When the House rose last night I had made all the major points which I wanted to make, but I should like to summarize those points briefly this morning. I said last night that the Opposition blamed hon. members on this side and National Party supporters outside and claimed that they were misunderstood, and that they wished that the electorate would adopt a different approach in the future in casting their vote. For my part I claimed that if they were misunderstood they themselves were entirely to blame. I certainly think that it is not only the Government which has a duty in this House or outside the House; the Opposition most certainly also has a duty, and in appealing to the Leader of the Opposition and to the United Party as a whole, surely we are within our rights. We are all South Africans, and that being so the Opposition cannot escape their duty to South Africa. That is why that appeal was made yesterday by the hon. the Prime Minister. It was not made with a view to catching votes or in order to win seats. I pointed out last night that the Prime Minister had emphasized that it was not necessary for us to follow a certain line in order to catch votes. That being so, may I reiterate that the Opposition also owes a duty to South Africa.

Sir, there is another matter which I should like to touch upon briefly, and that is that by and large there is very little ill-will between the races in South Africa in the different spheres of activity—in the mining industry, in secondary industry and in the agricultural industry. That is so, no matter what anybody else may say. The only people who try to promote ill-will are the communist agitators, and anybody who says that ‘there is no goodwill between the races says it in order to suit his own ends.

I touched briefly last night on the question of the detribalization of the Native. I pointed out what had happened where Natives had become detribalized to a certain extent. We know that a number of Natives went from Cape Town to the Transkei with the idea of murdering certain chiefs. I want to emphasize that that is the sort of thing that one gets when the Native becomes detribalized. I speak as a man who has lived with Natives the whole of his life, and I say that where a Native becomes detribalized that is the inevitable result. In endeavouring to re-establish the tribal system in the country therefore, this Government deserves to be supported instead of being opposed tooth and nail by the Opposition.

Did they not murder Dingaan under the tribal system?

Sir, the hon. member wants to go back 150 years. That happened after certain historical developments and I am not going to deal with that here.

I wish to reiterate briefly the appeal which was made yesterday afternoon by the hon. the Prime Minister that we should stand united against South Africa’s foes in the future. I personally do not doubt for one moment that no outside foe in the end will succeed if we put up a united front. Let us fight as much as we like inside the country, but surely we can be united outside the borders of this country. South Africa’s foes are not only the foes of this Government or the National Party. They are the foes of White South Africa and it is in that light that we must view the position; there is no other way of looking at it. Those who are our enemies are the enemies of South Africa, and no matter what the United Party says or does, while it continues to think that it will satisfy world opinion and the Black races in South Africa by making a few concessions to the Natives, they are preaching a lost cause; they can forget it.

Sir, we have come to the end of the Session. I do not know how much we have achieved. Yesterday the report of the Snyman Commission was released. In that report there is food for thought for every man in this House. I think we can all learn a valuable lesson from that report, that lesson being that a little greater courtesy towards the Black man and the Coloured man will go a long way towards making everybody happier. I am positive that if we make it our ideal to show a little more courtesy towards our fellow men in this country, greater racial harmony and goodwill will result. On that note I wish to conclude, but I cannot sit down without touching again on what a very senior member of this House said yesterday afternoon. I am alluding to what was said by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) with regard to the hon. the Prime Minister. Personally I was glad that the Prime Minister himself did not answer the hon., member. Being something of a back-bencher, I think I can take the liberty of saying something more about this matter. I said last night that I found the speech of the hon. member almost outrageous, and I am positive that the more senior, the more responsible members of the Opposition must agree with me. Even if you do not like the Prime Minister, a little courtesy on our part can do no harm. We need not pull our punches; the gloves can be off, but surely the Prime Minister is the Prime Minister of our country and it behoves us therefore to be more careful as to what we say. I think the hon. member should go to the library here where he will find a book by Lawrence Green entitled

How to grow old gracefully”. He will be surprised to see how much he can learn from that book. Sir, if you should look around one day and see the hon. gentleman smiling you yourself will be so much happier. I commend that to the hon. member.

I liked the moderate way in which the hon. member who has just resumed his seat stated his case. He warned us against discourtesy towards each other or towards the non-Whites. In that regard I fully agree with him. I think the time has arrived for us to realize that unless we are more friendly to one another, in the first instance, there is no possibility of co-operation between ourselves as Whites, or any possibility that we shall win the goodwill of the non-Whites.

I shall in the course of my speech reply further to what the hon. member said, but at the outset I should like to refer to the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday. It was a long speech, a speech that lasted nearly two hours. I was struck by one or two astonishing statements which he made in the course of his speech and to which I shall refer again as I proceed. One of the matters to which he referred is the deplorable situation in which South Africa finds herself today. The hon. the Prime Minister then proceeded to look for the causes of the present state of affairs. He advanced all kinds of reasons for the position in which South Africa finds herself at the present time; he laid the blame at the door of everything and everybody except the Nationalist Party. He said in the first instance that the people who were to blame were the Black states in Africa because we in South Africa are White. Secondly, he said that the blame lay with the Western nations because the Western nations have no conception of the moral justice of the policy of apartheid or the policy of the Nationalist Party. Thirdly, he laid the blame upon the United Party who according to him are simply out to make political capital out of the present situation or the legislation submitted to Parliament by the Nationalist Party. I think the time has come for us in this House to tell one another candidly exactly how we feel about this matter, because if we wish to understand one another, if ever we want to come to terms with each other, then I think it is essential that we should not mince matters. I think it is essential that we should admit where the responsibility lies, and whether we as a United Party or the Government or its laws are responsible for the situation in which South Africa finds herself to-day. Let us determine the causes and then face them squarely.

