their traditional forms of livelihood are being affected. It is very current in Johannesburg at the moment. Our problem is: How do you justify these things to the outside world? How do you justify them to the nations of the Western world who should be our friends and who should be helping us and standing by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the difficulties that he has in the international forum of the world? Even in the application of this policy to the Bantustans one is faced with a feeling that the Government lacks courage and lacks determination in carrying out the policy. One would have thought that if they were bound to this policy they would give some evidence of determination and resolution by tackling the development of the reserves in a really realistic and go-ahead manner. One would have expected the use of White skill, White capital, White initiative and every effort made to bring about vast economic advance, instead of which it seems that they do not regard this development as an end in itself. They seem to think it should rather be sought as a consequence of the development of White areas on their borders. They still talk about decentralization of South African industries to border areas, and the border areas, you will notice, Sir, are always on the White man’s side of the boundary and so far never on the Black man’s side of the boundary. This means that in that development the Bantu working in the border industries are never going to have full opportunities; they are always going to continue to be subjected to restrictions because they are there in the White part of South Africa. The Government cannot risk that unless it is willing to face two types of economy in one country, a White-orientated economy in the existing industrial areas and a Black-orientated economy in the border areas. I believe that that concept is unacceptable even to this Government which has twisted the laws of economics in so many strange ways already. Sir, unless Government policy is modified so that we can make proper use of our manpower we are going to find a slowing up in our industrial development which is going to make it impossible for this country to develop fast enough to meet its growing needs and to keep its position as an industrialized nation in the world. I have a quotation here from Mr. Oppenheimer. I think we will all agree that whatever his politics may be, he knows something about industry.

That is why his policy is so good.

Sir, I wish that were a necessary corollary; it would mean that the hon. member’s industrial knowledge was good; it is very bad indeed.

You cannot have it both ways.

We are approaching a state of affairs where we can find money for promising development but not a sufficient number of men with the experience necessary to see projects through to completion. It is becoming quite clear that the prospects of material improvement in a short time are remote because high-level manpower shortages are inherent in our situation here in South Africa. As long as the White sector of the population which numbers 3,000,000 must provide administrative and industrial leadership and high-level technical and managerial skills for 15,000,000 people we are going to be in a difficult position, and I believe that only something like 1.5 per cent per annum of our White population reaches the high levels which are required. Unless we develop our industrial resources we are constantly going to find ourselves with a bottleneck in our agriculture because agriculture’s problem today is that it is producing surplusses which many of our people would like to consume but which they cannot consume at the prices payable to the farmer. The result is that we are running into difficulties of all kinds. We have increased production, with better and scientific methods being applied but even so we are in the difficulty that we are losing farmers from the land at the rate of 750 a year. I am talking now about farmers, not their families and not White workers. We are losing them at the rate of 750 a year. Sir, most people in the world are poor; most people in South Africa are poor. I think the hon. the Minister of Finance will agree with me when I say that over 60 per cent of the total White income-tax payers earn under R2,000 per annum and that that goes for 80 per cent of the Asiatic income-tax payers and 98 or 99 per cent of the Coloured income-tax payers. Just imagine what the position is with those who do not pay income-tax. For South Africa this is a problem, but we are in a wonderful position. We are one of the few countries of the world which has perhaps better opportunities than most nations to improve the standard of living of our people.

We are doing it better than anybody else.

Does the hon. member realize that the consumption of butter per head of the population in South Africa is 6 lbs. and that in Australia it is 25 lbs.? Does he know that Australia eats four times as much cheese per man annually as we do? The hon. member challenged me. He was probably unaware of the work done by the Dairy Control Board in increasing the consumption of butter amongst the Bantu people from 8,000 lbs. to 101,000 lbs. in a very short period, at a price of 25c only. That was the snag. If we could produce it at that price, or if the standard of living of those people was sufficiently raised and they could buy it at the current price you would see a smile on the face of the Minister of Agriculture. You would see a smile on his face probably for the first time this Session. In the meantime schemes which we had in the past for the subsidization of food for the poorer sections have been dropped by this Government. It seems to me that in all these matters this Government is failing South Africa. It is failing South Africa because it is restricted by prejudice and by the philosophy that justice to other people is sometimes dangerous for those who do the justice. But, Sir, it is in defence of a policy of this kind, it is in defence of something which is bound to fail because of its inherent weaknesses, something that is so full of contradictions and impracticabilities, something that has inherent in it the denial of the logic of both economics and the lessons of history that our Foreign Minister, who is the mouthpiece of the Prime Minister overseas, calls upon the White people of South Africa either to abdicate or to fight. Sir, I am afraid he confuses the abdication of the Government, which many people are craving for, and the abdication of the White people of South Africa from civilized standards. He sees no middle way; he is not prepared for any material variations. He is satisfied that there is no middle way, no alternative but to abdicate or prepare for war, hot or cold. It is in defence of that policy, it is that philosphy in its application to South Africa, that has been so unacceptable to the whole of the changed world to-day that has led to South Africa’s utter isolation. Sir, when three years ago we on this side of the House warned of the dangers of isolation, I do not think we ever imagined for one moment that things could rush so headlong towards a climax with the speed that they have done in the past few years. It seemed then as though South Africa still had time to think, time to readjust and time to change direction. But we find ourselves to-day in the position in which the time we have had to buy, at the cost of all sorts of measures like the recent General Law Amendment Act of this year and others, at the cost of straining the goodwill of our friends, have become most precious indeed. As I asked earlier, what are we doing with this precious time? How are we using it? We are taking steps to strengthen our internal security, and there the Government has had the support of the Opposition for all reasonable measures. It is true also that we are taking steps to strengthen our defensive position against military attack from outside. Here too the Opposition has not obstructed the Government in its efforts. But is it enough, Sir? Is it enough to arm our police with additional powers, to take stringent measures to maintain internal security unless our policies are so redesigned as to promote goodwill amongst all our people and to give them all an interest and a stake in the maintenance of law and order. Is it enough, Sir, to arm ourselves if we are still following policies which the great Western nations of the world, people who traditionally have been our friends, find it difficult to defend.

That is a shocking thing to say. You know your policy is not acceptable to them either.

I am not surprised at the excitability of my hon. friend from Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). He always explodes when he hears the truth. But he is going to hear a bit more of it to-day. The position is this that unless we can achieve some measure of support for our policies from the Western world things may deteriorate much faster than we think. We may find ourselves in the position where there may be a marked deterioration and great difficulties and great dangers for South Africa even before Parliament meets in January. I want to say it is my fear that if we persevere with the present answers to the problems as given by the present Government tragedy may well wait upon South Africa. I hope the time has at last come when, even if hon. members in this House do not pay adequate attention to the seriousness of the situation, the public outside will perhaps take a little time off from the Stock Exchange, from watching the Wallabies play rugby, from their golf and their sport and their fishing and give a little real attention to the seriousness of this situation and weigh it up in the interests of South Africa. I think my views are best expressed by moving an amendment in the following terms—

1. (a) the Government’s internal policies are creating uncertainty, confusion and insecurity and are placing in jeopardy South Africa’s good name and safety;
2. (b) the Government has no practical foreign policy designed to cope with the problems arising from South Africa’s ever-growing isolation; and
3. (c) the position is being further aggravated by—
   1. (i) the unrealistic policies the Government is seeking to apply to the Coloureds, the South African Indians and the urban Natives; and
   2. (ii) the Government’s failure to take proper action for the orderly expansion of South Africa’s agriculture and industry”.

I know the immediate question from the other side will be: What is your policy? Sir, I think my policies have been outlined in this House in the no-confidence motion and in the Transkei debate and in a large number of other debates in this House. What these gentlemen are trying to do, Sir, is not to inquire into what our policies are but they are trying to evade their own responsibility because they realize their own policies are not defensible and therefore they must try to find something else to criticize and to attack. I may say that I am confident that if I can get members opposite to face up to the realities of the situation in South Africa, to get away a little from politics, to get down to the seriousness of this situation, half of them will walk across the floor and join this side of the House. And I think perhaps one of the first will be the hon. member for Vereeniging. He has quite a bit of practice in that regard.

I second the amendment, Sir. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in the masterly survey which he has just given of the country’s affairs, has made a number of points which the other side will find it extremely difficult to reply to or to avoid accepting. Amongst others he pointed out that one of the main reasons, possibly the chief reason today, why the Western powers give unqualified disapproval of the Government’s racial policies was their attitude towards the urban African. I want to quote one example of that attitude to-day because it seems to be typical of the pattern of Government policy in regard to the urban Bantu. There are plenty of other examples but one will do for the purposes of my argument. I refer to the case of the Mapheeles family at Paarl which most members would have read about in the Press. There you have a perfectly respectable and hardworking Native. He is in a responsible job which he has now held for some 14 years. He has a wife and a child. His wife and his child are living with him. She was ordered to leave because she had no legal right to be there. Where she was to go or what was to happen to her nobody seems to care. She had no legal right to be there and she must therefore go. In an effort to stay with her husband this woman appealed to the court. It was in the nature of a test case. The Supreme Court found against her. The two Judges, in finding against her, expressed great sympathy for her. I think they went so far as to say that they hoped the Minister would take a sympathetic view of her case and would not enforce the law to its fullest extent. She went on appeal and the Appeal Court upheld the Supreme Court Judges. So, Sir, the Minister won his case. The law was in his favour; the law was established. Of course it may be argued that that only shows in the first instance what a bad law it is and that it should be changed as soon as possible. Nevertheless, having established the legal position and having regard to all the factors of the case, one would have thought that the Minister concerned would have considered the human aspect of this matter, the aspect of breaking up a perfectly happy, decent family for what purpose? But, no, Mr. Speaker, the Minister was offended; his omnipotence had been questioned. When he was. appealed to to consider the case sympathetically he talked about provocative action. He said that after all that had happened he could not be expected to make concessions. Have you ever heard such pompous nonsense, Mr. Speaker! What provocative action had been taken? What has this woman done? All she did was to appeal to the court in the hope of saving her home.

Who financed her appeal?

Whatever has that got to do with the case. Had I been approached I would have helped to finance her myself with great pleasure. So, Sir, this family is to be broken up. Why? As far as one can see the only reason is that they happen to be a Black family. It could not happen to a White one. I suppose we shall now see the Minister of Information getting to work and explaining that all this is really being done in the interests of the Bantu people themselves, that it is an example of the benevolence of the Government towards the Bantu people, that this is another instance of its tireless efforts to achieve what the Minister of Information has referred to as a relaxation of racial tension.

When you think of cases like this, and there are many of them, this is not a sort of isolated case; and when you think that this is the Government which is always talking about Christian Western civilization, one realizes, Sir, what an awful contradiction there is between the words and the deeds of this Government. We know very well, Sir, which speaks louder, deeds or words.

What do you know about Christianity?

Mr. Speaker, we are always being told that we should be careful what we say in this House because it all gets quoted against South Africa abroad; it may be quoted overseas. I take it that this case and others have already been quoted. What forms world opinion of South Africa is not the words of the Opposition but the deeds of the Government. They should realize that and stop putting all the blame on people who point out their misdeeds. Unless they do that I am afraid there is little hope of world opinion of South Africa improving. Personally, Sir, I am speaking deliberately. I hope I will be reported; I want it widely known, both here and abroad, that civilized opinion in the Republic utterly condemns the Government’s handling of race relations. I want the people to know that there are hundreds of thousands of us who hang our heads in shame at the very sorry spectacle of our country which is presented to the rest of the world by the actions and the policies of this Government. Mr. Speaker, why should we all be damned for the follies, for the worse than follies, the stupidity and the incompetence and the wilful blindness of this Government to obvious and inescapable facts? When one realizes what is going on, is it any wonder that the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs as far as foreign relations are concerned has become a complete defeatist? Is it any wonder that he has thrown in his hand? As my hon. Leader has remarked in this House, the other day, he gave us his final verdict on our relations with the rest of the world; he said: There is no middle way, we must either abdicate or fight. What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? It means: Either South Africa accepts the idea of a policy of one man, one vote (which is what the hon. Minister means by “abdication”), or else it means a challenge to the rest of the world either to accept the Government’s racial policies in toto, or else to be prepared to use force to get them altered. That means war, either hot or cold. And the systematic attempts which are being made by Government spokesmen to acclimatize people to the idea of the possibility, even the probability of war is evidence, I think that the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs was correct in his interpretation of his Government’s views when he spoke on this matter in this House. But, Mr. Speaker, what a prospect! What a prospect for all of us! Unfortunately there is no member, with one possible exception, of this Government and practically no members on that side of the House who have any knowledge or experience of war at first hand, nor have the great majority of the South African people. If they had, they would not contemplate war, whether it is hot or cold, with such apparent equanimity. Some of us have seen war at first hand. I personally experienced two world wars and we know what hideous tragedy a war can be and is for the people, involving disastrous sacrifices, human suffering, deprivations and miseries.

Where did you fight then?

I fought for things which this Government seems to place very little value on to-day. I fought for freedom of all mankind.

And what did you get?

I fought for the rights of those hon. members opposite and for the Government of this country …

And now you want to capitulate!

We know what a tragic and terrible thing war can be. But we also know, and the hon. Minister of Agriculture ought to know too, that it is the supreme task of the leaders of a country to preserve peace and goodwill, without loss of self-respect or freedom or of independence. It is the first, and admittedly very often the most difficult, task of statesmanship to carry that out. But a Government may not abandon that task just because it is difficult. To do that, is to betray those people whose welfare Providence has entrusted to our charge (if I may quote the very fine phrase that you use, Mr. Speaker, when you pray for us every morning). I say that, knowing that whilst war calls for sacrifices, peace no less, just as much perhaps in some ways, but with far greater promise, also demands sacrifices from all of us. But, Sir, if this Government despairs, if the Government can offer this country nothing but to prepare for war, then surely it should either in the interests of the country, in the interests of its own self-respect make way for someone else who does not despair, or if it will not do that, it must surely realize that even at this late hour under world conditions as they are today, and with the critical times which are looming ahead, and not so very far ahead perhaps, a supreme effort must be made, and it can only be made by the Government of the day, to make peace at least in the first place with the Western powers, the great powers of the West who have been our allies in the past.

You know very well what they demand of us.

What?

One man one vote.

It is not for me to presume to advise the hon. the Prime Minister. He is standing alone. He cannot even speak for the whole of White South Africa, let alone for the non-Whites. But, Sir, he has given through his Minister of Foreign Affairs the country an ultimatum to abdicate or fight, and he indicated that as far as he is concerned, it means fighting, if necessary.

Your prefer abdication?

I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister what authority has he to say that the Western powers insist on “one man one vote” before modifying their unqualified disapproval of our racial policies? Has he consulted, either singly or collectively the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, West Germany? Has he even met the executive heads of any one of those powers, with the possible exception of Mr. Macmillan? Has he negotiated or has he attempted to negotiate with any of them with a view to finding out what they would regard as solid ground for supporting South Africa against the unbridled attacks which are being made on us to an increasing degree every day?

Did that not become clear at the Commonwealth Conference?

If the hon. the Prime Minister has not done that, and if he is not in the position to tell us that he has made every effort to find a way for rebuilding our relations with the West, then I declare that he has no right whatever to tell us bluntly that it is a question of abdicate or fight.

Sir, there is a feeling of deep disquiet and uncertainty and apprehension amongst the people all over the country about the direction in which we apparently are heading, and I believe that the recent conference at Addis Ababa and the I.L.O. at Geneva, to which my Leader has referred, are only the most recent symptoms of the situation which is building up. I believe there is a widespread belief in this country that a continuation of the present political controversies is barren and can only lead to disaster, unless the deadlock can be broken. Because I believe that the country is on the verge of a crisis. How close, nobody knows. Maybe within the next six months as the hon. Leader of the Opposition has said. A crisis which demands wise, sane, strong leadership, in which the interests of one party or another, or a stubborn adherence to ideologies and slogans are of minor importance.

All that is necessary is a responsible Opposition.

I will not be accused of having any philanthropic feelings towards the hon. the Prime Minister, but he is the Prime Minister, and I think the question is to-day: How big a man is he? Is he just a party leader? We know that he is the undisputed leader of a very big majority in this House, a very big majority in quantity—as to its quality that is a matter of opinion. Is he just a party Prime Minister confined to slogging a rigid, unflinching apartheid policy, with no regard at all to changing circumstances and with eyes that do not look any further than the next election? Or has he, as one would hope in a Prime Minister, the qualities of a statesman and the capacity for greater things than just being a sectional leader. To my mind, Sir, at our present juncture, that is the crucial question at this testing moment for the Republic, when the whole future of the Republic appears to be in jeopardy. Mr. Speaker, our children are being told by members of the Government that they must be prepared to shed their blood for South Africa. I do not think that is necessary. Any South African will fight for his country if it is attacked, but, Sir, war is the supreme sacrifice that any people can be called upon to make and any man who calls for that sacrifice, without first making selfless, almost superhuman efforts to avoid it, is betraying the people; he is unworthy of the trust that has been placed in him. And I am sorry to say, Sir, that as far as we can see at the present moment, the hon. the Prime Minister is not lifting a finger to preserve us. He is sitting there convinced of his own infallibility and quite impervious to anything but his own opinions.

I want to plead with the hon. Prime Minister to-day in the name of the Republic and of the people. [Laughter.] I am just as much entitled to plead in the name of the Republic as any member in this House. I want to plead with the hon. the Prime Minister to quit his ivory tower and to grapple with the realities of the situation, and I want to warn him that if he lands this country in war, whether it is hot war or cold war, by handling its affairs in the haphazard, unrealistic manner which he is adopting to-day, neither the people, nor the Republic, nor history will ever forgive him.

Business suspended at 12.45 and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, we heard that the United Party wanted to conclude this Session, which had not been very favourable for it, on a high note, and the question I want to ask immediately is whether this was now the high note, this futility and pessimism of the Leader of the Opposition and the venomous attack of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson). Is that now the note on which this Session has to end?

The Opposition started the Session with high hopes and great expectations. They were influenced by their Press, which assured them that the Government was busy disintegrating, that there was division in its ranks, and that, particularly in respect of the Transkei policy, I did not enjoy the support of my party but was following my own course, which would result in a rift in our ranks. On that slender basis the Opposition founded their hopes, but during the course of the Session that balloon was pricked. Now they sit there deflated and are trying to salvage something by means of these negative attacks. Perhaps they are trying to salvage something for the by-election in Wynberg, or perhaps they want to salvage something for the sake of their standing in the eyes of the public.

Now I want to say this to the hon. member for Constantia. He thought he could make demands of me as Prime Minister, but I may also make demands of someone who can be regarded as being one of the elder statesmen, if I may use that expression. From an elder statesman one expects moderation and a calm outlook on matters, and an attempt to judge soberly. One does not expect the exhibition we had in this debate from that hon. member, and I am ashamed of him.

The fact is that the great attack of the United Party which we now had was quite negative and full of pessimism. The first question I want to ask is whether a nation can and should build its future on such pessimism. I want to ask whether there is any hope for South Africa when people who pose as being the alternative Government are so pessimistic in these difficult times, which I admit are difficult. Therefore I ask whether they are the sort of people who could take over the leadership of a nation.

I do not, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to anticipate, expect them once again to repeat what their policy is. There has already been enough repetition in his speech. But what I am allowed to ask him is that in this debate he should set the test also in regard to his own policy which he set for our policy. He says that our policy estranges the Western nations, but then he should also have told us how the Western nations would have reacted if his policy had been implemented, and why. Then he would probably have discovered that everything for which he reproaches us would to the same extent have been hurled at his head by our opponents overseas. Unfortunately he dare not do so. That is why I say he relies on pessimism and a negative attack, in the hope of frightening people and distracting attention from everything which is very important in these difficult times.

In my opinion, the Leader of the Opposition betrayed himself somewhat towards the end of his speech and indicated his reasons for acting in the way he did. It is that he and his followers are deeply disappointed at the extent to which they are still continuing to lose the support of the public of South Africa, and particularly that of a section of the public whom they thought should exclusively support them, viz. the English-speaking section of the population. That is why towards the end of his speech he attacked the general public. It will not have escaped the notice of the public that he said that they should now for a change start thinking about the seriousness of the situation and stop thinking just about sport and how to make money. Why did he reproach them in that way? It was because he was disappointed with the experience he had had, viz. that his former supporters have no faith in him or in his policy because that policy is so negative.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition once more repeated his well-known standpoints. I do not want to devote attention to it, but I want to emphasize one point, inter alia, namely that he once again, as so often before, tried to boast about the warnings he had issued to us. He tells us about the well-known troubles which are known to all of us, which are known to everybody in the country and not only to those of us who sit here. Our people are not blind to happenings in the world, or deaf to the echoes coming from Africa. They realize the difficulties in which the West finds itself, and also we in South Africa. That is no news. The difficulties we are experiencing in respect of certain Bantu organizations, how they are being incited, and the accompanying dangers, are nothing new. If the Leader of the Opposition gets up to-day and says: “I want to warn you that this and that is taking place”, then he is stating only what we know, and so he should not refer to it in a few years’ time again, as he usually does, and say: “I warned you”. The country is fully aware of all those difficulties. He need not attempt to “inform” us, and he need not later reproach us as if we had taken no heed of his warnings.

The first part of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition dealt with the report of Judge Snyman in connection with the incidents at Paarl. He evidently got some measure of consolation from it, and he also expressed some praise. I think I must follow suit and say that I am glad of the thorough and speedy report the hon. Judge gave South Africa. I am even more gratified about it because I believe that it has removed much of the suspicion which was sown at the time by the United Party’s criticism in regard to the situation. In my opinion, the lesson to be learnt from this report is that the diagnosis of and the sowing of suspicion by the United Party was quite wrong. That is why the Leader of the Opposition could not get much further along those lines. In regard to those incidents, the Opposition tried to blame the Government and those who had to maintain order. They also tried to seek a whole series of sinister causes for it emanating from the legislation and the policy of this country. The Judge, on a sober analysis of the evidence before him, put the matter in the correct perspective.

I want to emphasize that the report in at least three respects proved how wrong the outlook of the United Party was in its attempt to make political capital out of the unfortunate incidents there. It proved in the first place that the United Party was wrong in trying to blame the legislation in general and the negligence of the Government and the police for having caused the riots. It proved secondly, that the United Party was wrong in its opposition when the Government considered it necessary to acquire greater control and supervision over what was done by local authorities in regard to matters affecting the Bantu. We had an Act before the House, one which was most energetically opposed by the United Party because one of the elements in it was that the Central Government felt that where it was the maker of policy in the sphere of Bantu legislation and Bantu policy, it should be in the position to ensure that local authorities correctly inform the Bantu in regard to that policy and the motives for it, and to ensure that the Bantu are not handled with greater strictness or less firmness than is necessary in order to implement that policy. The Government through its legislation tries to ensure that vis-à-vis the local authorities it would in practice be put in the position of keeping the necessary supervision. It so happens that it later appears from this report that lack of this supervision was one of the things that was wrong in Paarl, and that this perhaps gave rise to these struggles. Therefore also in connection with the basic opposition of the United Party to certain legislation introduced by this side of the House, this report proves that we were right in our views and that they were wrong. Thirdly, a fundamental point which in my opinion emerges from this report is that there is a basic difference between the Bantu and the White man, and that the Government is right when it says that the Bantu who comes to our cities does not thereby suddenly become integrated, someone as it were, with all the habits and customs of the Whites, who immediately understands these things and easily adapts himself to them. The accuracy of this statement is proved by the criticism expressed by the Judge in regard to the handling of the Bantu by some Whites as if the Bantu is a White man, whilst he still remains a Bantu when he comes to the city. He retains his own nature and his own customs. From this it follows that it is essential in all forms of Government affecting the Bantu, whether it is locally or on a country-wide scale, whether it is in the cities or in the Transkei, to bear in mind the Bantu’s nature and customs. It is therefore desirable that he should be given forms of Government suitable to his own nature and customs wherever possible. Therefore in my opinion it follows that the correct thing to do is to try to keep the Bantu as far as possible in their own communities, also when he lives near the White cities, and that one should try to let him retain his own leaders there, and not try to deprive him of his own leaders by integrating him with the Whites and in the White community. In addition, an ideal for the future should be created for the Bantu of becoming a nation of their own in their own areas, so that their residence amongst the Whites, where they find it so difficult to adapt themselves, becomes only a transitional residence and not a permanent one. That is the ideal we have in regard to our own country, and which the United Party Opposition never helps to state clearly, and in that way plays a part in the fact that the outside world does not realize it either. We are fighting not only against a lack of understanding by the world which is far removed from these problems, but also against a local lack of understanding by people who for political reasons do not want to realize the true facts. That is why we find it difficult to bring home to people the splendid objects of our policy. Incidents like these, however, and a sober, impartial report such as this one, again show one that the basic philosophy of the outlook of the Government is correct, namely that in all our thinking and our objectives we must consider the Bantu not as an inferior being but as a different type of person, a person of a different race with a different nature and with customs which have been acquired through the centuries and who is accustomed to a different form of Government. Unless we take that into account there will be disorder and riots and unhappiness.

After dealing with the Paarl report, the Leader of the Opposition again referred to what he thought generally in regard to such troubles, namely that they stem from the policies of the Government. One of the reasons he mentioned—in order to create a bad atmosphere against South Africa—is that we also wanted to turn the idea of domination, in an ugly form, into a philosophy, even in regard to all kinds of Bantu areas. Now I should like to know why the Leader of the Opposition, who pretended to express his concern about out position in the world, found it necessary not only once again to refer to domination as if it was a policy of oppression which we deliberately apply—as they always did in the past—but why he now tries to apply that concept particularly also to these areas. In the last-mentioned areas it is obvious that what is being applied there is what I already stated in the beginning of my career as Minister of Native Affairs to the Natives’ Representative Council of that time. I stated at the time, and hon. members often threw it in my face, that I believed in the domination of the White man in his area over his own people, and also in the domination of the Bantu in his areas over his own people.

You ran away from it.

No, but it was often thrown into my face. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition nevertheless tried to state his standpoint in such a way as to give the impression that we want to apply a policy of oppression not only in our own area and over our own people but also in respect of the Bantu, even in the Transkei. Otherwise why did he drag in the concept of domination (baasskap)? My standpoint is really this. I prefer not to use the concept “baasskap”, as I have often said before, because it was being misinterpreted to such an extent, and because the original meaning was simply equivalent to supremacy, which the United Party to-day says is their policy. They in fact say that White supremacy is their policy. I could just as well continually have accused and vilified them by saying: “You now stand for a policy of White domination (baasskap)”. But what do we gain by bandying these concepts about? I believe that if in these matters we want to have a calm atmosphere, and if we do not want to be misunderstood overseas, we should stop vilifying each other and trying to give unpleasant implications to words, or ascribing venomous objects to each other.

The second point made by the Leader of the Opposition was this: He says that we are powerless to-day to do something in the direction he suggests, because we are afraid of our supporters. His allegation, in other words, is that we would have liked to make certain concessions which he thinks should be made in regard to our policy in regard to the Coloureds or the Bantu—he was not very clear on that point at that stage—but that we are prevented from doing so by the stick-in-the-muds amongst our own followers. I want to make it clear immediately that we have stated a clear policy which we are implementing because we believe in it. Our followers do not follow us because they want to follow us, but because they want to follow that policy and believe in it. Consequently there is nothing we should like to abandon in the policy which we have always propagated and which we have implemented step by step. It is not true that we want to abandon part of our policy, but that we are prevented from doing so by our followers. If, however, there are some of our followers who expect us to amend our policy in a way which we think is unwise or wrong, and who reproach us in that regard (e.g. people who do not want to grant the Bantu their own areas or self-government there), we will be prepared to tell them: Here you are wrong. If on the other hand there should be people in our ranks who feel that we should swing to the left and make concessions which we think should not be made, we will tell them also: You are wrong. In other words, the leaders of the party follow the policy which they honestly believe is best for South Africa and is best for both Whites and non-Whites. It is also a policy with a moral basis which we can defend in the world, as I shall try to explain. I shall come back in a few moments to our colour policy, as the Leader of the Opposition also again did later, because I am following him on his travels through the world.

Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition expressed certain views in regard to the outside world. He tried to frighten us with Addis Ababa. I just want to say clearly that there are certain points in this regard on which we probably agree. I agree with him that the nations of Africa have been so impressed with the independence they obtained that they unfortunately now think they can make any demand of the great nations of the world, which will be only too keen to give it to them, and that these African states have a sense of power quite out of proportion to the power that they in fact have. In other words they have become too big for their boots. I am not using the Leader of the Opposition’s term, “drunk with freedom I could have used it, but I do not want to hurt people unnecessarily. I want to regard this with a forgiving eye. I accept that when states have suddenly emerged from immaturity and the majority of their people are not really aware of what is happening but simply blindly follow leaders who are not used to exercising power, it is only human and natural that such leaders should lose their heads somewhat and take extravagant action against others because they feel power-drunk. I also accept that it makes a great impression on these nations, and particularly on their leaders, when they see how the great states of the world compete for their favour because of their struggles amongst each other, so that these newcomers think that they can make any demand for money for support in their threats against anyone else to whom they happen to be ill disposed. Psychologically I can understand all this. As I have already said, my own idea is that we in South Africa should be magnanimous and forgiving so that when later those African states return to sobriety and begin to learn the hard lesson of life, namely that eventually Governments and leaders must climb down from these heights of exaltation and visions of power to the cold realities of working for the existence of their people, they will find that South Africa will be helpful and will assist them in their normal development, in the same way that we are now helping our own Bantu to develop.

I further want to agree with the Leader of the Opposition that when those states have internal troubles their tendency will be to seek to put up a smokescreen and to look for an enemy, and they will find it in South Africa. Why? Not because of the apartheid policy, but because there are still White people in South Africa. In the Portuguese territories there is a totally different policy, one of absolute assimilation and integration. In Southern Rhodesia there is a policy of partnership and a readiness to admit that the White man will in time have to hand over his supremacy to the Bantu, which is therefore a policy which goes further than that of the United Party and approaches much more closely the policy of the Progressive Party. And notwithstanding that, we find that the reaction of the African states to them is the same as it is to us. They use those White states as a smokescreen just as much as they use South Africa. In other words, the incitement is directed towards the White population of this country and against the supremacy of the White inhabitants of those countries, even though that supremacy is benevolent and the Black people in those countries live on a much higher level in every respect than in their own countries. Nevertheless African leaders are inimical towards those countries. Therefore we agree in that regard. But now I ask the Leader of the Opposition further: What is his object in hurling this in our faces to-day? Does he thereby wish to intimate that we have to make concessions in regard to our policy such as are demanded by those people who assembled at Addis Ababa and thereby to prevent them from using us as a smokescreen or the point of attack? If that is his object he knows as well as I do that whatever he might say about the conception of the Western nations of a policy of one man, one vote, the African states demand one man, one vote. In fact, not only do they demand that, but they also demand that the Black man alone will dominate. That is their objective and their aim. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition therefore wants to frighten us with what happened at Addis Ababa and blame us for it, then he should also, if he wants to be honest, set himself this test, namely that if he were to have been in power with his policy, would he thereby have satisfied the African states? He can find the reply to that in what happened in Southern Rhodesia and what is happening in respect of the Portuguese territories. It is clear that they would have been satisfied just as little. They would have carried on just as they did at Addis Ababa and they would have walked out on other occasions as they in fact did as a protest against our policy. If the Leader of the Opposition doubts that, I do not know what he bases his doubt on. Then I ask him: Has he any direct facts to prove that the heads of Government of the various African states would accept the racial policy of the United Party? That is the type of question that is put to me whenever I make statements.

What I want to discuss here is the following. The Leader of the Opposition says he is not so much concerned about the fact that the African states will be able to attack us. whatever they might think, but that they will be able to attack us through our friends. In other words, they will be able to get the Western nations ready to make their attacks in their place, either in the economic sphere or militarily. That is what he regards as the great danger. Now, why should those Western nations want to attack us? In the first place I do not agree with him in the sense that I do not believe that those nations will necessarily do that. I think those nations will try to confine themselves to their own problems. If. however, they bow to the Black nations and take action—and I take it that the Leader of the Opposition also argues that way—if they should do that, why should they do so? Just to satisfy the African nations (whatever their own views might be) and just to gain their goodwill. They would not allow themselves to be persuaded by the African nations step by step to exert further pressure, they would not exert pressure on us, but also not in Southern Rhodesia, with a policy which goes much further than that of the United Party, if it were not in order at any cost to retain the friendship of the African states. One should not forget: The Western nations have directed their critical interference also against Southern Rhodesia. Therefore I repeat: If the Leader of the Opposition fears that there will be an attack by the Western nations, then his own policy will not stop it. It will not be able to stand the test, because the struggle is not as to what our internal policy is when it comes to the question as to how the Western nations will act. Only their self-interest counts with them, and how they need the African states for that self-interest. Then I have the right to ask: Will it redound to the credit of the Western nations, or the friends we have, if they are prepared simply for their own self-interest and the support of the Afro-Asian nations, to attack us in any way? Does it redound to their credit, and have they the right to interfere in the internal affairs of this country, whatever moral or other views they might hold? If the last-mentioned should, however, be the yardstick on which they rely for interference, and if they claim the right to attack South Africa because on moral grounds they disapprove of something in our policy (and voluntarily or for the sake of the Afro-Asian nations they in fact attack us), then, if they are honest in regard to their moral basis, they should long ago have attacked the communist nations. Against those nations they have an equally strong, if not a much stronger and a much older moral objection. This moral objection is also against their outlook and their actions. Then they should also have attacked Russia in respect of Hungary. They should have attacked the communist Soviet State in regard to Latvia and Lithuania. Their morality cannot just flare up, the moment our small nation is in trouble, for the sake of the vote of other nations. That is not moral. Therefore I infer that the Western nations may try to exert pressure on us because it is in their interest to try to gain friends amongst the Afro-Asian states (because of the many votes they can cast at UN and for other reasons). But the Western nations cannot justifiably go further than that. That would not redound to their credit. That would not be in line with their own conception of moral actions if others are left unattacked because they are stronger nations.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition gave a second example. That is the recent incident at the recent International Labour Organization. He said that no leader supported us there. Again I ask: Why? Why did the Western nations not support us at I.L.O.? Does it redound to their credit that they did not support our rights? Dare the Leader of the Opposition reproach this Government or its policy or South Africa for the fact that we do not get that support there? In fact, this is a very good test for morality as the basis of behaviour. The I.L.O. is not an organization where a political struggle should be waged in regard to apartheid or any other political policy. The I.L.O. was established long ago, South Africa being a foundation member, to protect the interests of the workers. It is a completely non-political sphere. In that nonpolitical sphere we were prepared to cooperate with everybody, including the Black states, however much they attacked us elsewhere; with the communist states, however much they attacked us; and with the Western nations. We were still prepared to co-operate in the I.L.O. in regard to the common purpose of protecting the interests of the workers. And what was done there? On that occasion the whole basis of the I.L.O. movement was violated; its whole object, its whole composition, was attacked and damaged by people who unjustifiably wanted to launch a political attack there. Where our workers were represented there, according to the constitution of that organization, we were outvoted. Does that redound to the credit of any Western nation? Is that something in regard to which the Opposition wants to reproach us if the Western nations on this non-political terrain and under those circumstances do not support us? They did not stand by the principles of the organization and the rights of a small nation, but gave way, for the sake of self-interest, to retain the friendship of the majority which, as the Leader of the Opposition himself said, attacked us because they were drunk with freedom and at the same time wanted to put up a smokescreen. Are the Western nations not clear-thinking people who can also clearly realize what is going on? Is it South Africa and its Government who have to be reproached, or is it they who have to hurl the reproaches?

The Leader of the Opposition continued to warn us of the pressure we should expect. It may be pressure in the form of a refusal to supply us with arms; it may be pressure in the form of sanctions of some kind or other; it may be other threats. Of course the Government and the people know that they are subjected to such pressure. Who does not know it? The whole of South Africa knows that pressure is continually being applied by means of public speeches, by public attacks, by allegations made by leaders of greater or lesser importance! We all know it; there is no necessity to warn anybody about the pressure. If the Leader of the Opposition wanted to make a positive contribution to this debate, he should have told us whether we should yield to that pressure, and how, and then he should have said further whether he would have yielded to that pressure, and in what respects. Then the people outside can judge whether they want him, who will give in to that pressure, or whether they want us, who maintain the right of the White man to handle his own affairs. He should also have told us how he wants to give in. Then we could have put one standpoint against the other. I now say to the Leader of the Opposition and to the country: This Government will not as the result of any pressure make any concessions which it thinks are against the interests of South Africa. We believe that the policy we follow leads to the preservation of South Africa.…

And there you are mistaken.

… and therefore we cannot make concessions in the face of this pressure because what would that lead to? I shall deal with this in a few moments, and the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), who is so fond of making interjections, thereby usually landing himself in trouble, should rather wait until then. I say clearly that we will not give way to pressure. Let the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, through one of his minions who may still get up to talk, tell us that they will give way to pressure; then we will know where we stand. In other words, if they should come into power. [Interjection.] It is no use sneering; it is no use ridiculing and saying: “There stands the soldier.” Nobody would like to have a war. I am dealing here with a real argument. If the Leader of the Opposition should come into power with his policy, and that policy does not satisfy the Afro-Asian nations, and the Western nations are still so keen on having their support that they will also press him to change his policy, or else threaten to apply sanctions or refuse to supply arms, will he then make concessions in regard to his policy, yes or no?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition continued to say that he wanted to make an accusation, which was that the Government had no foreign policy. That attack was directed at the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He is supposed to have revealed that South Africa has no foreign policy. In regard to that I want to say this: How does one test the foreign policy of the Government? Is the test that it is weak and simply goes along, whatever demands are made of it; or is the test that it very clearly and definitely adopts a positive standpoint vis-a-vis the other nations in regard to every one of its problems? In other words, was Neville Chamberlain—according to the British view at that time—when he was prepared to go to Germany and to talk nicely to Germany and to allow Germany to continue with its aggression, a statesman who had a foreign policy? He was prepared to make compromises and to try to maintain peace by negotiating with an opponent, whilst his people judged that he was acting wrongly. Is that now a man with a sound foreign policy? But when Churchill said: “Do not give way; do not make concessions; be steadfast; save your people,” was that not foreign policy because he himself adopted a definite attitude? Is that not the kind of comparison those hon. members should make when they accuse us of not having a foreign policy? The point I want to make is just this …

Chamberlain knew that they were not prepared for war.

Hon. members should not be so sensitive. I was not criticizing Chamberlain’s standpoint at that time, with all the difficulties of which he was aware and of which his critics were perhaps not aware. I accept that he felt that he could not allow his country to go to war because they were not equipped for it. I am not expressing criticism. I am making a definite point by drawing an analogy, and the point I wish to make is this: Evidently some people just regard it as being the foreign policy of the moment if the Government is prepared to listen to what all kinds of other countries say it should do in its own country. But other people prefer to regard it as foreign policy when their Government says: “This is how I view matters; I should like to be friends with you on these terms, and I should like to negotiate with you on these terms, but I cannot yield to your demands. That may in fact be the basis of a foreign policy, and of a very honourable foreign policy, and of a clear and definite foreign policy. Now I allege that that is just what our foreign policy is. It is a clear foreign policy. That policy is, in broad lines, the following: We say to the African and the Afro-Asian states who attack us: “We are just as responsible as you are to care for the people of this country, Black or White. We fully accept that responsibility. We see the way, the manner in which our country must be governed and in which peace and quiet can be obtained with a certain policy. It is really our business. But we do not mind telling you how our internal policy will be applied. But as far as your countries are concerned, we will not interfere in your domestic affairs.” Whatever we might think about the Government in Ghana is not something we want to or dare discuss. Whether there is a White or Black Government in Rhodesia is not our affair. We do not interfere with that. We do not interfere with Portugal and her territories. What happens in Nigeria or in any of the other states is the concern of that state alone. However, we tell all of them, in so far as our mutual relations are concerned: “We will live on a friendly basis with you as neighbours; We offer you our economic co-operation; we offer you our technical knowledge and we are prepared to have consultations with you in this regard; we are prepared to sit with you on international organizations where the technical interests of the different countries are discussed.” Is that not a clearly expressed foreign policy in respect of Africa? Does it only become sound foreign policy in respect of Africa if the Republican Government says: “I will yield to the demands of the African states so that I may sit together with you and you will sit on my head!” Surely it is clear that we in South Africa to-day have a genuine and clear foreign policy in respect of Africa. However, we also say to the other countries of the world: “We should like to trade with you; we should like to be friends with you; we should like to be at peace with you; we will not try to interfere in your affairs; we are not trying to quarrel with anyone; we are prepared to co-operate in UN; we are prepared to co-operate with everyone in the UN organizations dealing with our common interests, but only: You have no right to interfere in our domestic affairs.” Are these sound characteristics of a foreign policy, or are they not? Or does South Africa’s attitude only become foreign policy vis-à-vis the countries outside Africa when it says: “Every one of you can tell us what we should do in our country, and we will listen to you?” Does subjection become foreign policy? Surely it is nonsensical of the Opposition to say that we have no foreign policy, when our foreign policy is as clearly formulated as this! Is it not foreign policy when we seek friendship with the U.S.A.; when we extend our friendship and mutual benefits with the United Kingdom and with France and with Spain and with Portugal and with Germany, with Italy, with Switzerland? We try to make our relations as clear and as sound as possible with every country. Or does foreign policy exist only in respect of the question of whether they support apartheid or not? Has foreign policy nothing to do with South Africa’s international economic policy, or with its striving to have good relations and mutual assistance in all the various spheres of life, the technical and other spheres, in all the spheres in which we have obtained the narrowest and soundest and happiest relations through our Department of Foreign Affairs? What nonsense is it for the United Party to say that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has no foreign policy? I again ask: Did Churchill have no foreign policy when he adopted a firm attitude in respect of what he considered the rights of Britain to be, and when he said: Thus far and no further? This accusation, which we have also had from the hon. member for Constantia, and also that we are just simply defeatists and that we have simply capitulated, is therefore the greatest nonsense on earth. Our foreign policy is based on one great, sound principle, namely the struggle for the continued existence of the nation inhabiting this Republic.

The hon. member for Constantia also said something else in this regard to which I want to refer briefly. He alleged that it was not the words of the United Party which painted a picture of us overseas, but the deeds of the Government. Hon. members opposite should realize one thing—I think the country already realizes it—and that is that the good deeds one does and one’s good motives for those deeds can be described in such a way that anyone listening to it cannot understand what the true implications of one’s deeds are. That is the accusation we level at the United Party, that the things we do, the things which are intended to be good and which are in fact good in their effect, are interpreted by the United Party—all through the years—by their attacks and their misrepresentations of what we are doing in such a way that the result is a complete misunderstanding of our actions and of our motives overseas. Let me mention just one example. Which member of the Opposition will not admit to-day that the housing of the Bantu in the vicinity of our cities has undergone a tremendous change during the last ten years? Not only will they not deny it, but if they are members of city councils they will boast of it. If they are members of a city council like Johannesburg—and I mention this because we have two mayors here who opposed me point by point—they will really boast about their wonderful deeds. But, Mr. Speaker, to illustrate this point, I must remind the House of all the opposition to these measures which resulted in this sound state of affairs. When, for example, I as Minister of Native Affairs, in regard to the clearing up of Sophiatown and Martindale, pleaded for the clearing up of 60 to 70 morgen of the most terrible slums, in which the worst imaginable abuses took place against human beings, and for the removal of those people to an area of more than 450 morgen (further away, true, but for that we would solve the transport problem) and where they would not be exploited, but where in time they would be given their own houses although in the beginning we would perhaps have to house some of them just on a site-and-service scheme, I experienced the most bitter opposition, not only from members of this House but also outside. It was then said that we were going to off-load these people on to the open veld. It was said that we would have to remove them with the assistance of 3,000 soldiers. It was said that we would give them no facilities. The site-and-service scheme which I introduced as the precursor for housing was described as a vile and miserable plan. I said that it immediately created the basis for a clean and properly planned city within the near future, but I had to endure lack of confidence and vilification. Just read the Hansard reports of that time. Just read the newspaper reports of that time. Read the accusations of the city councils concerned. I had to force Johannesburg by refusing to grant them loans until they gave in, because otherwise they would have had to dismiss labourers. Then only did they agree to introduce the site-and-service scheme, which immediately resulted in great improvements and is the basis of the splendid residential areas there are to-day. It is that picture of unscrupulousness, coercion and bad planning in regard to housing which was sent overseas and which to-day still gnaws at the souls of people there. The good part of it was not depicted or understood. The same happened with every undertaking we tackled. For years we were challenged and reproached that our homeland policy was not genuine. We were challenged that we would not dare proceed with the Transkei form of self-government; that we would not dare to go further along the road of gradual independence than the Bantu Authorities Act. However, when we took this further step we were immediately attacked again and they tried to put the country up in arms against us by making the allegation that we were giving away large pieces of South Africa, and the world was told that this was not an honest step towards independence. We were first told that we would not dare do the one thing which was moral, and when we did it the Opposition took that opportunity again to tell the outside world once more that we were a Government of oppressors who were doing the wrong thing. But now that they can say nothing more in regard to the Transkei, because they are gradually seeing that Bantu homeland developing—the members of the Opposition have made no impression on their own voters, not in Natal nor in the Eastern Province and nowhere with their criticism in this regard—they are trying to increase the suspicion against South Africa in that regard overseas. Perhaps they will succeed in doing so, and perhaps they will then rejoice about it!

Mr. Speaker, during this Session the two great matters on which the Opposition concentrated were the Transkei legislation and certain measures dealing with the Bantu generally. That really constituted the highlight of the attacks of the Opposition during this Session. I shall not go into the Transkei policy in detail. I just want to deal with a few of the arguments which were mentioned here again to-day. Hon. members of the Opposition may be assured that we are not afraid of their attacks. We said in the beginning that the process of giving the Bantu self-government was a gradual one. When we introduced the Bantu Authorities Act we said that it was the first step along the road of constitutional development. When we introduced the Transkei Constitution Bill we said it was a further step along that road. We also said that it was not the final step along that road. We are not afraid of the consequences; that course is the only hope for South Africa. In spite of that, hon. members to-day again tried to sow suspicion. They say it is the actions of the Government which cause the trouble overseas; we say it is the interpretation of our actions by the United Party which causes the trouble. Here they come with that type of interpretation again. They now allege: “You said you would not go further with separate political development than the Transkei.” A little while ago the complaint was that we were putting the Transkei on the road towards freedom and that we were fragmenting the country. Now the reproach is hurled at us: “You stop at the Transkei; what about Zululand?”

It is the Minister who said that.

The Minister did not say so. What the Minister in fact said was this: “We are busy at the moment with the Transkei. Our attention is concentrated on that. We are testing out the constitution there. In addition, we are still busy with the preliminary steps along that road in so far as the other territories are concerned. The Transkei has for years already had its own central governmental body through the Bunga. It could therefore make the speediest progress with the institution of a central territorial authority. The others are now busy reaching the level of government through the territorial authorities. They have reached that stage of this process of political development. Consequently we do not intend, at the stage where they are now, over-hastily to allow them to take the next step.” Nobody ever said that the next step would not be taken in the other territories at the correct time. We even said that what is now happening in the Transkei will teach us the lessons for the next step when this plan of development can be applied to the other territories. That has always been the consistent plan of the Government and I am repeating it here, and I say that was the import of the Minister’s words. The question on the Order Paper was not whether we were prepared in the other territories gradually to take these steps at the correct time, but it was whether we were now going to apply that parliamentary stage in Zululand and the other territories. To that the reply quite correctly was: “No, we will not do so.” But we will in fact do it when the time for it is ripe. We are now busy applying to those territories the legislation establishing authorities.

Hon. members referred to the picture the outside world has of South Africa. What are they now, however, busy doing again by casting doubt on my words in this regard? They are again busy painting a false picture of South Africa. The second point hon. members made in regard to the Transkei was this: They say we are not serious and that that is proved by the fact that we do not want to allow White capital and skill to operate in the Transkei. How many times have I and others not said how we would in fact introduce White capital and skills, and how we would not do it? We clearly stated that we would not allow private entrepreneurs to establish industries there and in that way deprive the Bantu of the potential of economic development in the industrial sphere. That would in fact have the result that at some or other later stage—as has already happened in some African states—the accusation will be made that the White man simply entered their territory to exploit them and to oust them from their legitimate economic heritage. I say we will not do that. But what we in fact said we would do in this regard was, firstly, that when there is place-bound development which the Bantu cannot undertake yet, like the discovery of oil in Bantu territory, the White man will necessarily have to go in there to guide such development, but that the benefits of it would go to the Bantu territory in the form of taxation or royalties. That is one example we mentioned. Secondly, we said that through the Bantu Investment Corporation, or through a Bantu Development Corporation, such as we will establish for the Transkei, White skills and the necessary capital will be introduced there to guide the Bantu in developing their own industries and eventually to own them and to control or to manage them in their own area. In other words, industrialization is a process which has to be set in motion by the guardian, due to their backwardness, but with the assistance of organizational machinery which may be withdrawn at the correct time, just as we have been doing for years already in the agricultural sphere by allowing the Native Trust to give training, to lay out irrigation areas and to give education and in that way teaching the Bantu to farm practically. Such an organization can be withdrawn at any time when the Bantu entrepreneurs can stand on their own feet. Thirdly, we said—and I said it myself—that it is possible that there may be some spheres where such a Development Corporation will not be able to function as well as a private person who would be willing to assist them as an agent (not as the owner of that industry). If such a person establishes an industry on behalf of the Bantu Investment Corporation as an agent, or on behalf of anybody else, he will commence the development, just as the Development Corporation would have done. In other words, it was said that White skill and capital could be introduced in various ways, but not by way of allowing a White man to become an owner who must then later be bought out or forced to get rid of his undertaking, or who will only be willing to get rid of it at a price which amounts to exploitation. Why is it now being intimated that we are unwilling to allow this type of homeland to be developed? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went even further and cast suspicion on the border industries. He said that the border industries prove that we want to retain everything for ourselves and we want to give nothing to the Bantu because, as he said, the border industries would be on the White side of the border and not on the Black side. Now what is the concept of border industries? By means of this plan for border industries we want to entice White initiative to the vicinity of the Bantu areas because the White industrialists will know that there they will always be the owners, because of the fact that the border industries will be in the White area. The basic principle of border industries is to develop that area near to the Bantu area, so that it will have a stimulating effect on the adjoining Bantu area, but to which the White entrepreneur can be attracted because he knows that this is not just a temporary business but a permanent one which will continue to exist in his own fatherland. That will act as a stimulus to the adjoining Bantu area to almost the same extent as if that industry were in the Bantu area itself. There is not a single place in the Bantu area which is much more than 50 miles from the border. The effect on that whole area, and on the Bantu who live in their own areas, is almost just as great if it comes from an industry which is in the White border area as it would have been if that industry were in the Bantu area. Further, I also said that industries would also develop on the other side of the border. Because of the fact that the border industries will be nearby and that thousands of Bantu will live in their own towns, in which all the services will have to be rendered by the Bantu themselves, the opportunity for and the need for service industries must arise. All the service industries which are established have, however, the potential of further development. How many of our White industries have not developed from such a simple service industry as a garage? A large industry like that of Fuchs in Alberton started as a very humble workshop. The great English motor industries very often developed because their founder had a bicycle shop. Therefore industries can develop in the Bantu areas (and on the Black side of the border) where the opportunities are created by White border industries, and in that way the Bantu will in fact get their own industries. Points of growth are created for the proper development of their own industries. All this makes the Bantu a happy people in their own area instead of their continuing to feel dependent on the Whites, who will be in their area in increasing numbers, and they will continue to become increasingly prosperous. Why not tell the outside world about all these splendid ideas and motives of ours? Why is cold water thrown on such a scheme, as we have again seen done to-day? [Interjections.] I shall be glad if hon. members do not feel so hurt; I shall be glad if they will just listen. I shall also be glad if they would not spoil the image of South Africa further by continuing to misinterpret our motives.