According to hon. members opposite, including the Prime Minister, the speeches of members on this side are responsible for the parlous situation in which we find ourselves to-day, and the difficulties we are faced with. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) said here—I would almost say he had the audacity to say—that we on this side must understand that if ever a catastrophe befell South Africa it would not be only the Nationalist Party that would suffer but also the United Party. How perfectly correct he is! But for 15 years we on this side of the House have been warning our hon. friends opposite and we have pointed out to them what the consequences would be if they persisted with the policy they wished to implement and which they have been implementing step by step. We particularly pointed out that if we had trouble internally it would not be the White man on that side alone or the White man on this side alone who would suffer but that South Africa as a whole would suffer. That of course is an incontrovertible truth; it is as plain as a pikestaff. We warned against the unwise legislation introduced by that side of the House. We warned against the irresponsibility shown from many platforms in discussing the criticism of this side of the House of legislation introduced by the Government. Just think of the inexplicable venom, the inexplicable racial prejudice shown from time to time, particularly when dealing with the non-White problem in South Africa. Think of the scaremongering that we have had. As far as our non-White racial groups are concerned an attempt has been made to frighten our people. People who have been our friends for 300 years have been presented to us as our enemies and as the greatest threat to the survival of the White man in South Africa. It is this fear of the non-Whites which has been propagated that has landed us in trouble. Just think how this racial question was exploited prior to and after the election of 1948. It was exploited for party political purposes. Just think how it has harmed South Africa; how it has impaired the relations between White and non-White. We protested against that, and that is why I am glad that at long last now that South Africa is in trouble, the hon. member for Vereeniging agrees that not they or we will suffer but that all of us will suffer. It is that exploitation, that misrepresentation of the approach of this side of the whole non-White problem in South Africa, which has not only prejudiced South Africa but which has invited the hostility of the rest of the world.

Actually the trouble in which South Africa finds herself to-day started psychologically when this Government took over. It is the psychological factor, more than anything else perhaps, which is responsible for the fact that to-day, after 15 years of Nationalist Party government, we find ourselves in the predicament in which we are at present. The cause is to be found in a fact for which perhaps I cannot blame the hon. members sitting over there to-day, but for which I must blame their predecessors, but it remains a fact that during the war hon. friends on that side did not support the powers who ultimately emerged as victors. They sided with the other side; one could almost say that they were in collusion with the other side, with Hitler and his satellites, and rightly or wrongly I say that that psychological fact had an effect upon the rest of the world when the National Party took over.

You were in collusion with Russia.

Order! I do not think the hon. member should say that hon. members were in collusion with Hitler.

I say the Nationalist Party.

That is not true.

Order! The hon. member may not say they were in collusion with Hitler.

Well, they showed their sympathy.

Order! The hon. member must first withdraw those words.

I withdraw, but I should like to point out to you what the real position was. It is for that reason that I used the words which I have just withdrawn. I now wish to quote from an official document. I quote from the minutes of the evidence given before the Select Committee in 1946 on the so-called Denk case. I quote Question No. 317—

The question was put to Dr. Malan. I quote further—

What about you who blessed Russia’s arms?

I now quote from Question No. 319—

That is to say, Germany—

That is why I used the word which I subsequently withdrew, and I leave it at that. I have quoted enough to indicate what attitude that side adopted at that time against the powers which ultimately gained the victory in the war. What do we find now after 15 years of Nationalist rule? We find ourselves in an almost incredibly unfavourable and tragic position, in the words of the hon. the Prime Minister himself. I am sorry he is not here now to tell me whether I have quoted him rightly or wrongly; I do not want to misinterpret his remarks. What an admission he made here yesterday! He says among other things that he as Prime Minister of South Africa cannot personally defend or discuss or explain his policy to the leaders of the Western countries, and the reason he gives for that is this: Because there is not a single Western leader or head of Government who would invite him or receive him because—so he continues—they would be embarrassed if seen in his company. In other words, it is not I who accuse the hon. the Prime Minister of having said that; it is his own admission. What a shocking admission on the part of the Prime Minister of South Africa! What a shocking admission from the leader of the people of South Africa! What an admission that he cannot be seen in the company of the Western leaders because it would embarrass them. What a tragedy that we should have to learn from the Prime Minister that there is not a single leader left among our wartime friends in whose company our Prime Minister can be seen without embarrassing them.

It is a shocking misrepresentation of his words.

What an admission.

Shame on you!

Why should I be ashamed of myself? Who said so yesterday? Did I say it or did the Prime Minister say it? It is shocking for the Prime Minister to make such an admission to the world. What an admission that even Denmark or even Holland, from which my hon. friend originally came, is not willing to receive him because they may be embarrassed! What is worse still—and that is the tragedy of the whole thing—is that the self-same Germany and that selfsame Italy to whom my hon. friends were so kindly disposed during the war years, are not willing to receive the Prime Minister of South Africa because they too would then be embarrassed. This shocking admission on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister is not only a grave and an unforgivable blunder, but it is an admission that because of the policy of the National Party we have eventually become the polecat among the Western civilized nations. What an admission of the hopeless position in which South Africa finds herself to-day? How we long for the days of Smuts, even for the days of Dr. Malan, when they were invited to go and meet those countries and to discuss world problems with them in an attempt to solve them. Those days are past after 15 years now that the Nationalist Party is under the leadership of the present Prime Minister. It is not I who say that the Prime Minister will not be welcome and that he will embarrass the Western countries, it is the Prime Minister himself who said it.

He did not say that.

He did say it. Hansard is there. I was here and I listened to the Prime Minister.

I have never seen such a renegade.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I take it from whence it comes.

Order! The hon. member must not refer to that word again. The hon. member has withdrawn it. The hon. member must also withdraw his words.

I withdraw them, Mr. Speaker; I should have expected him to apologize too.

Order! The hon. member must also withdraw his words.

I withdraw them, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize. I have already referred to the 1948 election and the exploitation of that election. The hon. Chief Whip then interrupted me and I said “he too”. I remember how my hon. friends tried to belittle us. But not only that; after that election when my hon. friends had to take over the reins of government unexpectedly, they had to carry out some of the irresponsible things which they had promised. That was their difficulty.

What things?