Other measures have been mentioned here. It has been alleged that this distorted picture of South Africa is based on the way in which we handle our urban Bantu and the fact that we give them no ideal and give them no roots. Do hon. members never listen? Do they not want to think together with us? Are they just out to criticize and to forget? Do hon. members not remember that when at the time we were dealing with legislation to replace the representation of the Bantu in this House by the potential of actual and complete self-government, as we are now busy introducing in various areas, we discussed this very point? It was clearly stated that the Bantu who are in the cities not only stem from, but are still bound to their homelands. If one can develop their homelands in such a way—something we want to do and will do-—that the Bantu who earns money in our area and gain experience here are enabled to set in motion greater development in their own homelands, to earn more and to become leaders there, then this road back to their homeland will be an enticing and attractive road for the Bantu. Already some of them are going back to play their role there. There is, e.g., the Bantu who had a small industry in the location of Johannesburg or Pretoria and who now has a large industry in the Bantu area North of Pretoria. There are some Bantu who were teachers in the White area and who studied further there and became professors or lecturers in their own Bantu universities in their own area. There are already police officials who received their training in the White area and who now hold important posts in their Bantu homelands. This happens in every sphere.

Attorneys also.

I hope the attorneys will come, more than there are at present.

I trained Bantu as attorneys.

Then the hon. member assisted in giving the Native homelands one possible source of development, as can be expected from a good Nationalist! The future of the urban Native is linked up with his own area and his own people. We realize, however, that there will be a transitional period. We also realize that in that transitional period he should be able to gain experience from the White community in respect of municipal Government and everything that goes with it.

The hon. member for Contantia tried to paint a terrible picture about the experience of a particular family, a particular woman, the Mapheele family in Paarl. But he did so out of context. Why is legislation passed? Is legislation passed for the individual, or to attain a general objective? Legislation is passed in the general interest, and therefore exceptions cannot continually be made because there are cases where someone contravened the law and then there are people who are sorry for this person who contravened the law. The case we are dealing with here is a very simple one. It is this: A person is not entitled to go to a White area or city without consent. Unless we have influx control not only will it cause difficulty for the White community because masses of Bantu would enter the cities, something which hon. members of the Opposition do not want either and against which they also passed legislation, but it would also be harmful to the Bantu themselves because there would be an over-supply of labour in an area which has limited opportunities for employment. The result would be that everybody would land in misery. They would either be unemployed or without proper housing. The Whites would have to bear the additional burden of building houses for unemployed people if the inflow is uncontrolled. In other words, it is not in the interests of the Bantu who work there to have too many people coming into the cities, nor is it in the interests of the children who grow up there and who later have to work there. White employers, often United Party supporters, sometimes prefer to give employment to the raw Native, with the result that the Bantu who has been in the area for a long time already suffers. We have all those and other problems as well. That is why we have influx control. Supposing that in a certain place under certain circumstances certain single Bantu can be allowed to stay. If every single Bantu there is to be allowed later to bring in his wife, and if everyone who later gets married to a woman who does not live in the area is to be allowed to have his wife with him, then the White areas of the country will be completely swamped with steadily increasing new non-White families. The whole tendency which we are trying to put into operation, and in regard to which hon. members opposite reproach us all day for not achieving it fast enough, viz. the reduction in the number of Bantu in the cities, will have to be abandoned. It is therefore essential to abide by the basic principle that if a woman wants to come to an area she must also obtain consent to do so. This family can remain together if the husband wants to go and work elsewhere, and work can be sought for him in a place where there is similar employment available and where a family is still allowed to go. But no, this they do not want, and also hon. members of the Opposition want to force us to allow this man to remain working in Paarl and that his wife, who joined him illegally, should also be allowed to stay there. However, the world is not told that it is possible for the family to live together if the man is prepared to go to work in a place where living together is practical and legal.

Where?

We will assist him. If they want to go to a place where they can live with their families, the Department of Bantu Administration will look for such a place for them.

Where?

The hon. member should not ask me now where. I cannot now announce where there is employment for individual families, but I say it can be done, and such families can apply for it. In any case, they would be allowed to go back together to their own Native area. I want to accept, however, that the particular work he is doing at Paarl at the moment is still not available there. The members of the United Party are, however, so obstinate that they want to hold up a picture to the world of a Government which at all costs, and out of sheer obstreperousness, although they have the power to contravene the law, tries to disrupt families.

May I put a question? What was the “provocation” to which the Minister referred in this case?

I have nothing to do with the provocation at the moment, but I am dealing with the accusation made against the Minister that he should in this case simply have made an exception. To that he correctly replied that on principle he could not do so, and why should he be called upon still to do so even after she had lost her case in court? Why should he be blackmailed, because he is now being accused of having given provocation by adopting the attitude that he wants to implement the law? Why should he allow himself to be blackmailed into letting her remain there so that the mouths of the United Party can be closed? Why should we do that? He was completely correct in abiding by the law and the principle.

Now I want to come to something else, and if I were to allow myself to become angry about something I would perhaps have become angry about this. I refer now to the harmful interpretations which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to-day again tried to broadcast to the world. I have said before that it is not the deeds of the Government which depict our country in a bad light, but the way in which the deeds and motives of the Government are misrepresented. The Leader of the Opposition drew a comparison between our handling of the urban Natives and the actions of the communists. Why did he do that? Why does he want to attribute such motives to us? There are already some of his friends who, in regard to our actions, refer to National Socialism in order to see whether they could not put a part of the world which is anti-Nazi up in arms against South Africa and its Government, and now they want to compare us with the communists in order to incite against South Africa that part of the world which is anti-communist. And then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition still asks why we are depicted in such a bad light in the world! Just imagine! He drew a comparison between the unemployed people whom, if they cannot obtain employment in a particular city, we remove to their places of origin or to places where there is in fact work for them, and the way in which the communist state sends unemployed people to Siberia.

Shame!

I really think this is a comparison which will not go down, to say the least of it. The facts in this regard are very simple. The Bantu have no automatic right to be in the cities. Supposing we do not know what to do with a small group or a single unemployed Native, and employment can be obtained for him in another place. Then we say that he can go there—and those other places are not Siberia; often they are just such cities as, for example, Cape Town is.

You said they could get work in other places. There are 500,000 unemployed.

I think that figure is wrong. It depends on how one regards the matter in regard to the Republican Natives. In that connection I do not accept that figure, but I leave the matter there. My point is that if there is a case of an unemployed Bantu in Cape Town and if there is opportunity for him to get work elsewhere—and surely there is much work to be found in many places, and particularly will the opportunities for employment develop tremendously if we do what the United Party does not want us to do, viz. to remove the foreign Bantu who should not be here, so that we can give our own Bantu that work—and if we then argue that there is work for him elsewhere and that he should go there, then we are not sending this unemployed man to a Siberia, and we are not expelling him to a Siberia as punishment because he does not want to work, because he opposes a dictatorial Government. No, we try to help the man and that Bantu group. The basic idea is that we do not want to have a lowering of wages in any area by allowing a pool of superfluous labour to be established there. On the other hand, we do not want people who will be unemployed there in a particular place and become criminals. We want to do our best to care for them, because we accept the obligation as far as possible, within the power of the Government, to care for all the people, even though that is done by removing the foreign Natives from the country. Why should such steps, which are intended to be to the advantage of all races, now be represented to the world as if we are acting like dictators who are dealing with a person who refuses to work (because that is what happens in communist Russia) and sending him to a wild Siberia where he is forced to work?

No.

That is the insinuation. But the Leader of the Opposition is not satisfied with that. He takes this analogy with Communism even further and says it is comparable also in the respect that we want to use forced labour in the border industries.

No.

Surely the Leader of the Opposition spoke about “forced labour for those industries”.

No.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, “They even want to force labour to the border industries”. What else did the Leader of the Opposition say?

As far as I can remember, I said that there was an attempt to force industries to establish themselves in the border areas.

And is that communistic? Where does his argument in regard to Communism enter into the matter then?

If I remember correctly, I said that just as in Russia they attempted to force industries to establish themselves in Siberia, so we have the same coercion here to establish industries in the border areas.

Very well, I will take up the Leader of the Opposition in regard to that argument. Where were industries forced to settle themselves in the border areas?

Under the new law whereby people can be deprived of labour in certain areas, and it is used in that way. I do not think the hon. the Prime Minister has been listening.

I listened very attentively. But I will take the proposition now stated by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He is alleging that we are compelling industries to settle in the border areas.

In terms of the new law they are being deprived of labour, except in those areas.

I have nothing to do with labour now. I am dealing with the argument that industries are compelled to settle there.

He did not say that.

No. We try to entice industries to go there by the benefits they can derive by settling there, inter alia, because they already have the labour there. No legislation which, for example, would prevent people from working at some place or other, say in the Western Province if such an Act is passed, has anything to do with the labour which will be employed in those border industries. On the contrary, the border industry is particularly settled in the vicinity of people who live in the Bantu area, or who will go and live there, because in those towns they will be able to live together as families, and because they can buy their sites there and build their houses there and can educate their children in the schools there, and have their own churches and their own municipal and other Government. Those are the people who will live and work there voluntarily. No industry is therefore forced to go to the borders, and no labour is forced to go there, and still the Leader of the Opposition dares to state here publicly that we are copying the communists in regard to our labour and border industry policy!

I now want to pause to deal for a moment with the true basic principles which we are dealing with here. What are the true basic principles in regard to which we are having all this opposition? The point is that there are only two courses, in regard to policy, which can be called moral in connection with the handling of our colour problem. There are also only the same two courses which can be practically and effectively followed in respect of certain demands. What are these two moral courses? The one is the course which leads to the fact—we all accept that a transitional period is necessary and that one cannot immediately achieve anything in the way one feels it should be done in order to be completely moral—that in the final result all the people in the country will be equal and intermingled. That is the one moral course. The other is that eventually everybody can be equal, but separate.

That will take a long time.

It may take a long time. Both these courses will take a long time, but they are the only two moral courses. Now we on this side are following the moral course of trying to bring about human equality through the creation of separate nations. I admit that it will be a long road, but we are already on that road, that moral road. The other moral course is to have everybody equal and intermingled. Is that the road which the United Party is following? If they are not on that road they are not on a moral road. And now I emphasize that what they are now propounding as their policy is either a step along that road, the moral road—and then the policy of the Opposition is just a station along that road—or else they are seeking a method by which the White man can permanently retain domination in a country in which White and non-White remain living intermingled, with the non-Whites always by far in the majority. In this mixed fatherland the Whites will always, armed with a constitution, keep the non-Whites in subjection and in various respects deprive them of all equality. The Leader of the Opposition is either on the road which leads to everybody eventually being equal although intermingled, i.e. integrated in every respect, or else he is on a road where he tries to retain permanent domination—in other words then his party is guilty of the very thing they always accused us of when they still did not understand our policy correctly.

My message to the world—which we hope the world will understand one day, although I admit that it does not understand it at present—is that by following the road of apartheid everybody will be able to become equal because everybody will be independent, as part of his own nation, and the various racial units will be in the same position vis-à-vis one another as the nations of Africa are now separate from us. We have nothing to do with their domestic affairs, and they have nothing to do with our domestic affairs. Internationally we are equal, as separate nations. When we have to negotiate with each other about matters, we will negotiate as equals, as between nation and nation. That, in fact, is in my opinion the only objective which is really moral in the modern sense, because the road which leads to everybody eventually being equal but intermingled will result in the Whites being oppressed. It will not be fair to the Whites, nor moral in respect of the Whites. That is the policy of integration implemented to its final consequences. In my opinion, this is really an immoral policy, viewed from the angle of the rights of the Whites to whom this country belongs by virtue of their having settled here and having developed it, and not through having conquered it and taken it away from anyone else. It is their own country which would have been taken away from them by those whom they saved and cared for by following that, only superficially, moral course of having everybody equal but intermingled. Therefore, in my opinion, only one moral course remains. That is the one we are busy following.

But apart from morality, that is in my opinion also the only practical and effective course tested in two ways. On the one hand there is the right of continued existence of the Whites. The permanent continued existence of the Whites is impossible in South Africa along any course other than by implementing apartheid to its logical consequences. That is the only way in which the existence of the Whites can be ensured practically and effectively. On the other hand, apartheid is the only method by which internal peace can be ensured. In a country where people are intermingled there will always be a struggle by the Blacks who will try to achieve domination over the Whites, or vice versa. That cannot be helped. That is just human nature. It is the psychology of man that the members of groups stand together and are attached to one another. If there is integration, there will therefore be a struggle by the Blacks to achieve domination in that mixed state, or vice versa. If the Whites should achieve domination in that intermingled state, as the United Party sees the matter, then the Whites will always live in unrest because the Blacks will ask what they in turn can get. It will result in a continual struggle until the one or the other disappears completely. Peace can only be obtained in the country by following the course adopted by nations, to be separate and then to be good neighbours. So much for the internal position. But let us also look at the outside world. In the final result there can only be peace in Africa when this struggle is concluded and if it is realized that a White country in Africa must be recognized whilst the Blacks are given their rights in their own areas. Then Africa will have peace; but not otherwise. And the Western countries will also have peace only when they (whether they do it to pamper Africa or in an attempt to achieve moral values) realize that the course adopted by us is the correct moral one. So why cannot we strive for that? Why should we not strive for it?

Now I come to the final thought which I want to analyse, and that is with reference to what was said by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson). He said we were seeking war, either a cold war or a hot war.

I never said that.

I do not want to do anybody an injustice, but I understood the hon. member to say that our policy must lead to a clash, to opposition, either in the form of a cold war or a shooting war.

Yes.

To me that means that we are prepared to have it, and even seek it, but I am prepared to abandon the word “seek”, The hon. member intimates that our policy must lead to a conflict, either a cold war or some other form of war. Therefore he strongly emphasized the misery and suffering resulting from a war, and what a terrible experience it is. We all concede that. Which of us wants war? Which of us ever desires it? Which of us, knowing what war may mean to humanity, the pain and suffering, would be prepared to do anything which would bring it about? Of course all of us would like to do everything possible to avoid a conflict. But a point is reached when a nation, fully realizing all the dangers and the misery, cannot step back. The hon. member for Constantia himself said that in his lifetime he has also felt that the freedom of humanity is something for which he could not step back from war with all its misery and dangers. Now I say, and also the Government (and that is what the Minister of Foreign Affairs said when he warned that we should take care not to capitulate) that there is one price which we cannot pay, however horrible an armed war or an economic struggle might be. There is one price which our Republic dare not pay. That is the sacrifice of the White nation in South Africa and the downfall of the nation of the Republic of South Africa. If South Africa is threatened, if its freedom is threatened, if the existence of its nation is threatened, we shall have to sacrifice everything, however terribly we might have to suffer. That is the first point I wish to make in reply to what the hon. member said. The preservation of the White nation of South Africa is the eventual aim from which nothing will deter us.

Now the hon. member says it is the greatest task of any leader, and of any person, to try to preserve peace. He added “without loss of self-respect, without loss of freedom, and without loss of independence”. I can only agree with him. It is our duty and our task to do everything possible to avoid conflict, both the cold war and the other one. That is our duty. We are trying to perform that duty. When we are not prepared to make concessions in terms of colour policy, it is because, as we see it, those concessions will lead to the destruction of our freedom, our independence and our continued existence. That is why we cannot make the concessions which are sometimes asked. Because we know it does not remain at those concessions. We have seen what happened in history, also in Africa. We saw what happened in Kenya. We see what is happening in the Rhodesias. In view of all that, we see what it will mean to make concessions in regard to a policy of partnership in one form or another. It is the beginning of the end. That is why we cannot do that sort of thing. But let me say this, that whilst it is the duty of the leaders on the Government side to do everything possible to try to avoid a conflict, it is just as much the duty of the Opposition. The Opposition is also responsible to the people. I should like to point out that my analysis to-day clearly proves that the Opposition is not performing its duty. There is one way in which war will come nearest to us. That is if the outside world imagines that there is so much internal division in our country (I am not referring to political division, but to division as a nation) that they will have the opportunity with little trouble and little sacrifice on their part to deprive us of our freedom and our continued existence as a White nation. That would increase the chances of any form of attack. Let me tell hon. members frankly that my endeavours during this period are not directed towards increasing the numbers of my party; I am not seeking more votes; I am not seeking to have more Members in Parliament; I do not need it. What I aspire to is the building up of one White nation which will show a common front to all threats which might come from outside our borders, a nation which is prepared to stand together solidly in respect of its continued existence, so that that will be the guarantee of its triumph without conflict and without having war. That is what I am striving for.

Therefore when it is said here that our greatest task is to seek peace, my reply is that I try to perform that most important task by also making approaches to those who think differently from me in the political sphere. They must also, in respect of these basic principles, be “national”. That does not mean that they have to be members of the National Party, but that they should be nationally South African. I shall continue trying to unify all of us spiritually in the light of these threats of which we all have a clear realization. Therefore I must also put the question to our opponents which was posed by the hon. member for Constantia. He said: “If the Government cannot offer anything else, then it should give someone else the opportunity to do so.” Well, our offer is to stand by our continued existence as Whites, with justice to the non-Whites. Does the United Party offer that? That is the test I want to set. If we were to get out of the way and the United Party were to come into power, I must ask myself what they would have done in terms of this supreme demand the hon. member for Constantia made of me. I must therefore ask myself whether the United Party will be able to offer the country anything which will bring us greater safety than the policy of this Government does. I do not believe it. I believe the United Party will put South Africa on a mud-slide. It will offer us the same fate as that of the Whites in Kenya. It will offer us the difficulties and dilemmas and problems of the Whites in Southern Rhodesia. It will offer us the fate of the Whites in Northern Rhodesia. That is what his policy is and consequently what it will offer us.

What about the fate of the Whites in the Transkei?

To the Whites of the Transkei we offer a permanent home in White South Africa, and to the Black people of the Transkei we offer a permanent home in the Transkei. To both we offer an existence as part of the nations to which they now belong. If, however, we were to adopt the policy of the United Party, then the Whites in the Transkei will eventually become just as homeless as the Whites in the Republic.

Then the hon. member for Constantia asks: What right have I to say that the Western powers demand from us a policy of one man, one vote? We do not say that. We say that they now allege that the sacrifice we should make is not the whole sacrifice of one man, one vote. We therefore did not say that they have already gone so far. They themselves also say that that is so. What the Western powers do, however, is to look after their own interests in the conflict between the West and Communism: Their own interests which they want to promote at UN through a majority of votes; and for the sake of their own interests they are trying to see how many friends they can win there. In order to get these friends they are trying to exert pressure on us to do what those whom they want to have as their friends want us to do. They hope that if only once they get us to make certain concessions they will be able to satisfy those people. If, however, it does not satisfy those people, they will ask something more from us, another concession. If South Africa then jibs they will say: But how can South Africa now refuse? Therefore every time we will have the same position that we have to-day. They will continually ask something more in order to get that friendship and that support. We therefore say that the Afro-Asian nations will never be satisfied with anything less than one man, one vote, and consequently we infer from it that if the Western nations continue to adopt the tactics they are adopting now they will make continual demands on us, until eventually we reach that point. That is what I and others have alleged. When we do so we speak from our experience at the Commonwealth Conference. There we were prepared to concede that our affairs should be discussed, because our friends, in this case Britain and Australia, and other older members of the Commonwealth, intimated: “If only you allow these new member states to blow off steam, the opposition against South Africa will pass.” We warned them that if we concede to it we would just have further demands made on us. Nevertheless we were willing to do so because it would not lead to our abandoning any principles. That is why we acceded to their request. And precisely what we predicted happened. Then our attackers made greater and greater demands of us, in the form of the well-known suggestions they made. The first two formulas we could still accede to, albeit reluctantly, because it contained an element of humiliation although not of the abandonment of principles. But when we made that concession they immediately made greater demands, and “our friends” backed them up every time and exerted pressure on us to make even greater concessions. Eventually we reached the stage where we could make no further concessions because then we would have been sacrificing the continued existence of the Whites, and we would have been accepting the dictatorship of the non-White member states over the domestic affairs of South Africa. That is therefore the process. We know it from experience. Therefore we say: No, one man, one vote, is not what is being asked for, but what is being asked for eventually leads to it.

The next question the hon. member for Constantia put to me is whether I myself took the trouble to go and negotiate with the heads of other states. I must say a few things about this. The first is this. What is the use of my going to another state if the heads of those states will be so embarrassed, because of the fact that they are so keen to be in good odour with the Afro-Asian states, by my presence that they can hardly receive me? Why should I at this stage offer my presence to other states if it will really greatly embarrass them? If heads of states wanted to receive me and intimated it, I would be prepared to go to them to discuss matters of common interest with them; but I cannot expect that to-day of those heads of state—not because there is something wrong with South Africa or because they are inimical, but because they are concerned with their own self-interest. I realize the position in which they find themselves at the moment. I cannot expect them to send me invitations at this stage. Therefore the hon. member should have used his brains and should not have created the impression that we in South Africa are unwilling to have talks with other states. We must bear in mind the problems of our friends who stand at the head of other states, or else we will not be friends.

But, secondly, if the motive of the Opposition is that I should go to the heads of other states to ask what policy South Africa should apply to gain their support, then surely I need not go because everybody knows what they want, seen from the angle of their own self-interest. Must I go to endanger the continued existence of South Africa? The hon. members opposite do not in the first place want me to go to convince other countries that morally and in other respects we are correct. They realize that that will be difficult because the other countries pay no regard to our moral right or sound policy or good intentions; they only pay regard to what best suits their own interests. Therefore the Opposition wants me to go in the hope that I will become demoralized and revert to their policy by making concessions to the demands made by foreign countries. That I cannot do. If I were to be prepared to do that, I should have to be prepared to betray my own convictions and my fatherland, and I am not prepared to do that. Now the hon. member for Constantia may say that in that case I am only a local leader and not a statesman, but that leaves me entirely cold. I am not here to be popular or to be called a world statesman through dancing to somebody else’s tune. I am here to ensure the continued existence and prosperity of my people. If the continued existence of my people cannot be attained along the course he believes should be adopted, then I dare not adopt that course, irrespective of what he says about me personally in his prejudice. Therefore I want to state very clearly and unequivocally that I am not unwilling to talk to heads of states or to governments about international affairs, including those of South Africa, but the circumstances will have to be such that they are able to invite me to come to their countries and to receive me in such a way that I know I will be welcome there, so that South Africa’s case can be put properly and in a good spirit. When such a time arrives I will be prepared to do anything in my power to make my contribution.

Now we must realize one fact. When the hon. member for Constantia alleges that we are subjecting ourselves to a cold war, that is not true. The world is already involved in a cold war. Our struggle is only part of it. We are only experiencing a bit of that cold war which already exists. This cold war is waged against the Western nations, and in their attempt to gain allies in that cold war they try to gain the support and the votes of the Afro-Asian nations. For the sake of having that support they are prepared to make demands of us, even though it means the doom of South Africa. They will be prepared, if necessary, and perhaps even against their inclinations, to sacrifice the Whites of Africa for the preservation of their states. I cannot blame them for that, because that is the way in which nations act. They all fight for their existence. But it is our duty not to sacrifice our freedom for that. We need not be sacrificed for the sake of the existence of the Western nations. In fact, we believe that we are essential to their existence, if they view matters clearly. We further believe that if the Western nations change their tactics they will stand a better chance of receiving permanent support, even from the Afro-Asian nations, than through the methods they now adopt, viz. the method of sacrificing their fellow Whites, who are equally well disposed to the non-Whites, although in a different, and in our opinion, better manner. Therefore I wish to express the hope that we in South Africa will realize that in this cold war, which we hope and pray will pass, we shall have to stand together as a united nation. We cannot do otherwise. Let us, by standing together solidly and being courageous, have faith that by doing so South Africa will be able to achieve victory without having other forms of conflict. Those who will not attack a unified nation may see an opportunity to do so if that nation is divided. I believe that this cold war in the world must come to an end, and that in that process also our bit of it will come to an end. But we will not help to win the cold war by being weak, by making concessions and by landing on a mud-slide. On the contrary, by doing so we would be leaving in the lurch civilization here and civilization in the West. We dare not do so. Therefore I ask the Opposition to stop always presenting our deeds and motives in such a light that it weakens our fight to achieve victory.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the House will understand with how much sympathy we on this side listened to the hon. the Prime Minister. We understand the problems and difficulties he has. We understand that the Prime Minister had a desperate task to fulfil this afternoon. He had to stand up before this House to try to defend a lost cause and an indefensible case. I think that in the circumstances he did his best, but the mere fact that it took him an interminable time to try to answer the simple charge of the Leader of the Opposition, supported by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), showed the extreme difficulty in which the Prime Minister found himself. I want to put on record the disappointment of this side of the House and the disappointment of the nation that when we spoke to the Prime Minister of South Africa we got an answer from the Leader of the Nationalist Party. Before I analyse that statement of mine and support it there is one little thing I want to clear away immediately.

The hon. the Prime Minister, in trying to discredit the argument of the Leader of the Opposition, accused him very facilely of having spoken of forced labour in South Africa. If there is one thing that is not true it is any suggestion that there is forced labour in South Africa, and, to say the least of it, I think that it was a light-hearted approach by the Prime Minister to read those words into the speech of the Leader of the Opposition which cannot be substantiated. My Leader has kindly given me the notes he used in that portion of his speech, and from that it is quite clear that he had finished the argument based on a comparison between the fate of the urban Native in South Africa and the peasant seeking work in Russia during the first five-year plan of Stalin, and he had got on to another point, and that is the policy reflected in the Bantu Administration Amendment Bill, which the Minister withdrew. Speaking of this policy, my Leader said: “It could mean the disruption of the entire economy of the country, particularly if it were the policy of the hon. the Minister as embodied in the Bantu Administration Amendment Bill, and particularly if it were directed towards the forced industrialization of border areas.”

I argued that point with him when he pointed it out.

The fact remains that the Prime Minister suggested that my Leader had spoken of forced labour in South Africa and he attacked him on that point. I mention it because, first of all, I do not want such a suggestion to go out of the country; that would be doing South Africa a disservice. But there would be only one author of such a suggestion, and that would be the Prime Minister himself. Secondly, I raise this matter because it shows the desperate straits to which the Prime Minister was reduced in trying to answer our arguments. The most disappointing aspect of the Prime Minister’s speech was his attempted reply to the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Constantia in regard to the statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs that the choice before South Africa now is abdication or fighting. Sir, if there was a choice before South Africa of abdication from civilized standards, if we the White people of South Africa were called upon to depart from our adherence to the principles and the values of Western civilization, we, too, would say that we would rather fight than do that. But that is not what the Minister of Foreign Affairs suggested. According to Hansard of 5 June in Col. 7265 he said—

What did he mean by “abdication”? It is based on the unproven supposition, which even the Prime Minister could not prove this afternoon, that the Western world demands from us the principle of one man, one vote. I remember that during the debate on the Vote of the Minister of Foreign Affairs the hon. member of Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) challenged the hon. the Minister, when other members were talking about one man, one vote as the demand made by the Western nations, and the hon. the Minister said: “No, I did not say that the Western world was demanding this; I said the Afro-Asian nations.” That makes a big difference, and the interesting thing is that not a single responsible member opposite has been able to give any evidence in support of this extreme statement that this bogy of one man, one vote has come as a demand from even one of the great Western nations.

May I ask the hon. member this: According to his point of view, what is the world demanding from Rhodesia and from Portugal?

That is a very fair question. They are demanding from those countries a different policy from the one they have to-day, in this respect that neither in Rhodesia nor in the Portuguese territories in Africa have the Black people any real participation in administration, in the determination of their fate at the administrative level. I do not want to criticize, but the hon. member forces me to say that that is the weakness of the policies of those territories, and even of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), because they think that mere representation in a debating chamber is the solution. But until you give these people the opportunity to participate in administration, you have no solution, and that is where the policy of the Minister of Bantu Administration also comes in. He wants to limit a just policy to one-seventh of the surface of South Africa, and he does not want to see justice applied throughout South Africa. But, Sir, that was just a digression caused by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark.

I want to make the point that it is quite wrong of the Government to insist on this propaganda, and it is an injustice to the people of South Africa to mislead them by saying that the only thing the Western world wants of South Africa is one man, one vote. They cannot prove it. It is not true. It is a propagandistic statement. What the civilized world wants from South Africa is a policy which will recognize the value and the dignity of men irrespective of their colour, a policy which is honest. It is as simple as that. Now I want to say this, and I say it with due consideration, that while I do not doubt the sincerity of hon. members opposite, they do not realize that fundamentally the policy they offer to South Africa and to the world is dishonest. They believe it is honest, and they are honourable gentlemen. But I will tell you why they do not realize it, Sir. Their policy can only be an honest, fundamental policy offering a solution for our problems if it will have the result of partitioning South Africa into viable Black states for the Black people and a viable White state for the White people of South Africa, and I defy any person who is willing to analyse this question to say that the Bantustan policy, as advocated one day by the Government, and as they retreat from it the other day, can offer to the Black people of South Africa a home where they can earn their living and have their families and enjoy the fundamental, elementary rights of human beings.

What is the fundamental feature of the policy of the Government? It is that they will create Bantustans in the Transkei, and at some time in the future, we hear now, they will begin to think of planning similar policies for other Native areas in South Africa. What is fundamental about it is that while they plan these policies they will see to it that the White part of South Africa, in their parlance, will remain dependent on the labour of the Black people from those areas, and the Black people will have to come out of those areas to earn their living. They will have to go to Johannesburg and Cape Town to earn their living. At the very best, they will be allowed to go to an area north of Pretoria, to Queenstown and King William’s Town, to earn their living in the White man’s industries. That is what was so unconvincing about the Prime Minister’s statement in regard to the case of Mrs. Mapheele. The Prime Minister said there was work for her and her family elsewhere, but is there? In all the years I sat opposite him I have never seen the Prime Minister wriggle so much. When the question was put to him. what about the 500,000 unemployed found by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) when he was chairman of a commission examining the position of the Natives, the Prime Minister said that had nothing to do with it. But I believe they must exist. A responsible commission found that. But, what is more, why should these people be redundant in Paarl, when the Government itself is bringing many times as many Natives into the Western Cape as they can get rid of from the Western Cape? The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) recently put a question to the Minister of Bantu Administration on the recruitment of Natives for work in the Western Cape by Government agencies alone, and what appeared from that question? That in the first three months of 1963 Government agencies recruited more Native labour for the Western Cape than came into the Western Cape in 1961 and 1962 put together. When you look at simple facts like this, you realize that my friends opposite have not taken the trouble to examine the morality of their policy.

They are not interested.

No, they have just neglected to do so. How can the Prime Minister say that those people must get out of Paarl because there is no work for them, when Government agencies bring in in three months as many as they brought in during two previous years? Sir, this does not make sense. I want to repeat the challenge which we on this side of the House have made to the Government again and again, and it is not a challenge I make for effect or to score points. It is a challenge we issued to the Government because it is urgently time that we in South Africa should get down to realities. Our challenge was this: Place your policy of separate development on a moral basis. Make it possible for South Africans, even if they do not support the Government, to tell the world: You can say about our Government what you wish, but they are trying and they have a moral basis for their policy. It is not for the Prime Minister to say that the United Party misinterprets his policy and that is why South Africa is unpopular, which was his great argument. I say to the Prime Minister: Stick to your policy; do not abandon it, but change it. The policy of separate development can have a moral basis; give it a moral basis. Then we on this side will still differ from it, but we would have something on which to defend it against the world; but now we resent the accusation the Prime Minister makes against us because of the moral weakness of his own policy. And to give a moral basis to that policy is a simple thing. Develop the economy of South Africa so that in future the labour from the reserves will stay in the reserves and will be attracted away from the White man’s industries back to the reserves, instead of being attracted as they are to-day away from the reserves to the White man’s industries where they can never enjoy any rights, according to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister’s policy is that the Black people who come and work in the White industries must always be temporary sojourners in the White man’s land, where they cannot enjoy family life or home ownership. Surely his policy should be to attract people away from those areas.

That is exactly our policy; but when we do it, you say we are in too much of a hurry.

I want to treat that interjection by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark with the respect it deserves, because what he says there is honestly believed by hon. members opposite.

What I complain about is that the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) says we are “Kafferboeties” when we do that.

No, I do not think that is fair of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark. I am quite convinced that the hon. member for Drakensberg has never said anything of the kind. But that is quite irrelevant to the argument. I ask whether the Government is making it possible for our Black labour to move away from the White areas to the Native areas, and the answer is no. In ten years, from 1950 to 1960, 1,250,000 more Bantu were attracted to the White areas under the policy of this Government. The answer is, furthermore, that if we want the Black labour to move to the reserves we have to develop the reserves faster than we develop the White areas. We have to invest more capital in the reserves than in the White areas, because labour follows capital. Sir, I am a student of politics, for my sins, and I have not found one statement by any responsible, or irresponsible, member of the Nationalist Party that they will invest more capital in the Native areas than in the White areas, and until that is done this policy is meaningless, and no matter how sincerely my hon. friends believe in it, it cannot stand the test of morality. Before we can talk of national unity, of which we heard so much from the Prime Minister, I say for God’s sake put your policy on a moral basis, and if you believe in separation practise it, and so conduct the affairs of South Africa that separate development can be taken seriously. But under the policy of this Government they talk separation and practise integration. And they do it, I am sorry to say, for selfish reasons; they are not willing to appeal to the people of South Africa for the sacrifices that will be necessary to make their policy a moral one. That is why I think it is so utterly tragic that the Prime Minister can ask us to follow him in unity and to defend a policy such as this against the world. That is where I find myself on the side of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Constantia. It is a great thing and a necessary thing and a noble thing to fight for one’s beliefs, but I would remind the Prime Minister of what the American essayist, Waldo Emmerson, once said about one’s beliefs. He warned us that in being faithful to our principles we should not be like a planet in blind orbit around the sun. Such a planet cannot examine the virtue of the sun which it is bound to follow blindly for its entire existence. He suggested that we should pause occasionally and examine the principles to which we adhere, examine the sun around which we are in orbit. That, Sir, was the utter failure of the hon. the Prime Minister to-day. He did not examine the fallacies or the weakness of the apartheid policy, the separate development policy which in theory talks about separate states but which in practice knows that for as long as we can see in the future we shall need the labour of the Black people and that they shall be a permanent labour force in the industrial areas. It is a terrible thing that we should hear from hon. members opposite, from the Deputy Minister and from the Prime Minister that the Black people who will come to work in our cities will be accepted as a labour force but never as individuals. Sir, we have only had a short time in which to look at the report of Mr. Justice Snyman on the Paarl riots. I was interested to hear the Prime Minister at the outset of his speech setting great store by what Mr. Justice Snyman had to say about race relations in South Africa. He seemed to indicate that he thought that the Judge had to a large extent justified the policies of the Government. Sir, in my reading of the report as far as I have got, I find that the hon. Judge has not devoted much time to the general problem. He quite rightly, in accordance with his terms of reference, concentrated upon events at Paarl. But he did make some comment on the general situation, and the most striking comment is to be found in paragraph 171 of his report where, having referred to the need for dedicated educated men in Native administration, he goes on to say—

Hear, hear!

Let me now hear the “hear, hears” from my hon. friends opposite—

That is exactly what the Government says they do represent. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development says that they are inter-exchangeable labour units and nothing more. The hon. Judge says, “no, we must change the White man’s attitude”; we must change the attitude of the hon. the Prime Minister and of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration. The Judge goes on to say—

And, Sir, their emotional requirements include the need for the solace of a wife and the company of children. He goes on to say that their emotional requirements must be satisfied and their ambition fulfilled. Do you know, Sir, one of their ambitions may be to own the plot of land upon which their house stands. They wish to share in the prosperity of the country.

Is your party willing to give them the solace of a wife and to allow every Black labourer in the country to bring his wife into the White areas?

Sir, what surprises me is that my hon. friends opposite think that elementary simple questions can be catch-questions. The simple answer to a simple question is this: When a Native has become or is becoming a permanent resident in the urban areas he is entitled to his home; he is entitled to home ownership; he is entitled to family life, the company of his wife, and he is entitled to give his children the education that every parent should as a duty give to his children. The answer is quite simple. I do not know what the hon. member for Vereeniging is crying about. Sir, if I was trying to put catch-questions I would say to the farmer members opposite, I would say to the hon. member for Vereeniging: Is he committing a sin, is he breaking the policy of the Nationalist Party, is he destroying the White man in South Africa because he allows family life on his farm for his Native labourers? If they are entitled to family life on the farms they are entitled to family life in the cities. Or otherwise—let me repeat this to get this thought across to my hon. friends opposite—otherwise they must say that it is wrong for us as White people to expect these people to come to our cities to work for us if we cannot give them elementary human rights and human privileges; then they must say, “It is our policy to develop our reserves so fast that there will be more jobs created every year in the reserves than in the White areas and that it will not be necessary for these people to come to our areas; that we will be able to dispense with their labour.” But, Sir, we cannot in the name of justice claim that we want to separate and divide South Africa and separate the people justly when at the same time we are so selfish that we expect these people to come here in their millions and work in our cities without elementary human privileges and human rights. Let me say emphatically that as long as that is the policy of the Government, so long will the hon. the Leader of the Opposition be justified in comparing the consequences of that policy with the consequences of Stalin’s policy during the first five years of his regime.

Disgraceful!

Sir, that is the one moral fallacy in the policy; that is the one thing that makes it impossible for us to be enthusiastic in defence of a policy like that. But there is something else. How many times have we not asked the hon. the Prime Minister and hon. members opposite what is the ultimate result of a policy of separate development, of apartheid, for the Indian people and the Coloured people? Once upon a time—and I say that because that is the phrase with which one starts a fairy tale—once upon a time the hon. the Prime Minister came to this House and told us that for the Coloured people and the Indian people he would create states within a state. He added that, as a result of that policy, there would be no discrimination under Nationalist Party policy. But when the question was put to him pertinently, “Unless they have some representation in a common Parliament looking after all South Africa, how are you going to give them full political satisfaction in a separate Parliament which can never become sovereign because sovereignty cannot be shared completely in the full sense of the word, by peoples in the same territory”, we had no reply from him and we have never again heard a word from any member opposite about this wonderful policy of states within a state. We have asked the hon. the Prime Minister again and again, if it is morally right, if it is defensible, as the hon. the Prime Minister proclaimed this afternoon before the world, to say that because these people have their own homelands, therefore discrimination against those of them who come to our part of the country is justified, then how do you justify discrimination against the Coloured people and the Indian people? Where is the homeland of the Indian? Sir, we asked the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs in the debate on his Vote and he did not know. He came back the next day and attempted to state a policy, but after having read for an hour he had not said a word. Where is the homeland for the Indian people? Where is the homeland of the Coloured people? Where do they fit in in this wonderful, beautiful picture of separate development.

On a moral basis.

What is it that we have to either abdicate or fight for?

I have explained the policy on more than one occasion.

I am still asking the Prime Minister a simple question. Sir, I will tell the Prime Minister a secret. I will keep on asking those questions until he gives me a satisfactory, logical answer.

You refuse to listen.

No, I will listen. The policy of the Prime Minister, in so far as it has a moral basis, is based upon the principle that if you give people their own country where they can develop to the utmost of their ability—“julle kan sover ontwikkel in julle land as ons in ons land”—then you are doing the right thing. If that is the basis of his policy of separate development, where are the Coloured people and where are the South African Indians to develop to the utmost of their ability? With great respect, Sir, the Prime Minister has never given an answer to that question. Where is the Indian homeland; where is the homeland of the Cape Coloured? Sir, the Prime Minister has not given us an answer to that question because he cannot. He could if he would. The people of South Africa are called upon now to decide whether we will abdicate from this policy; and if we decide not to do so, we must fight. How can a nation be called upon to fight in defence of a policy which has no answers to elementary questions of this kind?

Sir, under the policy of the United Party there is room for the Coloureds and for the Indians and their place is defined. Under the policy of the United Party the Cape Coloured people are accepted as part of the Western community and the Indian people are accepted as a permanent part of our population and they will get representation in the bodies which govern their lives. They will get opportunities at administrative level to participate in the bodies which govern their lives. If only the Prime Minister would say that he accepts that!

And where is our place?

Sir, even though it may be difficult we will always try to find a niche for the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee).

I never said a word.

Finally I think I should say that never yet has a nation had to hear a confession of failure so abject as the one that came from the hon. the Prime Minister to-day. We had a confession of failure earlier this Session from the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs because his policy or rather that of the Government has failed. It is not his policy alone; I want to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He did his best but he had nothing to fight with; he had no basis from which to defend this policy. He had to defend a policy which, as I have explained, has no answer to simple questions, and he therefore came to this House and accused the great nations of the West, our traditional friends, of hypocrasy. So, too, the hon. the Prime Minister came along with a confession to-day that for him to seek interviews with the heads of traditionally friendly states would be an embarrassment not to him but to our friends. Sir, we remember how the Prime Minister of the United Party Government, General Smuts, was welcome in the capitals of the world. One of the major attacks made by the party opposite upon General Smuts was that he spent too much time making contact with other governments. Sir, the present Prime Minister can never be accused of that. They talk of war; the Prime Minister tells us that he cannot seek peace because his presence in the capitals of the world would be an embarrassment to foreign states. That is true, but it is not because the hon. the Prime Minister is a man who is repulsive in any way. We have all grown rather fond of the hon. the Prime Minister. The only reason why his presence in some of the capitals of the world will be an embarrassment is because he is the apostle in the eyes of the world of a policy which is dead.

I challenge you to come and say that in my constituency.

I have often said it in the hon. member’s constituency and I will say it again but I will make this difference: The next time I go to his constituency I shall invite him. [Interjection.] Sir, this policy of baasskap of the hon. the Prime Minister’s is dead.

The policy of the preservation of the White man is not dead.

It is dead in the Transkei.

The policy of the preservation of the White man merely because he is a White man by accident, is dead too. But what could be very much alive is a policy of the preservation of the White man as the bearer of Western civilization and Western standards in this South Africa of ours.

I end on this note. The final condemnation of the Prime Minister’s policy is that its very formulation, its very nature, its denial of elementary rights to people who work in South Africa, is a denial of Western civilization. Until we realize that in South Africa we will hear these appeals from Ministers that we must be prepared to abdicate or fight. We on this side of the House will fight for South Africa but we will not abdicate; it is not necessary for us to abdicate. All that is necessary is that this Government should indulge in a little introspection and abdicate from their smugness, their self-assurance and their faith that they alone have the answer, that they alone are in step and that the entire civilized world has gone mad.

Abusive language will get you nowhere.

No, I am not being abusive. This matter is far, far too serious for us to indulge in slanderous statements, but I do say again that the only abdication that is necessary in South Africa is that this Government should abdicate from their smug belief that this policy of denying rights to people, this policy of baasskap by White people merely because they are White, can bring peace in South Africa, and until the Government abdicates from that, there is very little hope for us in South Africa.

It may be now that the Session is giving its final gasps that we are having the most important debate we have ever had during this Session. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), who has just sat down, said that the Prime Minister appeared to him as somebody who had a desperate task to fulfil. If the Prime Minister has a desperate task then the White man in South Africa must be in a desperate position. and that is certainly not the case. It is true that he is in a very difficult position. However, when I listened to the three speeches which we have had from that side. I came to the conclusion that hon. members opposite were busy placing the White man in South Africa in a desperate position. When I listened to the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and particularly to the speech of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) I got cold shivers down my spine, because during the ten years I have been sitting in this House I have never heard more provocative and dangerous statements than those made by the hon. member for Constantia in particular. The hon. member for Yeoville says we must give our policy a moral basis. He says that in order to give our policy a moral basis we must allow the Bantu to bring their families to the White areas of South Africa. I then got up and asked him whether that was their policy and he refused to reply to the question. I now want to put this question to him: Under their. policy thousands and tens of thousands of Bantu must still come to our urban areas. Is it their policy that the families of those men should accompany them?

I have replied to that.

No, the hon. member has not answered it. What he did say was that those Bantu who had been here for a long time, those who were born here, should have the right to have their families with them. I am now asking him a totally different question. I am asking him whether those tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of Bantu who have to come to Cape Town, to the Western Province, to Johannesburg and Vereeniging, should be allowed to bring their families with them, yes or no? Those are the people, Mr. Speaker, who tell us that our policy should have a moral basis. The hon. member asked what moral basis our Coloured policy had. What are they offering to the Coloured people? They offer the Coloureds reinstatement on the Common Roll. But I am accusing the hon. member of this that their policy in respect of the Coloureds is to keep the Coloureds in a perpetual state of subjugation in South Africa. Are they prepared to give the franchise to the Coloured woman? Where is the moral basis of their policy? Are they prepared to give the franchise to the Coloured youth of 18 years? They are afraid to reply because their policy has no moral basis. Are they prepared to give the franchise to the Coloured woman in the Transvaal? What about the Indians? What is the moral basis of their policy as far as the Indians are concerned? I accuse them of this that they only have one policy as far as the Indians are concerned and that is to keep the Indians in a state of oppression, of subjugation, as long as they can. They are not prepared to give the franchise to the Indians. They are not prepared to tell us how many representatives they are going to give to the Indians.

Are you?

They accuse us of having a policy without a moral basis and that that is the reason why the world is as against us as it is. Only people who have a policy with a moral basis dare make that accusation. Not only does their policy lack a moral basis, but they are inviting the world to interfere In this difficult problem of human relationships which confront us.

Disgraceful!

I shall prove it and I shall also prove that prominent members of the United Party have said that the Leader of the Opposition was only doing one thing, namely, that he was waiting for the day to dawn when he would be able to negotiate with foreign powers. I am asking him to deny that to-day.

I deny it.

Wait a minute; I shall come to that. What did the hon. member for Constantia say? He said: “I want the world outside to know that all civilized people in this country condemn the actions of the Government.” Mr. Speaker, there has been a bitter struggle in England between the parties, but I never heard Mr. Wilson say that he wanted the world outside to know what his attitude towards Mr. Macmillan was. I have not heard a single political leader in America say: “I want the world outside to know what we think about the policy of the Government or that of the Opposition.” Why does the hon. member for Constantia want the world outside to know it? He tells the world outside that our policy is unchristianlike and uncivilized. What concern is that of the world outside? I do not mind his saying it in order to try to win votes in South Africa but why does he go out of his way to say: “I want the world outside to know that the policy of this Government is unchristianlike and uncivilized”? Why does he say it if he does not want the world outside to interfere in our affairs? He can only say that if he wants the world outside to interfere in our affairs.

In the second place, he says our policy must comply with the demands made on us by the Western world. They do not say that we must comply with the demands made by the Afro-Asian countries, but they say we should follow a policy which will comply with the demands made by the Western world. The hon. member for Constantia then said: If you do not do that the Prime Minister must resign or we shall find ourselves involved in a war. We must either change our policy in such a way that it satisfies the Western world or the Prime Minister must resign otherwise this country will be involved in a war. That was exactly what the hon. member said; we can check his Hansard. Mr. Speaker, people who use that type of language must be very sure that their policy complies with the requirements of the Western nations. Hon. members of the Opposition try to make us believe throughout that their policy conforms to the requirements of the West. How do they know it; where do they get that information from? Who told them that their policy would satisfy Mr. Kennedy? Who told them that their policy would satisfy Mr. Wilson or that their policy would satisfy West Germany or France or any of those countries?

Or Nkrumah.

Or Matanzima.

Leave Nkrumah aside. We are talking about the West. What do they tell the West as far as their policy is concerned? What are they telling the Western diplomats here? What do they say is their policy, because as they explain their policy to us it is absolutely impossible for it to satisfy the West; it will satisfy the West much less than the policy of the National Party, because their policy is one which is based on blatant Colour discrimination in South Africa. Do they tell these people that their policy is to do away with Colour discrimination? The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) said that the American Government had assured him that the policy of the United Party would satisfy them. Did they tell those people that their policy was one of blatant Colour discrimination and that their policy was one under which a person like the Nobel winner, Luthuli, could not live in South Africa where he wanted to live; that his children could indeed under their policy attend White universities but that they could not become full-fledged students; that they were not allowed to participate in sport; that they could not take part in social functions?

They may not even swim together.

Have they told those people that under their policy they will not allow a person like Luthuli to sit in this House? Have they told those people that their children cannot go to the same school? Do they want to tell me that if they tell the things which they tell to the rest of South Africa to those people that that policy will satisfy the West? Do they want to tell me that it will satisfy Mr. Kennedy who called out a whole army to force two Negro students on to a White university? Whether that is right or wrong is a question on which I do not wish to express any opinion; that is his affair but do they want us to believe that that policy of theirs will satisfy the West?

Have they told the West that they are as much in favour of job reservation as we are? Why do they tell us that the reason why the West is against us, the reason why pressure is being exerted on us, is the policy of this Government while they know in their heart of hearts that their policy is as unacceptable to the West as our policy, if not more unacceptable? I go further and I say that the policy of the United Party, as they have announced it here, as the Leader of the Opposition has announced it in the Sunday Times, has already been rejected by the whole Western world. I say the West has rejected that policy because the West has rejected the policy which is being applied in Rhodesia at the moment. It has not been rejected by the Afro-Asian countries; the West has rejected that policy. When there was a resolution before UNO that the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia should be changed in order to give the Black people greater representation in the Southern Rhodesian Parliament, America did not vote against it? France did not vote against it. Only one country voted against it and that was the Republic of South Africa. I want to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he is prepared to go further than Sir Edgar White-head? I want to know from the hon. member for Yeoville whether he is prepared under his policy to go further than Mr. Field or than Sir Roy Welensky? That being the case why do they say it is our policy which has turned the West against us? Surely they know that in 1946, when UNO was still mainly a White organization, the mighty Field-Marshal Smuts, who was the darling of the West, could not withstand a motion by Mrs. Pandit; that motion against him was adopted.

What was the motion?

That the Indians were treated too badly in South Africa. [Interjections.] Of course that was the motion. The hon. member for Turffontein was present and even his strong personality, together with that of General Smuts, could not persuade the White UNO not to accept that motion. Surely it is clear, if they could not do it, if Rhodesia which has abolished all colour discrimination under its policy cannot find favour in the eyes of the West, that their policy will not find favour in the eyes of the West. Mr. Speaker, that is the fantastic misconception we have; the tragic misconception we have is that those hon. members still think the pressure on South Africa is as result of the policy of this Government whereas everything proves that the pressure on South Africa, all the hatred of South Africa, is as a result of the presence of the White man in South Africa. We find ourselves involved in a cold war as the hon. the Prime Minister has said. I want to pose a question and I am posing it with a full sense of responsibility; I want to put it as moderately as I possibly can because it is of the utmost importance if the White man is to continue to exist in South Africa. I want to put that question to the Leader of the Opposition. My question is this: Where does the United Party stand in this cold war? I do not doubt their patriotism but are they not playing a game, purely for political gain, which can lead to nothing else than an invitation to the world to interfere in the affairs of South Africa? I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he is prepared to say unconditionally to the rest of the world that he will not tolerate any foreign interference of any nature whatsoever? I want to ask him whether he will tell the world outside that he will not tolerate any pressure on their part to force a policy on us which we do not want? Is he prepared to tell them, no matter what our internal differences are, that he supports the Government 100 per cent in its opposition to any form of foreign pressure?

What a stupid question.

I shall tell the hon. member why I ask that stupid question. I am asking that stupid question because I am very anxious to know what their attitude is. When I listen to some of their speeches and when I read certain articles which the hon. member for Yeoville writes in the newspapers, I have strong doubts as to their attitude. I am not saying they will encourage pressure from outside, although the hon. member for Constantia came very close to doing that this afternoon. What disturbs me is their hesitant attitude; that they do not positively discourage pressure from outside. What disturbs me is their attitude which indicates to the world outside that if it exerts sufficient pressure we shall have to give in. That is what disturbs me. I agree with the Prime Minister that nothing can be more dangerous to South Africa than that the world outside should come under the impression that they need only exert sufficient pressure on us and everything will collapse here. Nothing can be more dangerous than that the world outside should come under the impression that all they need do is to exert sufficient pressure, pressure of whatever nature it may be, and then, in the first place the Verwoerd Government will fall and in the second place they will have a willing negotiator in the person of the hon. member for Yeoville and in the person of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and in the person of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. If they are under that impression we are actually inviting interference. If the world outside were to think that it would be fatal to South Africa but it would also be fatal to the world. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this crucial question and I think he owes us a reply to it in this debate. He opened this debate; he opened it in the tone in which he did. I think he is under an obligation to South Africa, through one of his lieutenants, to give us a reply to this question. My question to the Leader of the Opposition is this: Does he stand solidly and 100 per cent with the Government in saying to the world: “We shall not give in to any form of pressure; whether it be economic pressure, or pressure in the diplomatic or military spheres”? If the reply to that question is “yes”—which I hope it will be; as I know the Leader of the Opposition it must be yes—I have not the slightest doubt that the pressure which is to-day being exerted on South Africa will remain at threats and that it will be limited to States and groups about which we need not worry ourselves unduly I think, and to which threats we are slowly getting accustomed. I am quite convinced that it will remain at threats.