I shall mention them. There was the question of the Coloureds. Those people who had enjoyed certain political rights in the Cape and in Natal for 100 years or more were simply deprived of those rights. When they could not act constitutionally they tried other methods. They first tried the High Court of Parliament; subsequently they appointed the enlarged Senate and ultimately they deprived the Coloured people of that age-old right. Let us assume that the Coloureds are satisfied to-day—which I doubt of course—but let us suppose they are satisfied: What effect did that have on the rest of the world? That is the question which my hon. friends should ask themselves.

My hon. friends went further and interfered with the freedom of our universities. We told them that if they wished to establish universities more specifically for the non-Whites, they could do so but they must not interfere with the freedom of the universities. Before this side of the House had said a single word, thousands of telegrams were pouring into South Africa protesting against the proposal of the Government at the time. That is another important reason why we find ourselves in the position that the Prime Minister is obliged to say that he cannot even be seen in the company of the Western leaders. How we warned against the Church clause. For days on end we warned against it.

General Hertzog, one of our great Prime Ministers, came to an arrangement with General Smuts that the Bantu would have a certain measure of representation in this House and in the Other Place. My hon. friends were hardly in power when this began to bother them. That representation also had to be taken away. The liaison which existed between the Bantu and this House was broken. That not only had its effect internally, but also had its adverse effect overseas. That is one of the greatest causes of the disharmony and suspicion existing in South Africa itself at the present time and particularly in the outside world.

But I go further. For years and years my hon. friends in the Nationalist Party denied the existence of the Asiatic group. For years on end they refused to recognize them as a group. They closed their eyes even after they saw it was impossible to repatriate them, as they had promised. And now? Now at last they have started to recognize them also. But they have never once said that that group will also have a voice in this body which makes the laws of the country.

How frequently did you change your policy in that connection?

Much less frequently than my hon. friends have changed theirs. We have always said that if repatriation does not succeed the representatives of those people should sit in this House of Assembly. It is our duty to face up to that problem, and not to run away from it. This side will not run away from it. When we come into power we shall give them a reasonable say.

My hon. friend has referred to Communism. That same Communism had to save us with its right of veto yesterday, so that we are still a member of the I.L.O. to-day. That same communistic danger about which my hon. friends talk so much has not yet been removed by them. That danger is much greater to-day than it has ever been before. We warned them that their anti-communist legislation would send the communists underground. It is that fact which is responsible for the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. and the Poqo movement. My hon. friends cannot even destroy these insignificant little movements. Not 1 per cent of the Bantu population belongs to the Poqo movement or the A.N.C. or the P.A.C. and my hon. friends find themselves in difficulties with it. They are in difficulties because they refused to follow the wise advice of this side; because they would not accept our proposal that if a man is found guilty of Communism by our courts, he should also be liable to be found guilty of treason. With the measures which they took they simply drove these people underground.

One of the greatest blunders which we made and which is responsible for the fact that South Africa is without a single friend to-day was our withdrawal from the Commonwealth of Nations; we withdrew because, as the Prime Minister has said, Ghana would have withdrawn if South Africa had not withdrawn. What a ridiculous statement! Had we not permitted Ghana to dictate to us what we should do, we would still have been a member of the Commonwealth of Nations to-day, and we would then at least have had England and Australia and Canada and the other democratic countries on our side. To-day, however, we are isolated from those countries. Many democratic countries differed from us but while we were a member of the Commonwealth of Nations they always stood by us. I recall very clearly what they said in Australia when I had the honour to visit them there: “We do not agree with you, but as a friend and as a member of the Commonwealth of Nations we stand by you.” That was the spirit in which we lived.

I want to come now to this attitude of “We shall not bow,” as the hon. the Prime Minister said here yesterday “We shall not bend; we shall not submit: we are granite; we stand like granite whatever happens.” The hon. the Prime Minister then went on to say that whereas Chamberlain in his weakness wished to negotiate, Churchill said, “So far but no further” and that Churchill then declared war on Hitler. But surely my hon. friend has forgotten his history! Churchill was not Prime Minister when war was declared. Neville Chamberlain was Prime Minister. That is the first mistake which the hon. the Prime Minister made. Then I come to the Government’s attitude of “I shall not bend” in regard to South West Africa. The greatest danger to South Africa to-day surely lies in South West Africa! We hope, of course, that the finding of the International Court will not go against us. If we do not modify that granite attitude, we shall simply find ourselves in trouble. The United Party has the same feeling about the serious possibilities as my hon. friends opposite. The United Party during its regime did in fact submit reports; we sent our reports annually for information. But my hon. friends say, “We refuse to send reports, even for information”. And to-day we are in trouble because of that attitude.

I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is not here either at the moment. I expect him to participate in this debate because it is his policy as well as that of the Prime Minister which is responsible for the present state of affairs regarding the non-Whites in South Africa, particularly the establishment of his new Bantustans. The time will come when we will bitterly rue the establishment of these Bantustans. The hon. the Prime Minister again said yesterday that they were developing the Bantu according to his own cultural background. What nonsense! What nonsense to give the Bantu a self-governing democratic State, to give him his own flag, his own citizenship, his own national anthem! Is that his cultural background? But I shall not go into that any further. I should like to ask my hon. friends opposite this: Do they fully realize where their non-White policy is leading them? Do they realize that their policy, particularly in regard to the Bantu, is fostering a separate nationalism in South Africa? Do they realize that a spirit of Bantu nationalism is being fostered in South Africa? It is a very serious state of affairs and that is one of the reasons why South Africa is in the position in which it finds herself at the present time. Very often it seems to me that the die has already been cast. My hon. friends come along and they ask us: “What are you going to do? If we go under then you will also go under.” We fully appreciate that, Sir. This side of the House knows how to stand by South Africa in times of emergency. As far as that is concerned therefore my hon. friends need not be afraid. We shall be available when South Africa is in trouble. It will not be necessary to look for us when South Africa is in trouble. In this regard I say to my hon. friends once again that we shall stand by South Africa 100 per cent. The country is much more important than the party. We are not like my hon. friends over there who refer to the Nationalist Party as though it is the nation. A party is only an instrument which you use to achieve your object, but it is not the nation. If there is aggression against South Africa, this side will be in the front lines to defend her. Now my hon. friends opposite say—I am glad they have done so—“The time has come for us to stand together”. Let us stand together, but on condition that there shall be no insults as there were in the past when we held out the hand of friendship, when we saw the danger and my hon. friends opposite did not realize it; when we said that there were certain things which we must take out of party politics so that we could adopt a common point of view. We were then told; “No, you have no policy; we do not wish to accept that hand of friendship.” To-day we say this: If hon. members opposite come to us and ask for co-operation, that co-operation will be forthcoming, but on an equal basis. We do not wish to be swallowed up; you will never succeed in swallowing us. We are willing to co-operate in the interests of South Africa. As far as South Africa is concerned, we shall defend her under all circumstances.

I rise in the first instance not to reply to the speech of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat but to say a few words in connection with the Snyman Report which was tabled yesterday. Although I have just said that I do not rise primarily to reply to the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) I do feel that one should say a few words to the hon. member. The hon. member concluded by saying that he did not wish to be swallowed up by us. Let me say at once that if it were possible, I would not swallow the hon. member after the speech which he has just made. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat is one of those older members who are fortunately disappearing now, who used to sit in this House and who believed that they could only preserve their prestige in this House if they held up to suspicion and besmirched their own people in the eyes mainly of the English-speaking people. I am very grateful that this speech to which we have just listened did not fall from the lips of an English-speaking member opposite. On the contrary no English-speaking member opposite would have made such a speech because I know them all as gentlemen who have too much self-respect to do so.

While the hon. member was speaking, I was rummaging around in my drawer and I came upon a cutting from the Cape Argus of Saturday, 16 February 1963. Among other things, I see an advertisement there which reads as follows—

If the advertisement is still valid I wonder whether someone cannot ring the United Party and ask them to collect the speech of the hon. member, and if there is any room left on the rummage wagon the hon. member may prefer to go with it. The hon. member started his speech by making the accusation against this side of the House that we were only out to foment racial fear; that we can really only exist if we foment racial fear. I ask hon. members opposite: Who has tried harder than hon. members opposite, for the sole purpose of catching a few votes, to foment fear in regard to the Transkei policy, here in this House and outside? Did hon. members not try to foment racial fear by the way in which they represented the Transkei policy in an attempt to catch a few votes? The hon. member went on to say that psychologically the battle against South Africa started in 1948 when the National Party came into power. I fully agree with him. But does the hon. member not know what the cause of it was? Does he not know that it was Mr. Hofmeyr and his party who said right from the start: “You must not even give this Government a chance”? As far as the then United Party was concerned, any argument, any weapon was good enough as long only as it could be used against the Government. The tragedy was that no distinction was drawn later on between South Africa and the Government, their attitude was that if you hit South Africa you also hit the National Party Government. That was their approach and they acted accordingly. I hope that the sort of speech which we have just had from the hon. member will become more and more rare in this House.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has asked me a question which I should like to answer. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition expressed his concern and he asked whether we knew what happened at Addis Ababa and whether we knew who was there. I should like to assure the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that as far as it is possible—and he knows the circumstances as well as I do—we are aware of what happened there; we know what is being prepared; we are aware of what is being planned, and in the nature of things we are making our plans accordingly. I may inform the hon. the Leader that as far as the A.N.C. is concerned, the following people were present and participated in the discussions at that conference: Oliver Tambo, Nokwe, Matthews, Robert Resha and Tennyson Makiwane. The P.A.C. was represented by Peter Malotsi and Nana Mahomo whose headquarters is in London. The S.A. People’s Organization was represented by Nujoma and the S.A. National Union was represented by Kozonguizi. In other words, all these subversive organizations from South Africa were in fact represented there.

In passing I should like also to reply to one other point raised on several occasions during this Session by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and by members of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly told us that this feeling against South Africa in the world will disappear if only we would accept the policy of the United Party. I should like in all modesty now to ask the Leader of the Opposition: What policy of the United Party should we have put forward at UNO in 1952? What policy of the United Party should we have propagated there in 1956, for instance? After all, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that he has only had his present policy since 1961. What policy should we have put forward there prior to that year? In the ten years that I have been in this House the United Party has had seven different policies.

And the Nationalist Party?

Only one, which it has continued to develop. [Interjections.] We have had only one policy and on that policy we have fought one election after another. [Interjections.] The charge is being made apparently that like themselves we have changed our policy time and time again. I find it strange that that charge should be made against us now because ever since 1948 up to the present moment the charge has consistently been that it is our policy of apartheid which has landed us in this predicament! Or do hon. members opposite now wish to suggest that our policy has not always been one of apartheid? Why then have they attacked us and why have they accused us?

How has it been construed?

It has always been interpreted differently.

I am not referring to the interpretation which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has placed on this policy.

No, I am referring to the interpretation of the Prime Minister.

… but I am talking about the interpretation and the consistent development of the policy by this side of the House. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly explained to hon. members during this Session how this policy has been consistently developed by this side of the House. But now for the first time we have had an admission from the Opposition that they have in fact changed their policy. That admission is on record now. If the hon. the Leader now comes along and says that if we want the international animosity to South Africa to disappear we should adopt his policy, then I ask him what guarantee I have that that policy will still be his policy next year?

What policy?