The hon. member for Constantia made an appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister. On behalf of South Africa I want to make an appeal to the Leader of the Opposition. In this respect his voice will carry more weight than that of the Prime Minister. Let him, from his side, say to the world: “I do not agree with the policy of the Prime Minister but if you think you can come and tell to us how to act in South Africa by way of pressure in the economic, or political or military spheres, I want to tell you that I stand with the Government.” What is wrong with it if they say that that is what they will do? Why does he not get up in this House and say that? Why does he not announce that to the world? Am I wrong in my assumption that that is the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition? If that is not his attitude it would be a thousand pities as far as South Africa is concerned. In that case we can expect the pressure to increase, to become dangerous, pressure which may result in a catastrophe for us. Let me put it this way: If the world knows that any interference will be up against the will of the whole nation, irrespective of political parties, they will realize that anything like that may end in the biggest catastrophe which the world has ever experienced with all the dire consequences which may flow from it. That is why I say that if the world knows that it can never happen. The world will know it if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition were to speak in an unequivocal and very clear voice about this matter. If the world thought they only needed to exert sufficient pressure and that they would have ready negotiators in certain persons, that pressure would increase. The difficulty is this, Sir, that if the countries which exert this pressure were to come under the impression that because of that pressure we must ultimately come to a fall, you would have the position that those countries, just to save their face, would have to continue exerting that pressure and that they would have to follow that pressure through to its logical conclusion. It would be a pity if such a catastrophe based on a misconception were to hit South Africa, because it would most certainly be a misconception. Whatever the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition, whatever the attitude of his lieutenants, there is no doubt about it whatsoever that any interference in the affairs of South Africa will be resisted to the last drop of blood in this country. Let there be no doubt about that. Such a catastrophe can be avoided; such pressure can only remain threats if the Leader of the Opposition does his duty and says to the world outside that as far as pressure from outside is concerned he is 100 per cent with the Government. I cannot express it in clearer terms than the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) put it in an article which he wrote in the Transvaler—

Then we have the very definite attitude on the part of the Opposition that we can buy the favour of the West by making concessions. What better invitation can you have, Sir, for them to increase the pressure than that attitude? What alarms me is the attitude which the hon. member for Yeoville adopts in articles which he writes in the Cape Argus and other newspapers. The hon. member for Yeoville is a very influential person within his own ranks to-day; he is a member of whom much notice is taken and what is the hon. member for Yeoville telling the world? He is telling the world that we are already cracking; just a little more pressure and we shall crack. He is telling the world that all our defence plans will not save us. He wrote the following in an article which appeared in the Cape Argus not so long ago, two years after our becoming a Republic—

The hon. member says that we drink more spirits than any other country; but surely that was also true under other governments. Now he laughs. He is laughing, he who tells the world that as a result of our policy we are already degenerating morally. He is telling the world that we are beginning to yield to the pressure; that we are so worried that we drink too much; that we are only amassing wealth; that we are a nation whose whole moral foundation has collapsed. What impression must that make on the world? Then he goes on and he says the following—

I put it to the hon. member for Yeoville that if the world finds it necessary to choose, as he says, between the 200 million Bantu in Africa and the White people of South Africa and they should decide that the Whites should be liquidated, where does his party stand? Where does he stand? Is he going to tell the world that he will oppose them in all respects and with all the power at his command? Or is that simply to make the world believe that they need only exert pressure because the people in South Africa are already cracking up? They drink too much, their defence force will not save them! Then we have this frivolity on the part of the hon. member for Yeoville who sits here and laughs when we are discussing matters of this nature! That shows you, Sir, how absolutely frivolous he is. I want to state this: They are looking forward to the day when the world will have to choose between us and the 200 million African Natives because they see their political salvation in that. I am sorry I have to say this, Sir, because I have no doubt about it that there are staunch patriots in that Party. But when they adopt this attitude, when they refuse to tell the world that no matter what the world does they will not tolerate any interference from the world outside, we can come to no other conclusion. I ask you, Sir, can there be a more blatant invitation to increase the pressure than that which the hon. member for Yeoville has extended here to the world outside? I want to know from the hon. member for Yeovillle, because of the influential position he occupies, why he does not get up and say to the world: “We are a free nation in South Africa; a free nation which is as much entitled to continue to exist as Ghana or any other country in the world. We have our internal differences of opinion but if you want to choose between us and Black Africa and you want to sacrifice us, if you want to subject us to Black domination through pressure, the Whites, apart from language or party, stand together like one man and we shall fight to the end”. Why does the hon. member for Yeoville not say that? Why is he telling the world that we are cracking and that our defence force will not save us? Why does he not, like the Prime Minister, say that we should show a united front to the world? Whatever analysis he makes he ought to realize that the things which are descending upon us are not only descending upon the National Party and its policy but that they will descend on the White man in the whole of South Africa. Our little island is getting smaller and smaller. The pattern which they had for the other White people in Africa, is the pattern which they have for us. The only way in which we can possibly continue to exist is for the White man in South Africa to close his ranks.

In conclusion I want to deal with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I want to ask him where he stands. Here I have an article written by Mr. Hamilton Russell immediately after he left the United Party. Mr. Hamilton Russell belonged to the inner circles of that party. He knew what was going on in that party. He knew in what direction that party was thinking. He knows what is going on at the back of their minds and he writes the following after he left the United Party.—

Would Mr. Hamilton Russell have said that, Sir, after he had been in the United Party for twenty years, had they not really discussed that? I say this to the Leader of the Opposition: It is his sacred duty towards South Africa to dissociate himself with this statement. It is his duty to say Mr. Hamilton Russell is wrong; that he is misinterpreting the attitude of the United Party; that the United Party is not busy playing for time so that, if the interference becomes so strong that we can no longer resist it, he will be willing to negotiate with those who have interfered. I say, Mr. Speaker, he owes South Africa a reply. If he does not want to say that there is only one duty left to us and that is for us to make it even plainer to the world outside what our attitude is; in that case we shall have to tell the world that what Mr. Hamilton Russell says is the attitude of the United Party, is not their attitude; that at the most it is the attitude of a small group of leaders in the United Party, I do not doubt the attitude of the members of the United Party. I do not doubt the attitude of the English-speaking people in South Africa; I do not doubt the attitude of the Afrikaans-speaking members of the United Party. I am sure that is not what the people of South Africa think. The people of South Africa will not yield to pressure. We want to live in love and peace with those people. We are prepared to go out of our way in order to live like that with them. But if it has to be, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say, without any fear of contradiction, that there will be very few men and women who will not be prepared to make the supreme sacrifice for South Africa.

We all realize that we are living in dangerous times. But nobody is as stupid as he who refuses to realize that the cold war in which we are involved is a war for the maintenance of the White man in South Africa and that the war which has been declared is not a war against the National Party. As far as this is concerned we are entitled to the support and the loyalty of every man and woman in South Africa, of every member of the United Party. I have not the slightest doubt that if the Leader of the Opposition, who is popular amongst his people, were to give them this guidance which I am asking him to give, the world will realize that this is the hardest nut it has ever had to crack and that it need not even try to crack it because it will never crack.

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee), in his one-track speech, put up a ninepin, knocked it down only to find that he had none left, so he had to put the same one up again. His whole speech was nothing but the same ninepin which he put up and knocked down and put up and knocked down right through the course of his speech. The sole and only theme of his speech was that the United Party invited foreign intervention in our internal affairs. That was all he said. That hon. member and all hon. members opposite ought to know that the loyalty of this side of the House to South Africa has never been questioned in the history of this country. The loyalty and the patriotism of this side of the House has never been questioned by anyone in the history of our country. If you want to look for parties and politicians who have looked to foreign countries in the hope that they will achieve for them their political ends in South Africa, then you must look to the bench-mates of that hon. member, those hon. members who saw in a German victory the hope of the Republic which they hoped to achieve in South Africa, who set up as their goal a Republic and who were prepared to rejoice over the defeat of their own troops in order to achieve their political objective of a Republic. Then that hon. member has the nerve to talk about the United Party being in favour of foreign intervention.

I did not say that.

If the hon. member says he did not say that we might just as well delete his speech from Hansard because there will be no speech left. If the member says he did not say so then he did not make a speech. If he did not say that, what have we been listening to for the last 40 minutes? It should not be necessary but it is apparently, and this side of the House, through the Leader of the Opposition, inside this House and outside, have repeatedly stated the point of view of the United Party. The Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly stated that the United Party will tolerate no intervention whatsoever by any foreign country in the domestic affairs of South Africa. That has been put on record so often that even the hon. member for Vereeniging should be able to understand it. But I shall say it again in simple words so that he will understand it: The United Party is totally opposed to any foreign intervention.

The hon. member for Vereeniging seems to confuse the foreign policy, or the lack of foreign policy, of that Government and criticism of that foreign policy with the question of outside intervention. We cannot cut South Africa off from the tip of this Continent and float out to sea and resign from the world. That is what the hon. member for Vereeniging is suggesting, namely, that we should resign from the world; that we should cut ourselves off from all living contact with any other nation. His speech was nothing but a speech to build up a war mentality; it was a khaki speech; a speech designed to instill into the minds of the people a feeling for war. He tried to soften the public into thinking in terms of war. His speech was an admission that the hon. member for Vereeniging and his Party see absolutely no hope for South Africa to live in friendship with the rest of the world. That was the whole theme of his speech. The theme of his speech was that because the United Party saw some hope of peaceful co-existence with the rest of the world, we sought foreign intervention. In other words, they see no hope of any peaceful co-existence and therefore they must create a war mentality amongst the public.

Not once did the hon. member for Vereeniging refer to his party’s own policy. There was no reply to the challenge from this side of the House; there was no reference to the charges made against the Government; it was nothing but an attempt to divert attention from the issue which is before this House, the total and utter failure on the part of the Government in relation to its internal and foreign policy. Usually the hon. member for Vereeniging somewhere comes close to touching on his own party’s policy but he ignored it completely this afternoon. He made no attempt whatsoever even to defend it in passing, other than to say at the very beginning of his speech that we have no right to question the morality of Government policy. The object of this Bill before the House is to vote money to keep this Government operating for another year. The task of the House in this debate is therefore to examine the policy of the Government, the record of the Government, and to examine the Government’s right to continue in power and to continue to govern South Africa. The duty of Government members is to defend their right to remain in power. We have charged the Government with failure and we are not prepared to be drawn away from the real issue by speeches such as the one we have had from the member for Vereeniging. It was a speech in which he grasped one word and tried to build a case round it. He attributed certain words to the member for Constantia, words which he did not utter, and he then continued to build a speech around those words. The hon. member for Vereeniging alleged that the hon. member for Constantia had invited foreign intervention in South Africa. He alleged that the member for Constantia had demanded that the Prime Minister resign otherwise there would be war. The member for Constantia did not say anything of the sort but the hon. member for Vereeniging built a whole argument around words which he pulled out of fresh air, instead of dealing with the claim which this side had made that there was no morality in Government policy, no political morality in the policy which they alleged was a policy of sound moral principles. I have yet to hear—and we shall continue to charge the Government until we do hear—an answer to the questions put by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Yeoville, the question of the Coloured population, the Indian population and the urban Bantu population who will be permanently settled in the White areas of South Africa. Until the Government can answer those three questions, until they can give us a policy in regard to those three population groups, the Government has no right whatsoever to claim to have a moral policy and to claim to be able to defend their position on moral grounds. We have made it clear that the Government, in its claim that it has found a solution to our difficulties along the road of Bantustans, has tied itself to a direction in which it has now gone so far that it cannot turn back. If it is going along that road then in all honesty it must follow it to its proper conclusion. Then it must say: “This is also our policy in regard to the Indian population; this is their area; this is where they are going to develop and where they will have their own Parliament. This is the Coloured-stan where the Coloureds are to live; this is where they are going to have political rights and this is where they are going to develop to their fullest.”

May I ask a question?

The hon. member can make a speech himself. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. De Wet) only knows one question. When he has learnt a second question we shall give him a chance to put it. At this stage we do not want to give him any more practice in the one question he knows. I know what the question is, and I am not going to waste the time of the House in answering a question that has been answered three times to my knowledge in this Session.

This is a new question. The question I would like the hon. member to answer is this. He has referred to Indians. Will an Indian be allowed under the policy of the United Party to be a member of Parliament?

The hon. member has learned a new word. He has changed one word in his question. He has learned the word “Indian”. If he makes progress like that, ultimately he will be able to put a completely new question. The policy of the United Party is that we will negotiate on the basis on which we were negotiating when we were in power in regard to separate roll representation by Europeans. That is the policy of the United Party as printed and published and announced in this House, and the hon. member cannot get away from cold hard facts. We have also said that any change from that position will be made only with the specific consent of the electorate at a special general election or at a referendum.

Will you give your consent?

I will answer the hon. member’s question, but I am not prepared to be drawn away from the questions which we are putting to the Government and which they have got to answer. Our question is: What is their policy for the Indian population? What is their policy for the Coloured people? Based upon their Bantustan ideology of total separation, what is their policy in regard to the Indians and the Coloureds? What is their policy in relation to the urban Bantu permanently settled in South Africa? Are we all like the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark to put on aprons and wash our own dishes? Are we all to turn the wheels of industry in South Africa without the aid of Bantu labour? Or are we going to admit honestly that that Bantu labour is here to stay? It is no use members on the Government side coming back at us, trying to draw the debate into a debate on United Party policy. We have put our policy. It is known. When we become the Government, it will work. The issue now is the failure of the Government’s policy, and the failure of the Government to account for their policy. All that has been said in this debate in regard to domestic policy is that when it comes to the rebuilding of friendship with the Western world, we believe that the United Party has got an answer to South Africa’s problems which will be acceptable to the responsible nations of the world.

Please expand on that.

I say that the United Party attitude is that because of the broad-based common sense of United Party policy, we are liable to get and we will get from the Western world a greater sympathy than the present Government’s policy can ever get.

Why?

The answer is that the Government has had 15 years in which to see how its policy reacts in relation to foreign affairs. And what a failure it has made of these 15 years! There is no question, there is no discussion in relation to world opinion on the Government’s policy. That is clear. It is a fact, and the fact is that the world regards this Government’s policy as repulsive and abhorrent and as a result of that abhorrence foreign relations between South Africa and states which should be friendly to us have broken down. Nothing you say and nothing you do can alter that fact. Hon. members opposite all accept the fact of the breakdown of the Government’s foreign policy. Now the question is: What are they going to do about it? There are only two things they can do. Either they can rebuild the bridges with those countries which should be our friends. Or they should get out of office and give someone else the chance to rebuild those bridges. It is no use talking about Rhodesia and Portuguese East Africa …

Why not?

We are dealing with South Africa, a sovereign independent country. You cannot compare a sovereign independent country with a colony or with a country which is part of another country, wanting independence. We are ourselves a nation, a country with a Parliament and our own independent state. Our position is totally different from any other country in Africa to start with, and that is the basic reason why it is possible in South Africa to have solutions other than those which can be applied in the rest of Africa. These members are blinded by the theory of politics. They get a theory into their mind and they follow that theory blindly to the exclusion of facts. In South Africa your ratio of population is such and your interdependence of the races economically is such that we can have solutions working satisfactorily here which would fail anywhere else in Africa.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Would the United Party be prepared to go further than Sir Edgar White-head went in trying to meet the West?

I knew what the question was going to be. I wanted the hon. member to put that question, because it shows again his obsession and the obsession of his party with theory. They cannot differentiate between the circumstances in one country and the circumstances in another country, conditions in one country and conditions in another.

You get the same pattern throughout Africa.

When it is convenient, the hon. member wants to compare Rhodesia with South Africa. When it is inconvenient, what a different story! Look at the way they squealed to high Heaven when we talked of the Transkei as another Congo or another Kenya. They say “Oh, that is quite different, that is nonsense, that is unfair! How can you compare the Transkei with Kenya?” But when it suits them, then you can make comparisons. If you want to make that comparison then you must compare the Bantustan policy with the colonies of Africa. First you create the colony and then you let the colony move to independence, If the Government wants to make comparisons it must start at that point of comparison with the Transkei. That is a far closer comparison than any comparison of Southern Rhodesia with South Africa. I repeat that because of the ratio difference, you cannot compare the two. If you count the Coloureds as a Westernized group, then the ratio of Westernized Coloureds and Whites to the Bantu is one to two and a half in South Africa. In the Federation it is one to 26. In Southern Rhodesia it is one to 12. Secondly, you have in South Africa the greatest industrial development, with virtually every Bantu dependent on the economy of the White man in one form or another, directly or indirectly. That interdependence, plus that ratio, makes it possible for us to follow courses in South Africa which can work here, but might fail elsewhere. In the same way …

You are living in a fool’s paradise.

Mr. Speaker, if anyone in living in a fool’s paradise, the hon. member for Heilbron is away from home for the moment, because that is where he belongs, and that is the only place where he belongs. That is his home town, his home province, it is the only place where he should be allowed to circulate. Mr. Speaker, we in this country dare not close our eyes to the realities of events. Dare we, like the Nationalist Party and like the Government, surrender, put up the white flag, as the Government has done, and say: There is no solution, we have failed to sort out our own destiny, so we are going to carve South Africa up into bits and pieces, and having carved South Africa up into bits and pieces, we are going to save a little bit for ourselves, and we will sacrifice the rest. That is an admission of failure. We say there is no need to surrender. Not only do we say we will not tolerate foreign intervention, but we say that under sound policies there would be no foreign intervention, there would be no need for it, because we would have the friendship of the states that matter. We are not, like the Government, going to be dictated to, or try to placate the Afro-Asian states. The Government determine their policies according to the demands of the Afro-Asian bloc. Their whole philosophy is based on “one man one vote” or total apartheid. Therefore the Nationalists are the tools of the propaganda of the Afro-Asian states, because they have swallowed hook, line and sinker, that propaganda which those states want the world to accept as the only alternative. As long as the Nationalists are prepared to be the tools of the extremist states, they cannot hope to solve any problems. But again I say that not a single member on the Government benches, from the Prime Minister down, has even attempted to answer the question put by the Leader of the Opposition as to what Western country has demanded of South Africa a policy of “one man one vote”. I say that none has. The Minister of Foreign Affairs says so. The hon. the Prime Minister was not prepared to quote one country that demands it. They are prepared to say that the Afro-Asian bloc demands it, and therefore the West will demand it. But the fact is that no single Western country has made that demand of South Africa. The Government’s attempt to panic the people of South Africa into believing that there is no other course is based upon their own idea and not upon the facts of the situation. Even the hon. Prime Minister had to admit that he would be an embarrassment to the head of any foreign state. So far from having discussed this question he feels that he could not even ask for the opportunity to discuss it without embarrassing our friends. When you have reached that stage, when the head of South Africa must himself stand up in his own Parliament and say that his very presence in the Western capitals would embarrass them, then it is a very sad day for South Africa. If we had said that, we would have been accused of being disloyal, of being unpatriotic. But the Prime Minister himself stated this afternoon that his very presence would be an embarrassment to the Western leaders. If we have reached that stage, I don’t see that there is any need to debate it further, because the Government. through the mouth of the Prime Minister himself, has admitted the total failure of its foreign policy. Not only does the Minister of Foreign Affairs abdicate, but the Prime Minister abdicates from the rest of the world. That is what it amounts to. If he as Prime Minister says that there is no country in the whole world in which he would not be an embarrassment, then it is an admission of abdication, of miserable failure. We want from the Government arguments disproving that admission. We are not going to be led aside by the sort of attacks that we have had. We are determined to force this Government into the position where it justifies its own failure or success, and we will go on demanding answers of the Government until we get them or the people to realize what is happening. I think the people are starting to realize what is happening when the Prime Minister himself makes statements as he did this afternoon. The people are starting to realize that they have been led up the garden path by propaganda and emotionalism, and that now that the chickens are coming home to roost, now that we are facing the hard cold facts of life in South Africa, they are looking to the Government for an answer to these questions which the Government has been evading for so long.

The charge levelled by this side of the House at the Opposition, as expressed by the hon. member for Vereeniging and by the hon. the Prime Minister in the concluding portion of his speech, is simply that the Opposition, in judging our foreign policy, take as their yardstick the reaction of the outside world to our domestic policy. Nowhere else in the world is the foreign policy of a country judged in terms of the foreign reaction to the country’s domestic policy. When Britain’s foreign policy is discussed, the question is whether Britain is seeking to achieve certain legitimate objects abroad or not. When France debates her foreign policy, the question is whether France is seeking to achieve certain legitimate objects abroad or not. When the Opposition parties in those countries express criticism, they say that the government in its foreign policy is seeking to achieve certain undesirable objects. But here in South Africa the Government’s foreign policy is criticized merely on the basis that the outside world does not like our domestic policy and consequently to achieve improved foreign relations, we must adjust our domestic policy. In other words, the whole approach of hon. members during this debate is based on an acceptance of foreign interference by advancing foreign condemnation as the yardstick for judging our domestic policy. The Opposition accept as the basis of their speeches the right of the outside world to discuss and to react to our domestic policy.

You have made the Transkei a foreign territory.

That is what we hold against hon. members. The hon. member who has just sat down says that the policy of the National Party has come to be viewed with “abhorrence” during the past 15 years throughout the outside world and as a result of this “abhorrence” relations with the outside world have practically come to a standstill and have been broken down. In saying that, he is not admitting the validity of the argument which I have put to him? He says that our domestic policy has come to be viewed with abhorrence in the outside world and in discussing our relations with foreign countries, he reproaches us for this. As long as the Opposition judge our domestic policy by the yardstick of our foreign policy, so long will there be no reconciliation between us. The Opposition has the fullest right to say, “We think your foreign policy is completely wrong. But the fact that the outside world happens to agree with us in so thinking does not take the matter any further; we do not want this foreign support and we prefer above all else that the outside world should keep its nose out of South Africa’s affairs.” If that were the attitude of the hon. Opposition, we could have no fault to find with them. But they try to buttress their criticisms of our domestic policy by telling us that it is not only the Opposition who criticize us and who are filled with abhorrence but that that abhorrence is shared by the world. That is what we object to.

Turning to the appeal by the hon. member who has just sat down that circumstances and facts should be taken into account and not political theory, I want to ask what has happened during the past 15 years which has made our domestic policy the target of world attack? We now do not want to take political theory into account but facts. In Africa alone 20 non-White States have achieved independence. That is a fact which has changed the situation. There is the psychological fact that people, who for a long time have occupied an inferior position, as in the case of many of the Black nations, now over-assert their personality in the process of getting rid of their former inferiority. There is the second fact of an abnormal international psychological reaction against us. There is the third fact of the West-Communist conflict in which the two groups are seeking allies and in which for the first time in a long period of international history the two groups are bidding for the support of otherwise unimportant nations. There is the further fact of the establishment of the United Nations Organization which, whether we like it or not, is a force and an instrument of American foreign policy. In this United Nations the anomaly has arisen that the smallest independent member nation, without resources or civilization, has a vote equal to that of the great powers, and its vote must be courted. As a result of these main factors which can be supplemented by other factors, a strong reaction has arisen in the outside world against our policy. We must not take political theory into account. We must take the realities into account, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) has said. In that case I want to ask that his party should do so as well. Because during this debate the United Party have made statements which are almost unforgivable. For the first time the cold shadow, like that of a cloud passing before the sun, of the word “war” has fallen on us in this House, and it came from the hon. member for Constantia. I ask whether this is the time and the place to utter that sombre word, to make that suggestion which could harm our stock exchange and our whole economic life? The hon. member, is a person with wide experience of and insight into the sensitivity of the financial structure of a country, and I believe that the hon. member did not make these statements without prior consideration. In other words, we can regard this as a deliberate shadow which he too wants to cast over the financial well-being of South Africa, and it is unjustified.

Exaggerated accusations have been made. I want to return to the accusation of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that our system of influx control and of endorsing out urban Bantu is comparable to the labour system which existed under Stalin during the first five-year plan. I say it was an unworthy comparison which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made. It is a comparison which is harmful to our country and it is essentially an untrue comparison. I know that by using petty lawyers’ tricks one can indicate quite a few apparent similarities between the labour legislation of Russia at that time and our Bantu legislation, but these are nothing more than formal apparent similarities because our labour legislation is aimed at keeping the Bantu out of the White cities and the White economy as far as possible. We are trying to prevent an excessive influx. The Stalinist measures were aimed at forcing the Russian small farmer as far as possible into industry and obliging him to work whether he wanted to do so or not. I ask whether it is the function of a patriot, of a responsible public man, to try to score this unworthy debating point off the Government in the eyes of the world and to the detriment of his own country? I want to deal with two statements made by the hon. member for Constantia. He referred—I think in pursuance of the Mapheele case—to the Government’s overall policy and said “Civilized opinion hangs its head in shame”. A person who expresses such an opinion is suggesting that we who do not hang our heads are outcasts from civilization. Here a prominent man expresses the opinion that “civilized opinion hangs its head in shame”. Is he not lending support to those foreigners who, in the words of the hon. member for Durban (Point), express abhorrence of our policy? Later on the hon. member for Constantia specifically used these dangerous words: “The Prime Minister cannot speak for the whole of White South Africa”. In other words, he specifically confirms that there is disunity amongst White South Africans. He contradicted the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Durban (Point) when he gave the assurance—which I greatly appreciate although he unnecessarily tried to spoil it by referring to the last war—that he would stand by South Africa in case of interference. I honestly believe that he would, just as I believe and appreciate it as regards 70 per cent of the United Party. But I say that unnecessary statements which are harmful to our country have been made here and that is what we deplore. But we have now been challenged to say how we can justify our policy. What is our policy? The first cornerstone of our policy is that an arbitrary distinction should not be drawn between White and non-White merely on the basis that we believe that the White man is superior and that the non-White is eternally inferior. Can the Opposition accuse us of having such an arbitrary racial element in our policy? I do not believe they can. I think they must concede that this Government’s non-White policy does not show any signs of drawing an arbitrary distinction between White and non-White on the basis of an arrogant superiority complex in favour of the White man. But when have the Opposition joined us in telling the outside world that the basis of South Africa’s colour policy is not an arbitrary distinction between man and man because the one is Black and the other White but that it is a policy which results from the political consequences of group consciousness? And if the Opposition have hitherto failed in their duty and if it is late in the day and the cold shadows to which the hon. member for Constantia has referred are falling across our country, is it not time then for them to rise and join our party in telling the rest of the world that the first cornerstone of our colour policy in South Africa, of all White South Africa, is not an arbitrary distinction between colour and colour.