I can well understand that hon. members opposite themselves are beginning to be confused as to what their policy actually is. But I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in all earnestness whether he can give us an assurance that the United Party have now completed their search for a policy. Or are they going to continue searching for a policy next year? I have sat here during this whole Session listening to hon. members opposite, and I say that what they are looking for is not a policy! They are looking for an alternative! They are looking for an alternative merely to get into power, because their Press and their apologists have warned them time and again that they will never get into power unless they can find an alternative policy to the policy of the National Party. My charge against hon. members opposite is that they are not anxious to find a policy, because once you have a policy, you must adhere to it and act accordingly. What the United Party is doing therefore is not to search for a policy, but only for an ad hoc alternative from day to day in order to catch votes and thus get into power. That is why we get these conflicting speeches from hon. members opposite. Let us look at what happened here yesterday. First of all there was the speech of the hon. member for Constantia and thereafter the speech of the hon. member for North-East Rand, a Whip of the United Party and the United Party expert on defence matters. In this regard I should like to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a serious question. I noticed that he did not show much interest in the speech of the hon. member for North-East Rand. I should like to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether the hon. member for North-East Rand was speaking on behalf of the United Party and whether he was stating the point of view of his party when he said—this is a very serious matter which brings us onto a very high international level—that this Government should tell Portugal and Rhodesia immediately that we shall side with them if they should be attacked. This is a very serious question which I am putting the hon. the Leader of the Opposition because a very serious speech was made here by a Whip of his party, the member for North-East Rand. Since it is such a serious matter we should know where we stand with the Opposition in this matter, I should like to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether the hon. member for North-East Rand, a Whip in his party, was speaking on behalf of the United Party when he said what I have just quoted. Was he propounding the views of the United Party in that regard? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will not find an answer in the document he is reading. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was in the House while the hon. member for North-East Rand was speaking and I watched him.

State your policy in regard to the matter.

But I did not raise this matter. I did not adopt any attitude in that regard. In any case it is a matter of high policy which should be dealt with by the Prime Minister after consultation with his Cabinet. But here a Whip of the United Party comes along and plunges into this thing. I should like to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as one reasonable man to another, whether it is fair to permit your Whips to speak on these matters and to state a certain policy while you yourself, as the leader, sit like a sphinx and refuse to say whether the Whip is stating your point of view. Where are we going to end if leading members and Whips can come forward and propound policies of this kind in the presence of the Leader of the Opposition while the Leader of the Opposition himself lacks the courage to say whether that is also his policy? With the best will in the world I cannot understand that a leader of a political party which claims to be the alternative government …

The hon. member for North-East Rand has just entered the House.

Perhaps it is as well that the hon. member for North-East Rand is present now. I do not wish to catch him out, and I should like to tell him therefore that for the last five minutes I have been trying to elicit a reply from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the statement made by him (the hon. member for North-East Rand), last night. I wish to know whether in saying that he was stating the attitude of the United Party. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition refuses to give me an answer. Perhaps the hon. Whip, a military expert of his party, could tell us whether he was speaking for his party. Or was he only expressing his own personal views? The hon. member could only have done one of two things. Either he was speaking on his own behalf or he was speaking on behalf of his party. I am quite prepared to accept any one of the two replies as long as I do get a reply. I shall appreciate an answer because this is a very important matter; the hon. member is a military expert and therefore has great knowledge of the subject. I shall appreciate it if the hon. member will simply say “yes” or “no” to my question. Here we have a party which says that our problems will disappear like mist before the morning sun if only we will accept their policy. But how are we to know what their policy is? We put questions to them but they refuse to say whether or not that is their policy. Mr. Speaker, you can see the problem that we are faced with in regard to those hon. members!

There comes Marais Steyn, the policy-maker. Ask him.

Before I proceed to deal with the Snyman Report—which was my real reason for rising—I just want to say that I notice that the policy-making member of the Opposition, namely the hon. member for Yeoville, has just entered. He will, of course, be able to solve our problem for us very easily. May I inform him that before he entered my problem and that of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for North-East Rand was to determine whether or not the hon. member for North-East Rand was speaking for the United Party last night. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not know and the hon. member for North-East Rand does not know either. My problem is how am I to know. Can the hon. member for Yeoville perhaps tell us whether or not the hon. member for North-East Rand was speaking on behalf of his party?

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ: You can lock him up for 90 days; he will still refuse to answer!

Far be it from me to force any hon. member to tell me if he is unwilling to do so. I leave that question therefore for hon. members opposite to ponder on. One could have a very fruitful caucus discussion on this issue.

Now I come to the real reason for my participation in this debate and that is to say a word or two about the Snyman Report. In the first place I should like to associate myself with the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in expressing my thanks to the hon. Judge for the expeditious, competent and thorough manner in which he performed his task. I convey to him my personal thanks for it because my Department is concerned with this matter. This Report will be translated, printed and distributed among hon. members later on and I hope they will take more than just passing interest in it. Everyone of us, on whatever side of the House we may be sitting, will find it very profitable to read this Report. For the record, however, I should like to quote certain excerpts from the Report.

In the first place I should like to point out that we have frequently heard the reproach that these things dealt with in the Snyman Report owe their origin to the fact that this Government pursues a certain policy. The Opposition have levelled reproaches of this kind from time to time and outside the House we have had very strong and further reproaches from liberals. In this regard I should like to refer to paragraph 233 of the report. By way of introduction the hon. Judge refers to certain evidence submitted to him, inter alia, he refers to the evidence given by a certain Mrs. Pearce and a Miss Kazi. In paragraph 233 the hon. Judge says this—

In paragraph 234 he goes on to say—

The following are the words to which I should like to draw the attention of hon. members—

This is very important. Here a positive finding is made in respect of the matters, namely—

It has also been said from time to time that the real reason why there was this action is to be found in the conduct of the South African Police. It is interesting to note what the report says in this connection. Here I refer to paragraph 221, which reads as follows—

In paragraph 222 the report then proceeds as follows—

Paragraph 223 reads as follows—

I sincerely hope and trust therefore that after this finding those who like to cast aspersions upon the South African Police from time to time will stop doing so because there is no substance in it at all. It is the policy of the Department to provide more police in the Bantu residential areas, and when the manpower is available we should like to give effect to this finding of the Commissioner. Owing to a shortage of manpower, however, I have not been able to comply with this request as yet.

We have on various occasions and in several debates told the Leader of the Opposition that the things which have occurred here are not attributable to the policy of this, that or the other Government; that the causes must be sought in communistic agitation not only here in South Africa, but throughout the whole world. It is very stupid on the part of the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) to allege that we are the cause of that communistic agitation. In that case he might as well say also that Mr. Kennedy or Mr. Macmillan is the cause of the existence of Soviet Russia. I said that as far as these matters are concerned the causes must not be sought in the policy of this Government or of any other Government; that must be sought—let us call a spade a spade—in Communism. Hon. members would not believe it, however, they were sceptical. Some ridiculed it. I should like now to utter a very friendly warning to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. After he and his party had supported the legislation which we introduced in this regard—and I have already said that I appreciate that—the hon. the Leader of the Opposition deemed it necessary to issue numerous statements and to hold a number of meetings. In fact, many hon. members opposite went along and held meetings throughout the country to state their point of view and to justify their attitude. But I am afraid they will have to do so a second time, because if they have read the leader of the Cape Times this morning they will have seen that it does not augur well at all for the Opposition. I am afraid, therefore, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will have to make that journey once again. I am afraid he will have to do a good deal of talking if he wishes to retain the Wynberg seat. As far as I myself am concerned I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will succeed in doing so, but then he will have to talk for all he is worth. I am uttering this warning just in passing for what it may be worth.

In paragraph 40 of the report the Commissioner says this—

He is referring to the A.N.C. here—

The hon. Judge goes on to quote from the evidence given at the trial of the former leader of the P.A.C., Robert Sobukwe, when he gave evidence in his own defence in 1960. In paragraph 51 of the report the following excerpt from this evidence is quoted—

It behoves each of us in this House to devote great attention to this matter.

Does it not go on to refer to “White Africans”?

Since the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has referred to it, I may as well deal with that aspect of the matter at once. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will recall that the opportunity was taken in discussing my Vote to make a renewed attack upon my colleague, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, in regard to certain things which he is alleged to have said. It should really have been raised directly with him, but this was not done. In any event I then defended and vindicated the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. However, it is irrelevant now what he or I said in this connection. I referred to the interim report of the Commissioner. It was then argued that it was only an opinion expressed in that report, and that nothing more should be read into it. But what do we find in this final report now? In paragraph 96 the Commissioner states—

Here it is no longer merely a question of an opinion; it is a positive finding now—

The hon. Judge therefore has no reason to doubt that that is so. Therefore he says very positively at the commencement of the paragraph—

But he goes on to say—

Of course! They would not be so stupid as to implicate their party. Yet the Judge finds here, as a fact, that White persons were also associated with those things. I hope it will not be necessary for us, therefore, to discuss this matter again.

I should have liked you to quote Sobukwe’s attitude at that trial regarding the Whites of Africa, because it is important as regards membership of his organization. If my memory does not deceive me, I think that what he says in that regard follows upon the quotation from his evidence which you read out earlier.

He says very clearly as regards the Whites that they may remain provided they are prepared to accept “African majority rule”.

Is there not a finding by the hon. Judge to the effect that he does not accept that?

I am afraid I am not aware of such a finding. I have not come across it and I should like it to be pointed out to me if in fact there is such a finding. In any event, there are other aspects of the matter to which I should also like to refer. Hon. members ridiculed it and laughed at me last year when I said it was necessary to take certain measures because these people aimed at taking over the Government in South Africa in 1963. Hon. members then said we were seeing ghosts and that we were saying these things for party political purposes and in order to gain prestige among our people. They said we really did not need that legislation. In paragraph 54 of this report, on the contrary, the hon. Judge found—

But it is interesting to see what the Judge’s findings were in connection with the urban Bantu, to which reference is made so frequently in this House. This is what we find in paragraph 68 of the report—

That is not an expression of opinion, but a positive finding—

What becomes now of the constant accusation we hear from hon. members opposite that we have people living here who do not even know where their homleands are and have no connections with those homelands?

What does the Tomlinson Report say?

We are not discussing the Tomlinson Report now; we are discussing the Snyman Report. Hon. members have pestered me from day to day and said that they wanted this report. Questions were put to me on the Order Paper and I had to give an undertaking, and that is why I have not even submitted this report to the Cabinet. Before I could submit it to the Cabinet, I tabled it in this House, in pursuance of a promise which I had made to hon. members opposite. They wanted this report, but now apparently they are not satisfied with the findings contained in it. Oh no, if the findings had suited those hon. members they would have paraded with this report in their hands for two whole days, but because a sober-thinking and honourable Judge comes along and views all these things dispassionately and makes findings in that regard, it does not suit hon. members. I accept this report in so far as it is adverse to me, and where it contains findings like these I accept them too, and I shall be glad if hon. members opposite will also do so in the same spirit. [Time limit.]

In the concluding portion of the remarks of the Minister he came down to the report and he unfortunately did not have time to complete his review. I should like to say to the Minister that I hope one day we will hear him make a speech in this House when he does not devote the first half of his speech to petty politics instead of dealing with the very serious report which it was his duty to deal with fully. The hon. the Minister could not avoid bringing in a number of points which are purely of a political nature and I say to him that in my view he has failed in his duty as Minister of Justice in the way he dealt with this matter this morning.

That is just because you did not like his replies.

When there is a report of such importance what the hon. the Minister says is world news, and I do not think it does this country any good, nor do I think it does his own reputation any good, by spending the bulk of his time on the petty points he dealt with this morning.

What petty points?

I do not blame the hon. members opposite that they are so uneasy and noisy, because it shows quite clearly that my point has struck home. [Laughter.] But I hope that now they have got it off their chests they will give me an opportunity of dealing with the merits of this matter. I do not propose to follow the Minister in dealing with matters which are of a petty political nature, although naturally it will be necessary to deal with some of the major issues which obviously are very relevant. [Interjection.] No, I am not answering any questions. I have a very important case to put to this House and I do not propose to be distracted by questions, and I ask hon. members to respect my wishes.