In the second place, our system of control over the movement of the Bantu in South Africa has never been designed to exploit the labour of the Bantu. It has always been designed with due regard to the social and economic disadvantages of an excessive influx of Bantu into our urban areas and with due regard to the eventual political implications of an excessive influx. It has never been aimed at the exploitation of their labour.

Now the position is different.

No, hon. members are now making it a political issue. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now made it a political issue by comparing it with the methods of Stalin. But if we honestly examine these measures, there is no change in the proposed Bantu legislation which has been held over this year, which is not simply aimed at establishing an effective system of influx control to ensure that we shall be able to guard against the evils, from an economic point of view, of an excessive influx and to ensure that political evils will not flow from an excessive influx of Bantu into the large White cities. Is it too much to ask that the Opposition should join the Government in testifying before the world that our legislation in respect of Bantu influx control is misunderstood? It is not a mechanism to exploit the labour of the Bantu and to obtain his labour cheaply. It has quite different sociological, political objects. On the contrary, it is the aim of the Government and of all the White people to raise the wage standards of the Bantu. In the third place, our policy is based on the acceptance of the right of self-determination of every nation. The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) who has levelled such serious charges at the Government to-day took justifiable pride in the fact that he fought in the World War I. At that time the hon. member fought for the principle enunciated by Wilson, namely the right of self-determination for small nations. The graves of eight million dead, including many Americans, are still there to-day to remind the world of that principle. We demand nothing more than the right of self-determination for this small nation in South Africa and that we should not be called upon to yield to a Black numerical majority through a supposedly democratic process which would result in just as conclusive a victory over and destruction of this nation in South Africa as a military defeat would entail for us. Since we claim the right of self-determination for small nations as the basis of our policy, how can we do otherwise than to grant the right of self-determination to these separate Bantu nations in South Africa? It need not take place with undue haste, but, after all, on grounds of morality and principle we cannot demand before the world and our Creator the right of self-determination and say that we refuse to give it to the Bantu. Is it too much to ask of the Opposition that they should join us in presenting to the world the right of self-determination for small nations as the basis on which our White people make their stand and as the basis on which we shall do justice to the Black man? I know hon. members differ from us. They want to see the whole population of South Africa with its many heterogeneous elements forming one united nation. May hon. members’ eyes be opened. But academically at least let them stand with us in our argument with the outside world and concede that the National Party stands unequivocally by the principle that we are defending the right of self-determination for small nations. We have been asked how we hope to get these principles accepted. Is the truth of these propositions not sufficient support to our hopes that we shall eventually regain foreign goodwill? And in addition to the validity of our case, there is another joint weapon which the Government and the Opposition can use, namely the limitless economic potential of South Africa. And here we are not boasting about what the Government has allegedly done because the collective efforts of every businessman and every small manufacturer, whether he is a recent immigrant or an old-established South African, and whether he speaks English or Afrikaans, and of all the workshops and farms of our country have brought about the economic miracle of South Africa, and it is our joint economic miracle. We have a tremendously strong economy. I know that the Opposition are very fond of mocking us by saying that even this Government’s maladministration could not ruin South Africa’s economy. But this country is richly endowed with natural resources and it is blessed with human material, with people who are intelligent industrial workers. It also has a variety of resources which make our country economically strong and in many respects essential to the Western world. I do not want to refer to outstanding things such as gold, but I want to refer to minerals such as manganese and chrome, of which we are the second biggest producer in the Western world. There are 101 items in respect of which our wealth gives us, internationally and nationally speaking, a guarantee of our survival. Let us stand together in proclaiming our faith in our survival by virtue of our own strength.

In conclusion our guarantee lies in what the hon. member for Vereeniging appealed for. If we stand united, economically and militarily and as regards our basic ideology, this country cannot be destroyed. Why this pessimism as regards our foreign relations? Why this idea that our basic colour policy should be adjusted? I do not begrudge hon. members the right to climb onto the soap box with me to argue whether their policy is better than mine. It is their right to tear me to pieces. But do not let us argue before the international forum that this Government’s policy is abhorrent to the outside world and can be improved by the acceptance of the policy of those gentlemen. No, in the first place I expect the United Party when they discuss foreign affairs, to protest to the West against the proposed destruction of South Africa by means of disarmament, the West which has evaded the moral issue by saying; “We shall not attack South Africa ourselves, but we shall try to make her powerless by refusing to sell arms to her.” Let the Opposition protest to their countries of origin against this deplorable form of complicity in the proposed murder of South Africa. In the second place, I expect the Opposition to lodge the strongest protest against the abuse of the United Nations which should be the international instrument of peace, and which is being utilized to-day against South Africa as an instrument of destruction to bring our country to her knees. Hon. members should not merely ask whether a representative will go to the United Nations and what our policy will be there. They should stand with us and say; “We want to register the strongest protest at the United Nations and in the international world, with every means at our disposal, against the utilization of this institution which should be the guarantee of security and peace as the instrument for destroying South Africa.” The third thing which I expect from the Opposition is that if the cold shadows of the clouds of war do in fact hover over us, the Opposition, instead of hurling new and even more bitter reproaches against us, will join us, if their leaders genuinely feel that the position has reached the stage where one has to speak of such terms, in giving a demonstration of solidarity at this time.

I do not propose to follow the theme of the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn), but I want to say that to a very large extent he is preaching to the converted except for this very important difference, that we have not surrendered or given up hope and we do not intend to abdicate. We believe that there is a way in which we can protect our national aspirations and at the same time win back the respect of the outside world. That is the fundamental difference between us. We are not prepared to go into the same hole and die with them. We are prepared to say: Come into the same field and live with us in the South Africa we believe in. That is the most important difference between us. If hon. members opposite would only begin to realize that that is a fact and that we on this side of the House, like them, are just as keen to protect our way of life as we know it in South Africa, perhaps we will come to a better understanding much quicker. But not by the surrender of ideals and principles which we on this side believe in and which we are not prepared to sacrifice.

Sir, it is just three months since the Budget of which the present appropriation is the outcome was put before the House, but the changes in those three months have been so drastic and far-reaching that it behoves all of us to examine very carefully not only the financial provisions made in the Budget but to build up a national spirit of unity and loyalty which is so essential if we are to carry the day in the face of the storms gathering around us. It is necessary not only to examine and see that we are getting value for the financial provisions made in this Bill, but also that we examine the background against which we meet to-day, which has been so ably explained already by the three previous speakers on this side. It is against this background we demand from the outside world that they treat us on a basis of reality, and not on the basis on which we have been dealt with up to now.

I particularly want to deal with certain aspects of our defence organization, and it is against the background of our own party’s internal policy, coupled with world criticism, that I want to approach it. In particular I want to approach it in regard to the only defence agreement which we as a nation have with any other foreign power of strength, and which is of great value to us. It confers a number of defence benefits not only on the Republic, benefits as well as obligations, but also on Britain. I am referring to the benefits and obligations which flow directly from the Simonstown Agreement. I want to refer for a moment to that agreement which has been very widely mentioned by many important members of the Government over recent weeks. Sometimes the tone of their utterances made one fear that the agreement is not sufficiently understood, otherwise I am quite sure some of the statements referred to would never have been made. I want to refresh the memory of the House as to some of the most important terms of the agreement, which are more important than ever to-day and more vital to our survival than they were when the agreement was drawn up.

I want to refer to Paragraph 1 on page 12, where there is a joint declaration of agreement between Britain and South Africa regarding the protection of the sea routes not around South Africa, but around Southern Africa. I think that is an important difference. The agreement says that “recognizing the importance of sea communications to the well-being of their respective countries—the two countries combined—in peace and to their common security in the event of aggression, the Governments of the Union of South Africa and the United Kingdom enter into the following agreement to ensure the safety by the joint operation of their respective maritime forces of the sea routes around Southern Africa.”—The agreement then goes on to deal with the programme of expansion of the South African Navy, which is now rapidly drawing to a conclusion with the advent of the three new frigates, and then this important statement in Paragraph 3 is made, one which is most important from the defence point of view, in view of the utterances of Mr. Harold Wilson—

—“costing at that time £18,000,000,”—which has been practically doubled since then, and then there is this statement—“that the British Admiralty agree to act as agents for the Union Government in this matter.”—In terms of this agreement I stand by the action taken by the hon. the Minister of Defence, who in spite of Mr. Wilson’s threats and criticisms has placed his further orders with Britain under this section of the agreement and there is no question about it, that Britain has committed herself to stand by this agreement, just as we have, and you cannot use warships unless they are completely equipped and armed; therefore it is an obligation which Britain has accepted to see that we get those necessary armaments. The action of the Minister of Defence is therefore correct in holding them to that contract. Then in Paragraph 7 on page 13 the agreement goes on to deal with the extent of the zone for which we ourselves in South Africa have accepted liability for defence. It is designated to Southern Africa Strategic Zone. It runs roughly from the southern borders of Angola, the northern boundary of South West Africa right around the Cape to the lower tip of Madagascar. It includes the entrance to the Mozambique channel and cuts across it to the boundary between South Africa and Mozambique just below Lourenço Marques. Actually it is a sea area of just over 50,000,000 square miles that we South Africans have undertaken to protect and guard in the case of hostilities. The agreement goes still further. I have been pointing out the dual nature of the commitment contained in this agreement. It is not a unilateral agreement. Paragraph 10 on page 13 provides that—“a Joint Maritime War Planning Committee will be set up containing representatives of the Royal Navy and the South African Navy, one of whose functions will be to co-ordinate the use of all maritime facilities in the British and South African territories in the strategic zones.”—That Committee has been set up and has been operating from the date of this agreement. Outside of our own strategic zone, Britain takes over defence of the South Atlantic, and the area around South America. It takes control of the wider zone, and inside that zone we protect the area contiguous to our own coast. The agreement goes much further, and in paragraph 16 on page 13 lays down that it does not preclude any other power entering into a joint defence agreement within the scope of this particular agreement. The agreement does not preclude the association of other Governments in the defence of the strategic zone. In Paragraph 9 on pages 4 and 5 there is what I consider to be one of the most important provisions in view of recent developments, namely that the agreement will remain in force until such time as the two Governments—“not either Government unilaterally”—decide otherwise by mutual consent. I would suggest that in view of the developments we see overseas, that particular clause might be of tremendous value to South Africa in the days that lie ahead. The memorandum which accompanied the agreement, pages 18 and 19, again signed by both Governments, laid down that—“Southern Africa and the sea routes around Southern Africa must be secured against aggression from without. The internal security of the countries of Southern Africa must, however, remain a matter for each of the individual countries concerned.”—Then it goes on to deal with certain liabilities in connection with the then situation in the Middle East, and after dealing with that, it states Paragraph 5, page 19, that in this connection the arrangements made for the protection of the sea routes around Southern Africa are of particular importance. The agreement also deals with the actual set-up of a defence organization between ourselves and Britain, and on pages 3 and 4 it emphasizes the need that—“consequent upon the intention of the South African Government to expand its Navy in order to defend the sea routes around Southern Africa, and in order that our Government may be able to provide adequate logistic support for their expanded Navy, the United Kingdom agrees to hand over the base and it is agreed that the Royal Navy will continue to use the facilities in the Simonstown base in peace and in war, the Union Government on their part agreeing that the facilities of the base will continue to be available for use by the Royal Navy in peacetime, and by the Royal Navy and ships serving with it, or ships belonging to the Allies of the United Kingdom, in any war in which the United Kingdom is involved.”—This is a very far-reaching provision and it ties Great Britain with us in the observance of this agreement. It was the basis of the hand-over and it is the basis of the administration of the whole of this agreement. I am not going to weary the House with further provisions, but it goes on to provide that our own Government must be responsible for expanding certain facilities at the base and various other features which are not relevant to what I want to deal with at the moment.

I want to come back to the clauses on pages 3 and 4 which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs touched upon the other afternoon, in regard to Britain’s use of the facilities at Simonstown. But before dealing with that aspect I want to say that of all the people in the House one would have expected the Minister of Foreign Affairs to be acquainted with the terms of an agreement so important to our country as this one is; one which falls within the scope of his portfolio, because Britain is now a foreign country. One would have expected from him least of all, any attempt to play politics with something which is so vital to our own security. The Minister appeared to be somewhat worried at the time he made his speech on his vote. Speaking in the House on 5 June, in the course of his criticism of Mr. Wilson’s boycott speech, he said the following (Hansard, Col. 7311). He said that our Minister of Defence gave a timely warning after Mr. Wilson’s statement, and he pointed out that if such a policy were to be implemented it would mean that the Simonstown agreement would be endangered. I think it is most unwise and reckless for a Minister of Foreign Affairs to make the latter part of such a statement. The greatest losers would be ourselves if this agreement were to be cancelled. Britain would suffer loss, but she can stand it far better than we can. Our line of approach must be to hold on for all we are worth to this agreement. Then as in Hansard, Col. 7311, the hon. the Minister went on to say that—“under that agreement Britain enjoys dockyard facilities at 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 base.”—Again I say that at a time like the present, when South Africa should be striving to retain old friends and win new ones, such a completely wrong and false statement coming from no less a person than the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who should know his facts, is difficult to conceive. It is completely reckless and incorrect. It was criticism levelled at the only power with which we have any defensive alliance or agreement to-day, and a power with which we carry on the biggest two-way trade to-day, export and import, which is so vital to our economy. So far from Britain enjoying the facilities at Simonstown at no cost to herself—and the figures I am going to quote now were given in reply to a question I placed on the Order Paper last week—those services are paid for in hard cash. No quay dues are charged at Simonstown because it is not a commercial port. But for berthing services, i.e. placing the ships alongside the quays, Britain paid R18,902 during the last three years. In addition, for the services of dry-docking their two ships, repairs and general overhaul, Britain paid the Republic R180,000 during the same period, the total payment for the three years being R199,684 for the services the Foreign Minister told the House Britain enjoyed free of charge. Sir, do you wonder why I say it is a reckless statement for a man in his position to make? It is completely unjustified and misleading. If that is an example of the care with which the Minister approaches his portfolio, one can cease to wonder why we have so few friends. The Simonstown Agreement goes far beyond the facilities at Simonstown itself. It is not only the most valuable and far-reaching defence pact between Britain and South Africa, which is of great strategic value both to Britain and ourselves and to any of Britain’s allies in war-time, but it clearly stipulates that the agreement cannot be terminated unless by mutual agreement between the two powers. I believe that is a stipulation which the Government should take the greatest care to safeguard, because it is the one thing which gives us security under prevailing conditions.

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

Evening Sitting

I was dealing with the statement made to the House by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs during the debate on his Vote. He then made a statement which I regard as grossly misleading. He stated that the Royal Navy vessels at Simonstown used and enjoyed the facilities of that base without paying for it. In actual fact, in the three years from 1960 to 1963 these vessels paid an amount of R199.000 for the use of the services. Consequently I feel that the Minister’s statement is a most reprehensible statement in the light especially of present conditions. It is most reprehensible statement to make, a most damaging statement, on the part of a person of the Minister’s standing. It is moreover a statement which to a certain extent leaves a stigma on Great Britain in that he thereby implied that Great Britain lived on the charity of South Africa in respect of this portion of its defence. In fact, one is almost inclined to feel that in view of the diplomatic post the Minister holds, he should make an adequate apology to Great Britain for that inference.

I now want to pass on to another aspect which is also linked with the Simonstown agreement. I am sorry that circumstances have prevented the hon. the Minister of Defence being present as I intend putting a few questions to him, questions of a constructive nature. However, I trust that the hon. the Minister of Finance who is interested in the financial side will convey the gist of these questions to the hon. the Minister of Defence. At the end of last week the hon. the Minister of Defence referred to the importance of the Cape sea route in times of war. He said that experts had forecast that within three weeks of the outbreak of any such war, there would be approximately 3,000 ships in this area requiring servicing. Even if this number were smaller it would still be tremendous. Moreover, it would be more than a mere question of servicing. The other question which arises is that with that number of ships in our waters, they would require defending. That is part of the obligations we have accepted, i.e. to see to their defence as long as they are within South Africa’s strategic zone. When one tries to determine the extent to which these ships would need being defended one has only to refer back to the last war when in the period October and November, 1942, only four submarines of the older, conventional type then operating off our coast sunk more than 200,000 tons of Allied and British shipping in South African waters. That gives us some idea of the extent of the responsibilities we are going to have to shoulder should such an unhappy situation again arise. The Minister posed the question where this fleet would get its harbour facilities. I too should like to pose a few questions to the hon. the Minister largely affecting harbour facilities both for our own navy and for the navy allies we have pledged to support in terms of this agreement. This agreement provides in paragraph 6—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it has been brought to his attention that the enclosed dock harbour area at the Simonstown base at the moment is already too small having regard to the development of our Navy and the use being made of it by the Royal Navy. The enclosed harbour area under these conditions is already too small and requires expansion. The berthing facilities and conditions are such that you cannot double berth these light ships with safety. The berthing position, moreover, is already acute. Furthermore, with the advent to the two new frigates still to arrive plus the commissioning of the two destroyers at present being converted into helicopter carriers, the basin itself will be much too small. Plans for an additional basin for the purpose of expanding the existing harbour facilities have already been prepared. This is a matter in which the hon. the Minister of Finance would have considerable interest because ultimately it will be a question of finding the necessary funds for financing the expansion. These ships that we are buying are fine ships. They are very expensive and important from our defence point of view. If the safety and security they help to provide is to be secured and if we are to get value for the many millions of rand we have spent on them, we shall have to face the additional expenditure necessary for the development of the harbour as soon as it is possible to do so. It is not a job which can be shelved indefinitely and cannot be completed quickly.

Our navy itself is developing somewhat out of balance. I have already mentioned this to the hon. the Minister during a visit to the ships, but I want to amplify it now. As I have said, our navy is developing somewhat out of balance. We are getting three magnificent frigates, anti-submarine frigates. With the completion of the third one next year we would have spent plus or minus R30,000,000 on these three modern anti-submarine warships, ships of which we can justly be proud. But if we are to keep these ships efficient and if the officers and men on them are to be given an opportunity of an effective training to enable them to carry out their functions, then they have to have a vessel of the type they are designed to kill, for the purpose of their training. Up to now a submarine has been freely placed at the disposal of South Africa by Great Britain during the usual annual Capex exercises. But we get that submarine only for a few months each year for the purpose of carrying out these Capex training exercises. This however is not sufficient in view of the development of our own navy. Moreover, our navy, has now reached a stage of development where to restore the balance of the fleet, and quite apart from their operational value, we seriously have to consider acquiring a number of the conventional type submarines to operate with our fleet. This is a responsibility which we cannot shelve indefinitely. I know the hon. the Minister of Finance does not feel too happy about it because these little toys are an expensive item. However, the Minister prefaced his budget speech last year by saying that the budget emphasized the cost of national security. Now, if we are to live up to that very high reputation, then we also have to face up to these costs. The cost of running a navy is by no means inconsiderable. As it is, we have not yet come to a realization of just what it will cost ultimately.

But there is another aspect to which we shall have to face up. These warships have a definite life value. The three older frigates, i.e. the Transvaal, the Good Hope and the Natal—although the Natal is now used for surveys—are now in the 18/20 years age group—in other words, they have reached an age where it is no longer an economical proposition to run and maintain them as first class warships. There are, of course, other services for which they may be used. They could, for instance, later on be used in connection with our extended territorial waters for protecting our fishing and other national interests involved. But the question of their replacement from a naval point of view, is a question which has now to be faced up to because it takes approximately five years from the time you start planning her until your new ship arrives.

We have arrived at the days of a specialized navy where each class of ships has a specialized function to perform. The type we receive is no longer the all-purpose type. Apart from the reclassing of the two destroyers as helicopter carriers we shall also have three first class and most modern specialized anti-submarine ships but which are sitting ducks from a strong aircraft attack point of view. We have to provide them with the necessary air protection by means of the general purpose anti-aircraft frigates which are new reaching the stage of final usefulness. Fortunately up to now much of the efficiency which we have been able to attain with our own “specialist” defence people has been largely the result of the highly specialized training establishments maintained on shore in Britain in order to develop the various arms of the fleet and of which we have had the benefit for training purposes. We in the Republic have very little of this type of establishment up to now. If we are going to develop our navy they are essential. We have to develop a submarine attack training establishment on shore. It is, of course, going to cost quite a bit, but it is absolutely imperative that we have it if our ships are to maintain their efficiency. There is the question of the provision of a modern gunnery school to replace the Van Riebeeck type of fort which now stands at the entrance to Simonstown. We shall have further large “shore” commitments when the helicopter arm is added to the S.A. Navy.

These are just some of the more important things which have to be considered. These few examples clearly indicate some of the obligations which we have accepted under the Simonstown agreement in respect of the expansion of the base. But it goes even further. It is indicative of the obligations which we have accepted in accepting responsibility for the defence for something like 50,000,000 square miles of sea off our coasts. If we are to give the chaps who have to undertake that defence a fair chance, then we have to face up to the expenditure which is necessary to supply their essential needs. But I believe that the country will face up to it. I should like to urge upon the hon. Minister to put it to the hon. Prime Minister that it is necessary for these developments to be properly provided for in a three or five year plan. It takes roughly five years from the time you start talking until you complete a submarine. Consequently, we should plan now so that we can work towards a common objective which is the building up of our security by being prepared as the hon. the Minister of Finance said in his budget speech.

In the few minutes left to me I wish to deal with another matter. I want to ask how many South Africans, South Africans in all walks of life and no matter what their colour or race group, to-day really realize the gravity of the threat to themselves, their families and to the Republic, coming from the walk-out at the I.L.O. congress in Geneva during the past week. It is no use trying to delude ourselves that this was just another Black Afro-Asian demonstration. It was a Black Afro-Asian walk-out but the final vote of eviction was supported, or at least not opposed, by the White representatives of all the White nations represented at that conference. Neither is it of any use of us to say that the White Nations submitted to blackmail by the Black delegates who led the demonstration. That cuts no ice if we have regard to our security. What really matters is that by having achieved that success at the I.L.O. congress, the Black States of Africa together with the Afro-Asian bloc are now leading a crusade for the expulsion of the Republic from UNO. The only world body to-day where we can still defend our country and where we can share in the protection afforded to member nations by its charter, is UNO. That right is something which is very precious and has, consequently, to be defended. The I.L.O. decision must be regarded as the most dangerous setback for South Africa since its walk-out from the Commonwealth. If we are going to be kicked out of UNO—and even the faction controlled UNO to-day is better than nothing—then we shall be placed in a position comparable with that of a man who has been declared an outlaw—we shall have no friends at all then, and shall be a sitting target for anybody who likes to have a go at us. That is why we refuse to accept this policy of surrender, this policy of abdication which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs proposed the other day.

Where do you get that from?

I got it from listening to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. If that hon. member does not have the intelligence to have heard the same thing, that then is up to him.

Order!

I am thinking of the interests of the country. That is why it is so imperative that we must defend and hold on to the right of membership of UNO which is justly ours. Our membership of UNO under the charter by which UNO was founded is possibly the strongest hold we have to-day in our resistance against any attempt at domination directed against us. It may be that our people who are there representing us are not happy there but that does not alter the position that the very fact of our membership, as a member nation, entitles us to certain rights and protection which UNO itself has to respect. These are things which I think this country can ill afford to lose in the light of the position in which we find ourselves to-day.

Are you prepared to surrender to their demands?

I am not surprised by that question. But I am sorry for South Africa, sorry that I have to listen to some of the inane comments which are made here in regard to a situation which is critical and affects every individual in this country. And yet we get this babble and insane talk from the hon. members opposite which shows that they have no appreciation at all of the significance of events—just a mass of idiotic remarks showing complete contempt for their country and its future. They want only to score a political point. It is time. I think, that people within this House should start to realize the position which we as a nation find ourselves in. It is time that they should accept that we are in a jam and that it is no longer of any use for that side of the House to appeal for unity and to ask us to come over to them and die with them in the same hole. That no longer cuts any ice.

Those are hollow slogans.

What we do want and need is an appreciation of the dangers facing the Republic and an endeavour to get a united front against those people against whom we object just as much as hon. members opposite do. [Interjections.] These are points I want to convey to the hon. the Prime Minister. There must be people on both sides of the House who appreciate the significance of what is happening. But this continuous bickering going on here: the hon. member for Vereeniging trying to score points, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark with his eternal parrot-like questions, of what use is that to the country? Do they show any appreciation of the gravity of the situation? No. As a matter of fact, sometimes I think that if we had schoolboys in their seats, we would probably get a lot more intelligence and certainly a lot more responsibility from them than that we are getting from those hon. members. And yet this is the time for responsibility to be shown. We have responsibilities towards this country the same as members on the Government side have. We all have responsibilities towards those who come after us, responsibilities to the many thousands of people who put us into Parliament to protect the South Africa they believe in, and to ensure that it lives on in the form in which they would like it to live on. When it comes to the question of supporting the Government against the criticisms of people like Mr. Harold Wilson, then I should like to say that he too must remember that in this country there are many hundreds of thousands of people whose roots go back to the country he hopes one day to rule as Prime Minister. He must realize that we have just as much right to a say in the Government of this country as any Black man in UNO or anywhere else has in the Government of his country. From him at least we expect some understanding and responsibility when dealing with the situation. [Time limit.]

At the outset I should like to apologize to the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Gay) for the absence of the Minister of Defence to-night. He is not absent … Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member’s private conversation is over, I can continue. I am trying in all courtesy to explain to the hon. member for Simonstown why the hon. the Minister cannot be present here to-night. It is not through indifference. The Minister is sick and in bed. That is why he is absent and I hope the hon. member will accept it.

I accept it.

As regards the hon. member’s speech, I want to say that he merely spoke to-night in his usual vein. He asked with a marked degree of contempt of what value the hon. member for Vereeniging and the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark were to the people and the country.

Tell us what value they have.

But when one has had to listen to a negative speech such as that made to-night by the hon. member for Simonstown one can also ask with every justification of what value the hon. member is to the country and the people. It is after all his duty, if there is something about the defence policy of the Government with which he is not satisfied, to make suggestions. We all consider that defence is to-day one of the most important matters with which we are concerned because times are unfavourable and troubled and things could happen. The Government is fully aware of the present world position. That is why every year it submits a Budget which calls for increasing expenditure on defence. Why is that so? It is because the Government appreciates the importance of defence. When we take into account the fact that this year R170,000,000 has been voted for defence—I see that a further amount of R300,000 must be added to that—I should like to ask the hon. member what he thinks that money will be used for? Will it perhaps be used to buy foam rubber beds for the soldiers? Does he think that is what this money is being appropriated for? After all he is a sensible man, who, I must say, approaches the defence of our country in a very serious spirit, and he is the Opposition’s main speaker on defence matters.

But he has referred inter alia to-night to submarines. We do not say that submarines are not necessary. As a matter of fact, the Minister has not yet announced his policy in this regard. Yet he must admit that the Minister of Defence is as much in earnest as he is, if not more so, as far as the defence of our country is concerned. He can therefore accept that the hon. the Minister will give this matter his serious attention. The hon. member has discussed the new ships which we have bought and has said that our navy is top heavy. Yet he has not submitted any proof at all. Recently he also had the privilege of sailing on the President Kruger and everyone who had that privilege … Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to start a private conversation with the hon. member for Yeoville, I need not reply to him any further. I think I have the right to claim the hon. member’s attention. I want to repeat: He has also had the privilege of going on a trip on the President Kruger. No one who was there could be anything but proud to see what the Afrikaner is achieving to-day as a sailor.

The hon. member has asked me a question about the President Kruger. I have already said that she is a specialized warship which is not equipped.…

Order, order! The hon. member cannot make a speech now.

I find it strange that the hon. member says that we shall not be able to man the two new ships properly. What grounds does he have for saying that? Are the ships which we already have not properly manned then? Is he not proud of what the ships of the South African Navy have already achieved? He does not make any suggestions, and he does not say what reason he has to expect that when the new ships arrive it will not be possible to man them properly. It is after all his duty to ask whether we are training the necessary people. In this regard he must accept that the Government will not buy ships unless it has taken the necessary steps to provide properly trained men to man the ships. The South African Navy to-day has, I think, 26 ships, and not one of them is not properly manned. Why then should that be the case with the others? It is a pity that the hon. member has set up skittles which he himself has then knocked over. That is all he has done. I want him to be constructive and I am convinced that he could be constructive if he wished to be. He is however very careful not to commit himself. If he wanted to be honest, he could only say that he must compliment the Minister and the Government on the way in which they are handling our defence.

The hon. member has also had a great deal to say about the Simonstown agreement. He has read extracts from it. But the present Government has not yet done anything to violate that agreement. On the contrary. The Government has hitherto carried out that agreement in every respect. I therefore cannot understand why the hon. member has made much of the agreement without proving in any respect at all that the Government has done anything to violate that agreement or intends doing so in the future. On the contrary. In his speech in this House last Friday the hon. member said that because of the Profumo scandal they are making it impossible for South Africa to obtain any assistance from England. That is what the hon. member himself said, but he now wants to hold this Government responsible and is trying to build up a case by which he wants to prove that we are violating the agreement. But there is no such thing. The hon. member has quoted certain figures to-night on the basis of which he has made very serious allegations against the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

I went to him and asked him certain questions. and he was courteous enough to reply. But by these replies he has not yet proved that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said anything incorrect. The hon. member has admitted to me that the figures which he has mentioned and which he obtained from the hon. the Minister of Defence in connection with expenditure by the British navy at Simonstown, related to dry dock facilities, that is to say, to repair and other work. However, he did not give any details regarding that repair and other work. Does he then expect that when British ships are repaired in Simonstown, the Government of this country should pay? He has not proved that what the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has stated, namely that the British navy has certain rights in Simonstown, is not correct. I must admit that I have not yet had the opportunity to peruse the Simonstown agreement. But I would expect the hon. member, when he wishes to make such a serious allegation, to quote from the agreement to prove that the British navy is paying for privileges for which it need not pay. Had he done so, he would have had a case. But he did not do so. He simply made a statement without submitting any proof as to its accuracy. I want to assure him that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs will have the opportunity to reply to the hon. member in respect of those points.

The hon. member has referred to the obligations we have entered into. I now want to ask him whether he can give one single instance where the Government has entered into obligations which it has failed to fulfil. To-night again he has said that this is why we have so few friends. But I ask him to say which Western country which we originally assured that we would stand by the West in the case of a war between the West and the East can be regarded to-night as an enemy of the Government of South Africa. The hon. member says we have no friends and that is why we have no friends. I want the hon. member to name me one Western country which can be regarded to-night as an enemy of the Republic. Must we regard the United Kingdom to-day as an enemy of the Republic? He must answer me on this. Must we regard Western Germany as our enemy? Is America an enemy of the Republic? Is France? If the hon. member cannot give an answer to these questions.…

Those are questions which you must put to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

… then he is admitting completely that he has made a statement without having any proof. I challenge him to name our enemies. Our policy after all is to maintain friendly relations with all Western countries and in fact with all other countries where possible. But the hon. member nevertheless says that we have no friends, while he cannot name a single Western country which is an enemy of the Republic. I must ask him again: Why has he made that statement?

May I ask a question?

No, the question will only be a silly one; I know that in advance. Allow me to say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member over there is not very willing to answer questions when he is speaking, but he always wants to abuse an opportunity to ask questions.

I now want the hon. member for Simonstown to tell us who those enemies are. If he cannot do so I think I have the right to level the accusation at him that by his speech to-night he has again deliberately tried to bring the Republic of South Africa into disrepute. A responsible person does not have the right to make such statements unless he can substantiate them.

I think we have adequate proof that the Government is doing everything in its power. I said the other night and I want to repeat: If they are not satisfied with this Government’s defence policy, they should at least have the courage to say where they differ from that policy. It is also their duty to say where they differ. They must give the alternative. According to this morning’s leading article in the Cape Times, they can only praise the Minister of Defence for what he has done for the security of this country and for what he will do in the future in that regard. The Minister knows what we need and he will see that that need is met. I have risen merely to address these few remarks to the hon. member for Simonstown. I challenge the hon. member to rise and to tell us which Western countries are the enemies of the Republic of South Africa, of Western civilization.

It is indeed a great pity that the Minister of Defence is not here to-night because we have just witnessed the spectacle of the hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) trying to talk on naval matters. He has clearly shown that in talking about the navy he is completely out of his depth. He is like a fish on dry land. He asked us what criticism we had to offer against the defence policy of this Government. I want to tell him that as far as the present Minister of Defence is concerned we have never doubted his integrity. We have genuinely tried at all times to support him where he was genuinely trying to improve the defences of this country. But unfortunately this Minister of Defence is called upon to defend South Africa to-day and in the future against extremely heavy odds, odds created by the policy of this Government. That is his difficulty.

The failure of this Government as far as their internal and external policies are concerned is now affecting the security of this Republic of ours. We from this side of the House have always maintained that as far as defending this country against internal aggression or against aggression from African states is concerned South Africa can look after herself. The position to-day is, however, that we have States in Africa which are being equipped, trained and assisted in 101 ways by Western powers which should be our friends. In those circumstances it is going to be very difficult indeed for us to defend ourselves against them. It is no military secret that Egypt is to-day being assisted in no mean manner by Western powers and that other African states are similarly being assisted.

How are you going to stop it?

You wait and listen, and you will find out. Without the assistance from the Western powers these states do not constitute a real threat to South Africa. But in the circumstances the threat is a serious one and it is much closer to us than we think. The failure on the diplomatic front has also jeopardized South Africa’s position as far as our border commitments are concerned in case of a war against the communists.

The defence problem as we face it in South Africa to-day can be classified under three headings. First of all there is the question of internal security. Internal security in any country is of paramount importance because without internal security that country cannot fight an external enemy; he must operate from a secure base. I think we are all agreed that South Africa is well in a position to maintain internal security. In this respect I should like to refer to a statement made by the previous Minister of Defence some years ago in which he said that the Protectorates were of vital importance to the defence of South Africa. I agree with him 100 per cent. It is a great pity that additional territories like the Protectorates are now being created inside our own country with access to the sea. We are increasing the difficulty which we might have experienced with three Protectorates; we are now going to have very many more.

Sir, we dealt with the Vote of the Minister of Defence a few days ago. We were very disappointed to hear that the Minister of Defence had no plans for the defence of South Africa once these Bantustans were in existence. He told us that he would plan at a later stage. It will probably be too late at a later stage. We have to plan now; he has to build up his defence forces now to be able to cope with that situation. He is not planning, Sir, because it is an impossible task. We have seen this happening all over the world. The Minister of Defence told us that when these states were created they would not be hostile to us; they would be friendly. Where in Africa has any state which has gained its independence been friendly to the power which has given them that independence? The British troops were more or les chased out of Egypt and think of all the benefits Britain brought to Egypt. What is happening in Kenya? The British settlers in Kenya made Kenya. To-day, even before they have their independence, the British soldiers are told to get out. Are these states which we are creating going to be any more friendly towards us?

I want to give one further example. I want to refer to Cuba. Who has done more for the development of Cuba than the United States of America? Yet, look what a headache Cuba is to-day to America. That mighty State is finding it difficult to keep control in her own areas because within striking distance of her own shores she has a hostile Cuba, a Cuba aided, assisted and abetted by Soviet Russia. Mr. Speaker, we are creating these Cubas right inside our own borders with the policy of the present Government. It is an absolutely crazy idea; it is an idea without any regard to the realities of the situation.

In the second place the defence of our country is against aggression from the North. I have said before that normally South Africa will be able to look after her northern borders but with the enemies receiving assistance from the Western powers it is going to be most difficult indeed. These powers are not making a secret of their plans. They state quite openly what they are going to do. They say they are going to attack Angola from the Congo. Ben Bella promised them at Addis Ababa that he had 10,000 trained guerrilla fighters to push into the Congo to overrun Angola. That is going to be the first place where they are going to apply pressure. Once Angola is overrun they will go for Mozambique and then Southern Rhodesia is to be placed under Black domination. I want to know from this Government what they are going to do to forestall those well-laid plans, those beautiful plans of the Black states? Are we going to go on with our negative attitude? Are we going to sit still and cringe here in the southern portion of Africa and shrug our shoulders as the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs is doing? Are we going to wait until all these enemies of South Africa are on our borders? Or are we going to be bold and resolute and tell the Portuguese that we will assist them? Our enemies are not making any secret of what they are going to do. Why cannot we stand by our friends? Are we going to stand by, Sir, and see Southern Rhodesia abandoned by Britain to face the music on their own? When Southern Rhodesia has fallen to the enemy it is going to be very bad for the people of South Africa.

I hesitate to think what will happen when South West Africa falls under the domination of the Black people who will stream into South West Africa from Angola. I want to know from the Government whether the present is not the time to take a definite stand and that stand is not to be on the Limpopo. I think this Government has had a Limpopo mentality for too long. That Limpopo mentality went out of fashion after the First World War. General Smuts realized that. When danger threatened South Africa he went North and fought the enemy as far away as possible from South African soil. He tried to keep the enemy away from our own country. Mr. Speaker, at all costs we must avoid a war on our own soil. We must meet that threat as far away as possible. That is why I say it is time we tell our friends who are vital to our own country that we shall help them if need be.

I then come to the third aspect of defence and that is South Africa’s role in the world conflagration. We heard it again to-night that we shall stand by the West. Sir, that is all very well as far as it goes but what is the use our telling the West that we shall stand by them if our own Minister of Foreign Affairs tells the West that they are a lot of hypocrites? What must they believe? Mr. Speaker, what we need in war strategy is a definite alliance: a definite treaty or alliance with those Western countries with whom we must and will stand. In such an alliance South Africa is to guarantee, firstly a secure base for those powers from which to operate. Secondly, we must undertake certain duties as far as the defence of the sea routes is concerned. We must undertake certain responsibilities and the West must undertake certain responsibilities as far as we are concerned, namely, to supply us with the wherewithal to carry out those tasks. I say, Mr. Speaker, it is time we stopped talking about standing by the West; it is time we did something really sensible, something really concrete, about that side of this matter. It is no good sitting here and saying all the world is against us. We have to abdicate or fight. We do not want to do either, Sir. We do not want to abdicate; we do not want to get to the stage where we have to fight. We want to put the fighting off as long as we possibly can and we want to keep it as far away from our own borders as we possibly can.

By coming to a proper understanding with the West and with our friends to the north of us we shall show the world that we are not going to take those threats lying down. If they can talk about the assistance which they get and about the plans which they have against us, why should we hide our plans? Why not tell them exactly what we are going to do and that we are going to help those people? Above all, Mr. Speaker, we must look for the causes of our unpopularity; we must examine our own policies and we must modify them in such a way that we can defend them in a world forum. We should not have a Prime Minister who is afraid to show his face outside our borders in the capitals of Europe. We should have a policy with which he can go to those capitals and defend with all moral justification.

The hon. member who has just sat down has surprised me. The one moment the hon. member wants to make war. He wants to go to the borders of Angola and to the borders of Rhodesia. Then he says we must show the world all we can do. The next moment he shudders and shakes from anxiety at the dangers into which this Government’s policy is supposedly leading us. I cannot understand his argument. As a matter of fact I do not think he understood his own argument himself.

I want to apologize in advance to you, Mr. Speaker, and to this House for the fact that if we are to reply to the two hon. members who have discussed defence matters we shall have to cover a field which has in fact been covered repeatedly during this Session and previous sessions. Last Friday and Monday we discussed the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Defence. There is hardly one of these matters which we have not discussed. It struck me that both hon. members when they entered the debate, commenced their speeches or said at some stage during their speeches that they had no complaint against the Minister. Their difficulty is that South Africa is in danger because the policy of the National Government is endangering South Africa. The basic premise of both hon. members was that the Government must change its policy so that the danger facing South Africa can be warded off. The hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) says we must show the world all we can do. Then they say we must change our policy to be able to gain friends.

The hon. the Prime Minister set out our policy in a long speech this afternoon. We have discussed our policy repeatedly during this Session. I now want to put this question to hon. members. They want to change policies in order to ward off dangers which are threatening South Africa and to gain friends for South Africa. Do they want to replace the policy of this party with their race federation plan of which we have heard so little during this Session? The hon. member for North-East Rand has told us that every Black state is hostile towards the White race. He has gone so far as to say that even Cuba, which is not a Black state, is hostile towards the White man. He has pointed out that it avails nothing to help those states. He has said that America, which was Cuba’s greatest benefactor, is regarded to-day by Cuba as her worst enemy. In other words, in his and the United Party’s view no Black state can be a friend of ours. Strangely enough these are the people who see an enemy in every Black state, but who think that if we grant that same Black man representation in this Parliament, he is going to be a friend and will protect us as Whites. Is that the policy of the United Party? The hon. member was probably not thinking when he made those remarks. I think it is time hon. members told us a little more about their policy. Hon. members are very daring to-night; they want to make war; they are in quite a combative mood. I hope that this spirit with which they are imbued will also give them the courage to defend their policy in this House and to tell us how their race federation policy will ward off one single danger from South Africa. Mr. Speaker, I have just apologized for the fact that I shall have to say things which have already been said repeatedly in this House. I want to discuss one of these matters again. I want to refer to the experience of Sir Edgar Whitehead at the last meeting of the United Nations. He then gave the organization the assurance that within fifteen years the Black man would have the majority in the Southern Rhodesian parliament. Did that satisfy a single Black state? Did it make friends of them? Hon. members of the United Party do not see any threat from any other quarter than the African states. Every member who rises to speak says at the outset that there is one threat and one threat alone to South Africa, namely the threat of the Black states of Africa. They all want us to enter into treaties with the Portuguese and with Southern Rhodesia. I want to refer to another remark by the hon. member for North-East Rand, namely that General Smuts did not wait until the enemy was on our borders; he tackled the enemy far away. Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is so; he tackled the enemy far away. He went right through Addis Ababa. He restored Haile Selassie to his throne, this same Haile Selassie who in that same Addis Ababa is to-day the greatest threat which the hon. member for North-East Rand sees. But I do not want to discuss those matters; I do not think it serves any purpose; I do not think it safeguards South Africa in any way; I do not think we gain anything by doing so.

I want to enlarge on a remark I made on the Defence Vote. Hon. members who are now piously praising the Minister and who are piously offering their assistance in defending South Africa represent a threat to us in the sense that the United Party through its race federation policy is giving the hostile states, and particularly the hostile African states, the idea that if the United Party were to come into power we would be on the road to a Black Government. They think it will satisfy the African states. Sir Edgar Whitehead could not give them that satisfaction.

Give your reasons for that.

The hon. member asks for reasons. Is he so naive that he cannot see the reasons? He can rise and tell us whether it is his party’s policy in the first instance to grant the Bantu direct representation in this House. He must tell us whether it is not his party’s policy to establish self-governing states in conjunction with whom a multi-racial federal government would be formed? Is it not his party’s policy that after a referendum rights can be extended and those rights can also entail direct representation of the Black man by the Black man in this House? I see the hon. member shakes his head. I think the hon. member has not even studied their policy as unpounded by his leader. These are the reasons which I submit and these are the reasons which the Black states submit as to why they see their salvation in the United Party.

I now want to refer to what the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has just said. He has said this Government will surrender. Mr. Speaker, who are the people who want to surrender in South Africa?

You have already surrendered.

There an hon. member remarks that we have already surrendered. The position, as we have already repeatedly stated, is that we do not want to seek trouble with any state, whether it be a Black state or not. We want to live in peace. We want to assist other states as far as we can. We are in a position to assist them because we have greater knowledge and training. But we also say that if they hold conferences at Addis Ababa, issue manifestos and threaten us, we shall give them a warm reception here. When the United Party stand by us and say that they will stand by us in giving those states a warm reception, then they must stop saying, when they assure us of their support, that it is our own fault that we are being threatened; that we must amend our policy in such a way that it will meet the demands of those people. Mr. Speaker, that type of offer of assistance brings us nowhere. The policy of this party is that we shall not surrender, to use the word of the hon. member for Simonstown. But to change one’s policy and to adapt it in order to give satisfaction to these other states which we cannot satisfy, is to surrender.

I want to refer to certain remarks made by the hon. member for Simonstown. The hon. member has made much of the Simonstown agreement into which we have entered with Great Britain. He then accused the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs of endangering that agreement by alleging that he said that the states which should be our friends were no longer our friends. But the hon. member for Simonstown was one of the first to say that there was a possibility that Mr. Harold Wilson would come into power in Britain. He repeated it to-night and he accepts that when Mr. Harold Wilson comes into power with a Labour Government in Britain it will of necessity be a hostile Government. We concede that point to the hon. member for Simonstown. Mr. Harold Wilson has left no doubt on that score. He has already repeatedly said so. But how can the hon. member for Simonstown now accuse us of abrogating the Simonstown agreement? The hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) has already referred to this point and I want to do so again. As far as we are concerned not one single provision of that treaty is being violated. The assurance has repeatedly been given not only to Great Britain with whom we have entered into the agreement, but to all the Western nations, that if trouble should arise we would stand by the West. But strangely enough, I have heard very little about any Western nation also giving us the assurance that if there should be trouble it would stand by us. But we leave it at that.

Why do you leave it at that?

What can we do about it? The point I want to make is this: Why does the hon. member for Simonstown want to create the impression that we are violating the Simonstown agreement? After all, there is no such intention. It has been repeatedly stated that we will do our duty. What is more, we are in fact doing it. And when the hon. member picks out an amount and says: “But look, Britain has certain rights for which she has had to pay,” then I want to say that I am sure that they would not have paid anything which they did not have to pay. No, this impression is being created merely to cast suspicion on this Government. We have entered into this agreement and we shall stand by it. To sum

up: The hon. members of the United Party by their amendment to this Appropriation Bill initiated a debate this afternoon. In the first place they asked questions and criticized the internal security of South Africa. Eventually they turned to the defence of South Africa. I now ask why have they done so? Every hon. member opposite who rises to speak says that he has no complaint against the Minister; he is not complaining about the funds being devoted to defence; he has no complaint that there is something which has been omitted and which could be changed. No, all their criticisms of our defence and the whole of the debate turn around one point and one point alone, namely, that the Nationalist Government must amend its policy to meet the requirements of the hostile African states …

You are talking nonsense!

The basic premise adopted by every hon. member is that the Nationalist Government must change its policy and must make concessions to meet the requirements of the other Western nations to whom apartheid is abhorrent. Despite all the attacks of the United Party, we shall not accept this policy of abdication, of surrender. The people of South Africa do not require that of us. The people of South Africa want us to keep South Africa White, and to that end we shall defend this country with all our resources. The supporters of the United Party are also prepared to do so, and the sooner Opposition members realize this and the sooner the states threatening South Africa will realize that it will cost them dear if they were to be so foolish as to attack South Africa.

I do not think it is any use the hon. member saying that we have attempted to create a war atmosphere in his debate. It is not us, let me tell hon. members, who have created a war atmosphere. It is their own Minister of Foreign Affairs who made the statement that we must either abdicate or fight and ever since this debate started it would appear that hon. members on the Government benches, including the Prime Minister, have been fighting. We have not heard any constructive suggestions to better South Africa’s position. One of the charges in the amendment moved by my Leader is that the Government has no foreign policy to improve the isolated position of South Africa to-day. I think hon. members will be fair enough to admit that even from the Prime Minister this afternoon we had no indication of what foreign policy is going to be applied, or if in fact the Government has a foreign policy to apply to put right the present tragic position.

Did you not listen?

All we have listened to to-day was “We must fight”.

What did you want to hear? How we must hands up?

I want to start by referring to two issues raised by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). He posed the direct question this afternoon: Where do we on these benches stand in regard to the threats made against our country, firstly in relation to the Western powers, quite apart from the threats which have already been lengthily discussed by hon. members on the Government benches that have been made by certain Afro-Asiatic powers, especially at the Addis Ababa Conference. In fact the hon. member for Vereeniging described the situation as a cold war that we are concerned with in regard to world opinion. He asked: Where do we stand, we on these benches, if this cold war should develop into a hot war?

I never said that.

The hon. member asked where we would stand if there were forcible interference in the internal affairs of South Africa.

I never said anything of the kind.

The House had to listen for 40 minutes to a speech by the hon. member dealing only with one question, namely, where would this side of the House stand if there was forcible interference in the internal affairs of South Africa.

I asked where you would stand in a cold war.

It would appear that when the hon. member is pinned down and finds that he is now getting an answer to certain questions he suddenly turns cold, after having been hot for 40 minutes this afternoon in this House.

You want me to give an answer to a question I never put.

The hon. member went on to argue that the only way interference could be stopped in South Africa, even in a cold war, is by this party stating categorically that it stands with the Government in resisting any interference.

Pressure from outside.

In other words, what does the hon. member for Vereeniging recognize?1 He recognizes that the position of the Government at present and the position of South Africa with a Nationalist Party Government can only be retrieved with Opposition support. In other words, the hon. gentleman admits complete defeat, like the Minister of External Affairs does. He says “We are in such a position that we cannot correct the position, we must have the support of the Opposition, because that is the only way in which South Africa can save itself”.

That would help a great deal. That is all I said.

We have all been listening to the hon. member for Vereeniging this afternoon. He put direct questions to my hon. Leader, and the clear inference from those questions is that the position cannot be retrieved as far as South Africa is concerned without the Opposition stating categorically where it stands in regard to these matters. In other words, he justifies his standpoint with this contention that the United Party from the days of General Smuts at the United Nations was faced precisely with the same problems that this Government is faced with at the present moment. The hon. member shakes his head. He says that even if this party were in power, it would face the same situation as the Government is facing to-day, isolated in the world.

Quite correct.

Let me say that the hon. member for Vereeniging always over-simplifies issues. We know him well, we know his method of debate. Let us take the General Smuts argument, and let us deal with it on the basis of the facts. I want to remind the hon. member for Vereeniging that when General Smuts faced criticism at the United Nations, that was only one year when there was no resolutions moved against South Africa at all, in 1946. I am not dealing with the incorporation issue now. but with condemnatory resolutions about South Africa’s policies per se. In 1946 there were none. And when criticism was faced by General Smuts at the United Nations on those occasions, there were only two African states present and one of those states on resolutions moved by certain Asiatic countries voted for South Africa and supported the South African point of view, namely the State of Ethiopia. I have the voting paper on that resolution here. The only other African state that was a member at that time was Liberia.

What was the voting about?

I will come to that. There were no condemnatory resolutions moved against South Africa. And even censure motions that were moved at that time by the Indian delegation failed to receive any majority to make those resolutions effective at all in any way whatsoever. In other words in the time of the United Party Government, in the time of General Smuts and after General Smuts, there were no resolutions condemning South Africa’s policies at the United Nations, which in any way received majorities that would make those resolutions effective. If the hon. member, without repeating ad nauseam in this House the propaganda point of view that we had presented to us by the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs and would take the trouble to go and look these facts up in the Library, he would find that what I say is absolutely correct. Then there is a third aspect, that it was only when the present Minister of Foreign Affairs led a delegation to the United Nations—it was only after the Minister of Foreign Affairs advanced the new race theories of a Nationalist Party Government that was elected to power in 1948, it was only from that time onwards that resolutions condemning South Africa’s racial policies as such were introduced before the United Nations. It was only then that opposition was experienced of any sort or description against the race policies of South Africa. Because it was this Government that announced to the world that a new theory, the theory of apartheid, of separation, whatever you like to call it, was to be followed in South Africa, and that a new government had taken over in South Africa with this new outlook. It was only then that the race policies of South Africa as such came under fire and criticism at the United Nations. The other fact I want to state in order to break up this argument once and for all, I hope, that we would have faced the same thing, is that it was not until 1955 that the first condemnatory resolution was passed at the United Nations in regard to South Africa’s race policies, and that is also in the records here. I say this for the benefit of the hon. member for Vereeniging who only seems to have a cursory knowledge of these matters. The gravamen of the charge that that was then levelled against South Africa’s race policies at the United Nations was based on the action of this Government in removing the three Native Representatives from this House. That was the subject of the debate at the United Nations, because the moral justification for South Africa’s argument in the former years from 1946 to 1954 had completely disappeared.