The first thing I should like to say is that I should like to deal with an item which the Minister has just mentioned, para. 68, and I say to the hon. the Minister that he has completely failed to appreciate the significance of this paragraph. The paragraph says this—

Sir, that is obviously a statement of opinion by Judge Snyman which was not based upon the evidence before him. It is an opinion, and I respect it as such, but what the Minister misses completely is that the Bantu people in the urban areas “very largely maintain”. Sir, that is the very case which this side of the House puts up. Very largely they maintain them and very largely they do not maintain them. [Laughter.] Hon. members may laugh, but the Minister will concede that when the Judge says that they very largely maintain their tribal connections, it is obvious that there can be a very large number of exceptions as well.

Is that not petty politics?

I was merely dealing with the point raised by the Minister, and now I want to deal with other matters contained in the report. I would like to join with others in saying how we appreciate the report and the manner in which Mr. Justice Snyman approached it. It is a valuable report and I hope it will be printed. The findings of the report I will deal with in detail in a moment, but I should like to make a general submission, namely that the claim of hon. members opposite that this report supports the policy of the Nationalist Party is entirely without foundation.

Who said that?

Member after member opposite made it clear that they regard this report as justification for the policy of the Government. [Interjections.] This report is not concerned with the policy of a political party. [Interjection.]

Order! I want to warn the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) not to interject again.

The report deals particularly with the events at Paarl, and we know that the Judge also visited the Transkei, but we must bear in mind that this report does not purport—and obviously the evidence which was laid before the honourable Judge would not have enabled him to make general findings in respect of the Native question and the policies which are followed in this country. But there are many of the findings in the report which the Judge based on the evidence laid before him and which are very important. I should like to refer to some of them because I think lessons can be learnt from them.

I should like to refer to various of the paragraphs in detail. Obviously I cannot do so fully in the limited time at my disposal, but it seems perfectly clear, as the Minister has also said, from paras. 42 and 43, that there are communist influences. I accept that. It is also said that there was plotting for the violent overthrow of the present governmental order in the Republic, and it refers to the fact that in spite of changes of method there were members of the A.N.C. who were still not satisfied and an extremist group developed, and they have a policy of Africa for the Africans. That, if I may say so, is not new. It is something which we have debated in this House again and again, but it does show that we are in something of a cold war and I do not believe that hon. members opposite have a full realization of the situation which is shown to exist in this country, as revealed by this report. If they do, I am completely unable to understand some of the speeches we heard from some hon. members opposite. I should like to read para. 65 of the report which is very important—

I am sorry, this is not the paragraph I was thinking of, but the report makes it perfectly clear what the activities of this organization are and it says that the person concerned admitted the correctness of the findings in the interim report. I do not think that is in dispute. We on this side have not disputed it.

In coming back to the point I was on a moment ago, I should like to say that the evidence which was laid before the Judge and which resulted in paras. 87 and 88 shows a very serious state of affairs indeed. It gives a list of crimes directed at Bantu people and hon. members will find a large number of murders extending right back to January 1962 at Paarl. It was known as early as that that there were difficulties in that town.

And arrests were made in each and every case.

Yes, and I would like to pay tribute to the police. There is no question about it that they seem to have done a very good job indeed. But the list of crimes is something which must give all South Africans grave cause for concern. In para. 103 there is a finding which I must say I was very glad to read, namely that there was evidence of strong Bantu resistance to the Poqo or P.A.C. movement. I should like to pay a particular tribute to the law-abiding Bantu of this country, comprising the vast mass of the Bantu people, for the fact that they have not allowed themselves to be led astray. I hope they realize that movements of this sort cannot but bring very serious consequences to both Whites and Blacks. It should be perfectly obvious and I think this report helps to make it clear that many of the Bantu think so too, and that the future well-being of this country depends on harmonious race relations between White and Black, and that inevitably we will have to work together to achieve the best that is possible for South Africa.

I should just like to say in passing that I believe that the policy of the party of which I have the honour to be a member is the only policy which can bring about that happy state of affairs. I propose to deal with it a little later, but I just mention it at this stage, in passing. In paragraph 15 of this report the honourable Judge says—

I should like to say that I rather regretted that in this paragraph the honourable Judge did not go just a bit further, because quite clearly Poqo is not directed at this Government, but at the system of Government in South Africa as a whole. It is directed against all of us in this House, on whichever side we sit. I propose to run very quickly through the further paragraphs in the report, but I should like to say that we should have great regard to all these findings and I hope we will have the opportunity of studying them at greater leisure in the months that lie ahead. I want to refer to paragraphs 150 and 151. Paragraph 150 says—

That is a very serious statement indeed. I believe it throws a responsibility on the Government to inquire into some of these cases of the nature of Paarl a little deeper, because as far as I can see it seems quite clear from this that the town councillors were completely unaware of what went on in their area. It looks as if liaison between the Minister of Bantu Administration’s Department and the S.A. Police had broken down, because the finding is that the town councillors appeared to be completely unaware of the position.

But that is not the Minister’s Department.

I say that the Minister’s Department should have known about it, as well as the police and the town council. There has been a break-down of liaison, according to this paragraph. The following paragraph makes it clear that although they were warned as early as December, 1960, of the hostility towards their Bantu Affairs officials, they took no steps to deal with it. That is a tremendous condemnation of the Town Council of Paarl, because clearly they had not done their duty. They referred the report thereon to the S.A. Police and the the Department of Bantu Administration, and it seems to me as if there has not been the liaison there should have been, and that it should have been realized by all these Departments that there was need for the closest co-operation to deal with the dangerous situation which had arisen. I pass on to quote paragraph 162—

Now the Minister of Bantu Administration has insisted again in a Bill which was before this House that there will be overriding power to deal with local authorities, but I ask what is the good of that if in a case such as this the difficulties are brought to the attention of the Minister and appropriate action is not taken?

But it was not brought to the Minister’s attention.

Well, the Commissioner finds it was. He talks about the Department.

That is not the Department of the Minister of Bantu Administration.

I have just read the paragraph, and to me that contains a clear reference to the “Department”. Paragraph 164 says—

In all fairness, read paragraph 170.

I was coming to it, but I will read it immediately. It says—

And I pay tribute to them, as the Judge has done—

That is quite right, but it has nothing to do with the previous paragraph I just read. The point I make is that there was a breakdown of liaison and the Department of Bantu Administration should accept at least some of the responsibility for that. Paragraph 171 says this—

I should like to say at once that I cannot imagine a more accurate description of what, in terms of United Party policy, ought to be the approach of White South Africa to this problem. We believe that one of the points on which this Government is going astray is that it has not paid the attention required to this very important matter of human relations. I should like to say to the Minister that I know that he has definitely tried to do so, but I do not find the spirit which the Minister sometimes shows in this House to be adopted by many of his followers. What is vitally necessary, if we are to meet the challenge of our times, is that we must recognize each Bantu as an individual and we must be prepared to concede to him human dignities. I believe this is one of the most important paragraphs in the report and I consider it of the utmost importance that we should try to get away from any idea of a system of regimentation and that we should pay every possible attention to building up the importance of the individual and the dignity of the man, irrespective of his colour, because if we can do that I believe the solution of our problems will be much easier. Paragraph 172 says—

I believe that is a very important lesson to us, and I go onto the two following paragraphs because of their importance—

I hope that the Minister will make special inquiries from Dr. Eiselen as to the reasons underlying that statement, because it is a tremendous condemnation coming from a gentleman in his position. Finally, on this section of the report, I should like to associate myself with Mr. Justice Snyman when he says—

I now pass on to another section of the report, and I come to paragraph 222, which again deals with Paarl—

I am very glad that that is so—

If one reads the balance of that report it would appear that notwithstanding the good relations that existed with the police, at the end the police were taken completely by surprise, and I believe that a duty rests on the Minister of Justice to consider these paragraphs and find where things went wrong.

I have done so.

It seems to me that in the circumstances there should have been some prior knowledge. I know what is said in the report, but it should have been known that an extremely difficult situation was building up, and this is not something which arose overnight.

Paragraph 325 makes it quite clear.

I will come to that. The hon. Judge in paragraph 233 says this—

I should like to say immediately that once again that statement by the Judge is very much in line with the practical policy of this side of the House. It is a complete justification of it, although much of it is common to both policies, and it seems to me that the spirit of the remarks made by the Judge supports the views of this side of the House. I would like to refer particularly to the vital question of the breaking up of families and to say that in the appropriate cases I do not believe that we can ever bring about a happy situation in this country if we cannot find a way whereby Natives can enjoy family life to a greater extent than is possible under the policies followed at present. I do not believe you can ever bring the situation back if you try to deal with the affairs of this country in accordance with the ideology which underlies the policies of this Government. I pay tribute of the thoroughness of the hon. Judge who drew up this report. I believe that the spirit which underlies the recommendations made by him is something of which we should all take a great deal of notice. I believe that the report of the hon. Judge to a very large extent justifies the general approach of this side of the House to the problems with which we have to cope. Sir, what are the real facts? I believe that we should take note of something which appeared in the report of the Fagan Commission. There are certain things which that commission regarded as a clear duty of the Whites in dealing with this problem, and the first point I should like to make is that the real problem in relation to the question of Native Affairs in South Africa is not the position in the rural areas. We know that it is good and right that steps should be taken to develop those areas to help them along, but the pressing problems in the Black-White situation in South Africa arise from the urban position where a backward people have suddenly been hurried along into the twentieth century. I do not believe that that fact is sufficiently recognized. Then there is the fact that we should always try to work as far as we possibly can on the basis of advice and guidance rather than upon the basis of compulsion. I believe that that is very important. Thirdly I would say that the necessity for contacts, which was stressed by the Fagan Commission is of the utmost importance. I believe that we should take to heart the lesson to be learned from the paragraph which I quoted from this report as to the absolute necessity to have the closest possible contacts. In this regard I draw attention to the finding of the hon. Judge that the Bantu Advisory Board had failed. If that board had failed, why did the hon. the Minister’s Department not know about it? I believe that they should have known about it. They have a Bill dealing with urban Bantu councils working in liaison with the White council, but apparently no steps have been taken in this regard. It is certainly an unfortunate state of affairs when we have a Minister with a very big Department and we then find that a judicial commission has to be appointed to come to the finding that the Bantu Advisory Board in Paarl had failed. It is quite clear that these are matters to which we should devote all our energies. It is quite obvious that we have a problem here which faces all White South Africa, and it is quite obvious that this is the underlying problem on which the vast bulk of the criticism directed against South Africa by the outside world is based, whether that criticism is just or unjust, and let me say at once that a great deal of that criticism is unjust. I believe that this report—and I am talking about the spirit of the report and not so much the findings—shows that the approach of this Government to this whole problem is wrong. I believe in the first instance that if persons are to be kept in touch with the realities of the situation, then obviously all the racial groups should be represented in this House. I believe that that is of vital importance. The Government is proceeding with its Bantustan policy; it is proposing that these states will develop over a period of years. I do not believe that we have that time. Apart from that, it is perfectly obvious that that policy, quite apart from the danger which it brings to White South Africa, will not solve the problem of the urban Bantu, because I cannot believe for a single moment that the Government’s policy that those persons shall have representation only on the governing bodies of the tribal areas from which they or their ancestors came, is an adequate policy under present-day circumstances in South Africa. Sir, it does not concern the hon. the Minister who is before me but hon. Ministers will know how we on this side of the House pressed the Government to follow a realistic policy. We laud the positive things which have been done for the Cape Coloured people but the original apartheid policy has been departed from; apparently there is no idea