May I ask the hon. member a question? What resolution was accepted about the treatment of the Indian population in this country when the late General Smuts was our representative at the United Nations? What was that resolution that was adopted? Was it adopted by a majority and what was that majority?

You see. the hon. gentleman bows himself so much to the sort of political propaganda viewpoint of the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs that he accepts amongst the mass of words, the conception that the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs is attempting to make. In plain fact of matter in 1946 when General Smuts was at the United Nations, no resolution was passed regarding the Indians in South Africa.

In 1947?

In 1947 a further resolution did not get the required two-thirds majority at the United Nations. It only got a simple majority at that time, but any resolution to be effective there had to get a two-thirds majority on this particular issue, and it was therefore defeated.

But you can talk a lot of nonsense!

It is only an hon. member who can say “nonsense” when he has no knowledge whatsoever himself on the subject matter under discussion. I would suggest to the hon. member that before he makes the type of speech he made here this afternoon, he should go to the Library and study these issues before he attempts to mislead the House in the manner in which he attempted to mislead the House. [Interjections.]

From the time of the passing of the first condemnatory resolution against South Africa’s race policies at the United Nations, there was in the interim, from 1950-55, the emergence of new developments on the African Continent. When we first wept to the United Nations there were only two independent African states, but year after year in this House, since I have been a member, issues have been raised in regard to these developments in Africa, and the question has been put what positive steps the Government was taking to make friends with the states of Africa, these emergent states, and keep pace with the developments in Africa. Hansard is dotted with resolutions moved by this side of the House in regard to positive measures to be taken to maintain friendly and active and friendly relations with these African states. You had this development in which our country through the policies of this Government, or its failure in fact to have an effective policy for Africa, got left behind, with the result that other countries, the Metropolitan Powers and the rest of the world were taking an interest in Africa and South Africa instead being slowly squeezed out of its interests in Africa as such. Why? Purely and simply because the Government had no positive approach or any ideas, or an acceptable internal policy to approach these new leaders of Africa and establish friendly relations on a basis upon which we could be recognized as a White African state, or White Africans, working together with these emerging people.

At what price?

There was no attempt to maintain friendships, with the result now that the little participation we did have through the Commission of Technical Co-operation in Africa, has also been terminated, and we were kicked out of that. When another organization was set up, the Economic Commission for Africa, for further co-operative efforts amongst the African states, we were told by the Minister of External Affairs that it was really an American effort to muzzle in and he had to apologize to the United States and then apply for membership of the Economic Commission, and he had to withdraw his own words in this House. With the result now that our representatives are refused visas by all the African states and we are unable to participate even in this particular organization. Mr. Speaker, one can record a history of utter and complete failure in regard to this Government’s foreign policy so far as Africa is concerned from the day that they took over. There is no record of any positive steps, of any measure whatsoever comparable to our resources, and to show our willingness to play our part, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Government can produce of positive thinking in regard to obtaining the friendship of the rest of the peoples of Africa.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

These are facts. [Interjections.]

Order!

The plain fact of the matter is that the Government failed miserably to appreciate the vast developments that were taking place. [Interjections.]

He tells so many lies.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw.

The whole record is one of miserable failure, and one in which the Government failed to recognize that what they did on the home front would definitely have its effect on the foreign front as far as the conduct of our foreign policy was concerned. The whole tale is one of miserable and utter failure until we reached the stage in the course of the discussion on the Vote of the Minister of Foreign Affairs a few days ago when we were told plainly that we either have to abdicate or to fight. And why? Because he admitted in March at a gathering at the Orange Free State University that “world animosity is so strong that it amounts to hate”. It is not hate, Mr. Chairman, only in relation to this Government’s policy, but I think we should appreciate that it is hate of the White man as well, as represented by the policies of this Government, and I for one as a South African don’t want to associate myself with that hate and with that policy. And I have to be told, like other members in this House, as the Prime Minister attempted to do this afternoon, that unless I subscribe, unless I agree with everything that is stated in this House in regard to the Government’s race policy, I am making myself responsible for the present criticism of the Government’s race policies abroad. The logic of that argument is that I must sit in this seat and shut up while the Government carries on, because then everything will be fine in the garden and the world will understand the Government’s policies. I am not prepared to subscribe to that point of view, and I don’t think any other South African who sees matters and the conduct of affairs in this country in another light need follow that argument and support the arguments submitted by the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon. I think the tragedy of our position has been revealed in a startling manner in the course of this debate, because, Mr. Speaker, when we have reached the stage in this country and in our Parliament of having to discuss the possible use of arms, then South Africa’s position has become tragic.

Who has been talking of war?

You discussed the possibility of a hot war and appealed for our assistance. We had it again this evening from the hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker). He asked whom we were going to fight, who is a possible enemy? The hon. member said: I challenge you to name those enemies. I want to challenge the hon. member for Kimberley (North) to-night to name one single country or the representative of one single country in the world who supports or gives support to the race policies of this Government, or gives support to the race policies of South Africa as interpreted by this Government. The hon. member says that I must name our enemies. I will tell the hon. member who our potential enemies are.

Of the Western powers.

I will tell the hon. gentleman that apart from the Afro-Asian powers, the greatest criticizers of South Africa’s race policies are the spokesmen of the Western powers.

May I put a question to the hon. member? He has said that we have no friends. I asked who are our enemies and I challenge the Opposition to name a single enemy of ours among the Western powers.

The hon. member is fond of casting challenges, and the hon. member for Vereeniging is fond of asking questions. I challenge the hon. member at the third reading to get up and name the spokesman of one single Western power whose statement he can quote as supporting the race policies of this Government.

And I suppose every single one supports your policy?

Let me tell the hon. member what the West thinks. I have got quite a few quotations. I won’t quote the United Kingdom, because the hon. member may try and draw some conclusions from that. Let me quote the United States, and I will ask the hon. member for Kimberley (North) if he can describe these statements as statements of a power friendly disposed to the race policies of this Government. Let me quote here—

It is significant that it does not refer to the “South African people” but to the “South African Government”.

Who said that?

I will tell you in a minute. Then the hon. member for Kimberley (North) who is such a great speaker on military matters in this House, can tell us whether he thinks that this is a friendly statement from a country that the hon. member says we must align ourselves with in the fight against Communism. If this country valued our assistance in the fight against Communism, then I think it is a logical deduction to say that they would be prepared to supply us with all the arms to fight Communism.

We get all the arms we want.

Let me tell the hon. member what the greatest power, the United States, thinks about that. I quote—

Where do you get that from?

These are statements that were made on October the 19th by Mr. Plimpton, the United States representative at the United Nations, and he was saying it to all the nations of the world—the greatest Western power telling all the nations of the world what their attitude was in regard to South Africa’s race policies and in regard to the supply of arms to the South African Government. I ask the hon. gentleman whether that was a friendly statement?

But now let us find out who is the enemy. We have heard that we have got to abdicate or fight. So I think it is fair to ask whom we will have to fight. We are voting millions here to fight, to protect ourselves. There is a lot of talk of threats of the African states. Is the enemy the African states? [Interjections.] Sir, the enemy of South Africa to-day, of the South African Government’s race policies—let me rather put it that way, because I don’t believe they are the enemies of South Africa—the enemy of the South African Government’s race policies is the weight of world opinion as expressed by UNO, and it is no good hon. members trying to work up feelings in their local constituencies about the “kragdadigheid” of this Government and its preparedness to fight against an imaginary African enemy, because if the hon. member has any knowledge at all of these matters, he would know that before any aggressive action is taken by any African state against South Africa, that state would have to be a arraigned before the United Nations. If there has to be an enemy, if there has to be a hot war, or a cold war, if there has to be interference in our internal affairs, it can only come from one source, it can only come from a world body, it can only come from the United Nations. It can only therefore come from those countries who support the power and the authority of the United Nations for the maintenance of world peace, and the nations that are the mainstay of the United Nations as an organization are the major Western powers, who consider it as a fundamental basis of their whole foreign policy to maintain the authority and the prestige of this world organization as such. Because if there was any independent aggression against South Africa, any nation which took such steps would make itself guilty before the United Nations and before the world forum of aggression as such. I don’t think we should travel in those directions with our thoughts. The only possible interference that can come to us is from the United Nations Organizations as such, and if that is correct, then we should be prepared to look matters squarely in the face. I don’t think that we can escape the fact of what is going to happen at the next United Nations Assembly. I don’t think we can escape the fact that is commonly reported now that there is a move to arraign South Africa before the Security Council on the question of its race policies alone, apart from other issues. But, Mr. Speaker, the tragedy is that in a debate of this nature, when my Leader raises these important issues across the floor of the House the Prime Minister of South Africa cannot give an answer. He could not say what steps were going to be taken. He could not give a lead to the people of South Africa. Because let us also face this fact that when we are arraigned before the United Nations and before the security council it is unfortunately not the Nationalist Party, it is unfortunately South Africa, and it is White South Africa in particular, and the tragedy is that we now have to reach the stage …

What is your policy?

Surrender!

When one discusses these things frankly and freely and when one puts the facts crisply before hon. members on the other side, they never want to face realities, they want to live in their little glass house and make appeals to this side of the House to help them out of the difficulties that they now find themselves in. If there is no thought of fighting, or no enemy, then what is all this talk about? Is South Africa going to fight the world? You see, Sir, when we tried to put these matters into perspective and when we try to face them squarely, hon. members on the other side, like the hon. member for Vereeniging, run away or try to play politics with South Africa’s vital interests in these matters. But whether we like it or not, we have to face this fact: On these benches we cannot put the clock back. Consequently, we are in a situation which we have to look in the face. It is White South Africa as a whole which has to look these matters in the face and who will have to rescue us out of the situation in which we find ourselves to-day.

But you have just been telling us that there is no threat, that there is no danger.

I am unable to understand the mental processes of the hon. member for Somerset East. They are beyond my comprehension. As I was saying, South Africa to-day is faced with a situation where we cannot put the clock back. Whilst we can record the failures of this Government, we have to face the fait accompli of Africa, that we are a White state here in Africa whose position is being threatened by world opinion as a result of the race policies of this Government.

But to-day we have been told by the Prime Minister that there is no morality in our standpoint.

What is your policy?

Order! The hon. member for Ventersdorp to-night has already asked the question “What is your policy?” approximately 15 times. I now ask the hon. member to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the day’s sitting for persistently making irrelevant interjections.

Mr. Greyling thereupon withdrew.

The hon. the Prime Minister told us this afternoon that there were only two moral roads out of the situation in which we find ourselves to-day. He said that there were only two alternatives before us which were moral: Firstly, that we would have to say to ourselves that if we want to placate the rest of the world we are accepting a policy that we are all mixed, that we are a mixed and fully integrated state in every sense of the word—socially, economically, and in any other way; secondly, that we must take completely separate roads. In other words, we will give the non-Whites their separate piece of land plus everything else which they want for themselves and the Whites will have their piece of land with everything they want for themselves. That was moral, he said. But what I now ask for myself is whether we, as South Africans, have been immoral all these years? Have we been immoral for 300 years? Have we lived an immoral existence for that long period of time? Have we then brought nothing to Africa, to the African Continent? I do not believe that one can over-simplify the issue in that way. I think there is yet a third way which is also a moral way. There is a third road and that is the road of recognizing the White man’s responsibility to the non-White in this country and at the same time assume the responsibility for the tasks for which we were placed here. We ought not to run away from them. In recognizing that responsibility and in recognizing the Black man’s right to have a place in the sun does not mean to say that we are going to surrender ourselves. It does not mean that we are going to surrender our future generations or that we are going to throw ourselves to the masses, the Black masses, and disappear. Does it mean that, Mr. Speaker? Because if I accept that, then I must accept one of the alternatives which the Prime Minister has postulated. But as far as I am concerned, I do not accept that the White people of South Africa will accept those two alternatives as the only alternatives under the circumstances. I do not believe it. This is a matter in respect of which the choice rests fundamentally with the people of South Africa. The acceptance of either of these two alternatives which the Prime Minister placed before us this afternoon concerns the question of ending our isolation and our acceptance as a country, as a people, by the Western nations. Acceptance by the Western nations will mean that the Western nations will support us, the White group in this country, to enable us to gain again the confidence and the support of the non-White states on the African Continent.

I say, therefore, that I do not think this is a matter which can be over-simplified. These are the alternatives which are before the people of South Africa: Either we are still going to have faith in ourselves as a White people and accept our responsibilities and fulfill them along the path which is advocated by this side of the House, which recognizes that there is a place in this country for every man and woman, no matter the colour of their skin, and which recognizes further that all of us can live together in this country in peace and govern it together …

In the same Parliament!

… and if we cannot accept that then we must accept the other alternative of having to face a continuous world threat. There is no shadow of a doubt, and I am sure it must eventually sink through to the knowledge of the electorate of this country, that the policies this Government is following, the race policies of this Government, are unacceptable to the rest of the civilized world.

May I conclude on this note. May I remind hon. members that all of us admire and recognize the part which the late General Smuts played in our country. The hon. member for Vereeniging quoted him to-day. I wonder whether I will be permitted to state briefly the philosophy of General Smuts as I see it. I remember the occasion very well. It was on his 80th birthday and he was given a great reception by the Johannesburg City Council. Thousands of people collected in the square outside. On that occasion the late General Smuts spoke from the heart. The hon. member for Vereeniging was there that day.

So what!

I remember seeing him there that day. I want to ask him whether he has forgotten what he followed for so many years and what he admired for so many years. No, he forgot it in the light of his own political ambition. That is why he is sitting over there now.

I am sitting here because you kicked me out!

No, the hon member for Vereeniging was prepared to overthrow his own fundamental beliefs as a White man and his fundamental principles for the future of South Africa for political gain and political advantage for himself. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, let me say immediately that I differ from my colleagues in so far that I believe that we have to fight and that I believe that our worthy friends, the Opposition, will fight with us. As a matter of fact, I could not think of hurling a greater insult at the Opposition than by doubting that very important fact. Let me also say this. An appeal was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Vereeniging. In this connection let me say that I think he put up a fair case. He said that members of the Opposition inside, as well as outside this House, made utterances which cast a certain amount of doubt on where they would stand. In the circumstances, they cannot blame members on this side for believing that there is some measure of doubt in respect of some of them when it comes to fighting. A slur has been cast on this side of the House so many times and not by one member only, but by so many, that we were afraid to fight in the last war.

Is it true or false?

Just a moment; I am coming to that hon. member. Do not let us get hot under the collar about this unnecessarily. Let us instead face these facts clearly and squarely. As I have said, a slur has been cast on this side of the House and not only once but several times. There are members sitting on the other side of this House with the same blood in their veins as I have as an Afrikaner. We come from a race which had to fight more than once for our very existence; we had to fight more than once against the most terrible odds the world had ever seen. But we did not run away. We fought and when it was necessary our women and children fought with us. Should the time for that come again, we shall have to fight again. In this connection let me remind hon. members on the opposite side of the words of one of their leaders at the inaugural ceremony of the Voortrekker Monument at Pretoria. He said this: “You come from a hard and sturdy race; so do we. In your march forward, do not leave us behind.” It was as if that man had a vision. “In your march forward, do not leave us behind.” It was almost a prayer. I am here alluding to the speech of the late father of the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson). Let us be careful in our own race relations in this country what we say to each other. In this connection I want to say that I took the strongest exception this afternoon to what the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) said here. He is definitely not one of the friendliest members in this House. I do not want to be personal but I want to say this: That the hon. member is not the only member who enjoys privileges in this House which he betrays. This afternoon he said the most uncouth things to the hon. the Prime Minister, the most unworthy things, coming as they did from a most senior member of that side. I was ashamed of it. It was most uncalled for; it was rude.

Now I want to turn to what actually happened at UNO. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) is not the only gentleman who knows what has been happening at UNO. General Smuts represented this country at UNO in 1946. Mr. Harry Lawrence represented us there the following year. During those years a merciless attack was launched by the representative of India, Mrs. Pandit. And what happened? We have argued this point across the floor of this House often. Let me say that I do not think that I am a magician or an exceptionally intelligent man. On the contrary, I am just an ordinary, plain South African. However, surely, any man with commonsense must realize that one of the founders of UNO and with the status of a General Smuts, and similarly his Minister the following year, was mercilessly attacked at UNO. In the circumstances, what makes members opposite think that there has been any change of face? Let me now ask my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition: What can he put forward at UNO which is different from what this side can put forward? Because it is our way of life we represent there. It is our way of life and it has been our way of life for all these years. We cannot change overnight. So, what we believe, they believe; the way we live, they live. What hypocrisy is this? This is sheer hypocrisy to say that this side can put forward this policy and the other side can put forward another policy. We in this country know only one policy and that policy is the policy of both sides of this House. We grew up in this country and we treated our Blacks well. One only has to read the report of the eminent judge who investigated the riots at Paarl…

Why then do you make all these laws?

… and we will see that the hon. judge says that there is no animosity, there is no antagonism as far as the ordinary Native is concerned towards the ordinary White in this country. Our greatest threat comes from exploiters and communists and self-appointed Native leaders. That is where the biggest threat lies. For the United Party now try to tell us in this House, or to try to tell the people outside, or to try to tell the world that they can come forward with another policy which will be acceptable to the world at large is …

That will be the day!

No, that is not all. As a matter of fact, it is so ridiculous that I cannot even contemplate it, because what other policy can they put forward? The world outside will never accept any thing else. Those hon. gentlemen over there will never accept integration, although they may do so for political expediency. But they will not accept it. So, Mr. Speaker, all this talk about General Smuts at UNO and of a change of heart is all so ridiculous that I do not even want to refer to it. Apartheid is our way of life. That is the way in which we have lived. We grew up like that in this country. Let me say this, that if outside interference does not come and play havoc in this country, we can be a very happy people here. I want to put it in all honesty to the Opposition: They came here this session, and also to-night, and played two separate roles. On the one hand they are terribly scared and afraid of the Native States we are going to create. In this connection, let me say that I myself have had very serious thoughts about this matter, but to me it is clear that if I can take them along as my friends and if I can assist them in their development, as it has been our desire in the past, then I cannot see anything wrong. Our forefathers were friends with them in the Transvaal and in the Free State. We were also friends with them in Natal. Why then should we want to be at war with them in the future? Why? No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is right. Let me warn the Opposition. Certain provocative statements made by them in this House have drawn very serious rejoinders from Mantanzima in the Transkei. He looked upon those statements as provocation. As a matter of fact, I thought so myself. What was said was unnecessary. A hundred times more could have been achieved had they come to the Prime Minister privately. But what happened? This was published over the length and breadth of the country. How they feared for the Whites of the Transkei! As a matter of fact, it was expressed again in this House to-night. Now if the Native comes to realize that we cannot see anything else in him but an enemy, what on earth will hon. gentlemen opposite think will happen? Good heavens, Sir! If I was continually being considered as an enemy, I would eventually clothe myself in that cloak. Similarly in regard to the Native. Think of him in that way and he will eventually become the enemy of the White man.

May I ask you a question? You are now dealing with the causes of the trouble between White and non-White. Can you tell this House whether you approve of the statement of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development to the Bantu at Port Shepstone that his fellow White people were wolves and vultures?

The communists!

No, that is not in accordance with the report in the newspaper.

You talk nonsense and you know it.

I have had the pleasure of knowing the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development for many years. Knowing him as I do, I can say positively that he would never have made a statement of that kind. What he did say. and that is in accordance with what I know about him, is that the communists and the agitators were wolves and vultures.

And the hon. member for Natal South Coast knows it.

I have a lot of things I should like to get off my chest as far as the Opposition is concerned. We are practically at the end of this Session and I have many things I should like to get off my chest. One of the hon. members on the other side who spoke a while back, spoke about the West coming to our assistance. But if that is so. why did they not go to the assistance of Goa? That was a White State, was it not? Why then did they not go to the assistance of that State, a member State of their European defence organization? No. they threw them to the wolves. We must admit that that is so, because it is true. It was a White State where there was no apartheid policy. There are approximately 1,500.000 descendants of English-speaking stock in this country. But what does Mr. Harold Wilson say? He is prepared to leave us in the lurch. He does not want to allow us to defend ourselves. What does Mr. Fenner Brockway do every time he comes to the Rhodesias, to Guinea and these places?

Sir, we must realize this: Something has happened to the White man of Europe. There was a time when they sat in a room and drew lines in order to divide Africa—“the scramble for Africa” it is called in the history books. To-day there is another scramble for Africa, but it is a scramble for what they think is the friendship of the African States. But the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) knows as well as I and other hon. members here know that that scramble is utterly futile. In the end it will not avail them anything. We know what the power position is of the West. We know that the country who gets a hold over Africa first has the advantage. We know the scramble there is for world trade. We know the scramble there is to develop these under-developed countries. Thereby it is hoped to create many markets. All this we know. And what are we in this country? A mere handful of Whites and very definitely Europe does not care. It is not a matter of our policies. As a matter of fact, our policy has nothing to do with it. It merely serves as a handy peg to hang your hat on. For 300 years that has been our policy. What is happening now? A man flies over Africa or spends a week in the Carlton Hotel in Johannesburg, then goes home and writes a book about South Africa! It would be funny if it were not so terribly tragic. What is more, that book is then quoted all over the world.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not make the mistake of allowing just any mampara to take part in race debates. Because that is what is happening. By that we are doing more harm than good. I asked earlier on why the West did not come to the assistance of Goa. I also want to ask why they do not come to the assistance of Rhodesia or Portugal? There is no apartheid there? Why should it then be us? They were ready now at the International Conference for both Portugal and Spain but unfortunately we came first, because our man spoke first. That brought about all that bitterness. Does that not prove the immaturity of these people? Let me in this connection refer to some of the arguments you used in this House to-night. The hon. member for North-East Rand wants an army to be on the borders of the Zambesi and right on the Northern extremity on the borders of Angola. The hon. member for Turffontein, on the other hand, asks what there was to fight. The one is ready for attack and to carry the war to them. When a member of this House comes here and pleads that we should take our army right to the borders of Angola and to the borders of Southern Rhodesia, then I think we are on very dangerous grounds. The time may come when that might happen but that time is not to-night. When it does come it will be the time for thinking men to think about it. But we are not there yet. What is more, the Government has not let out anything about it. How can hon. members of this House come and plead for such a stupid act on the part of the Government? That they can do so passes my comprehension.

Mr. Speaker, there are two other matters with which I should like to deal. First of all, I should like in all honesty to say that the Opposition are doing their own cause no good by the way in which they endeavour to push their own case. There are many matters in respect of which we do not know where they stand. We just do not know. Let me say again: This attitude of neither hot nor cold does not do them any good, and the voters outside do not want it. Already the voters of the country have discarded the Opposition in about half-a-dozen different elections. I am sorry about that. The hon. the Prime Minister said here this afternoon that he did not require any more votes; that he did not want additional members in this House. Now, a man must be mightily strong when he says that. But yet it is true. We do not need to get any more votes nor do we need to get any more seats. But the unfortunate fact is that the weaker you get as an Opposition the worse will the Government of this country be. I should now like to touch briefly on what I think should be our policy for the future. We must remember that the Natives in the Transkei have already come along and demanded that they also should be armed to be allowed to fight in future for their country, for South Africa. I think it is very encouraging to the White man to know that the Black man also wants to fight for South Africa. But now what happens? So much is spoken to-day of the urban Native. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), for instance, hammers this in on every occasion he gets: The urban Native, the urban Native. But who and what is the urban Native? He is a detribalized Native, a Native who has forsaken his way of life and has gone to town. There he has become detribalized. Let me now say this. I and other hon. gentlemen have grown up on farms with these natives and we got to know them as honourable folk. He listened to his boss on the farm and to his chief. But what history has been played off a month or two ago! We have natives, the urban natives, planning together to go and murder their chiefs. That is what the Opposition, whether they are aware of it or not, have been pleading for. That is the sum total of the type of policy they want to put across. That is also the sum total of the policy the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) pleads for every day: Away with tribalism! Only a year ago the chief of the Swazi’s stood up and said that he wanted half of the representatives in the House of Parliament for the Protectorate to be Whites. The other half was to come from his people. But what was forced on him?—Eight Whites, eight to be elected by the people and eight others to be appointed. That is what was forced upon him, whether he wanted it or not.

Let us look at the whole of Africa. Is it the chiefs who are in the lead? Is it the chiefs who lead all these emergent African States? Is it the chiefs who try for “Uhuru”? Oh no, Sir, it is self-appointed leaders who fill that role, fellows who were at Oxford, America and places like that. They came back and started agitation which soon went over into exploitation, and there you are: The new Africa! But when we had the chief and his tribe and the chief and his councillors meeting under a large tree, then we could still go places with the native, then we could still speak to him and he could understand us and we could understand him. To-day it is a hard matter for the native who comes to town to learn the ways of the White man. He has to learn that the hard way. And let me say that we Whites are not always so sympathetic. Let me now say something to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, a man for whom I have much respect because of what he sacrificed for an ideal in the past. Let me say to him that there are a few things which will hinder being successful with any future policy. If he cannot break the power of the witch doctor and if he cannot break the lobola system, no man and no Government will ever have success in this country. Whatever the Government tried to do up to now to combat this problem, was met by bitter antagonism. This is a question which must be tackled with the greatest sympathy and with the greatest understanding. Otherwise we shall not succeed.

And now, Sir, Mr. Plimpton at UNO! Mr. Plimpton was thrown at us across the floor of this House by the hon. member for Turffontein. We all know what Mr. Plimpton said and we all know what he did. But did he speak for America? Let us deal with this matter for a few moments. These people say about us exactly what they please and so I hope I will be allowed to say a few things about them as well. The American Negro has enjoyed freedom now for more than 100 years. He enjoyed that since, what was for that time, the world greatest war. But is there a man in this House who is bold enough to get up and say that to-day, after 100 years, there is peace in America? Several of my friends over there were in America last year. Let them come and tell me to-night that there is peace in America. It must be a bold man who says that. Sir. to integrate two children in Little Rock required 15,000 soldiers! Has anybody ever heard of a thing like that in South Africa? It is so ridiculous that the White man who thinks in that direction will run and drown himself in the first ditch of water. And yet it is Mr. Plimpton of America who wants to tell us what to do.

At 10.25 p.m., the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned.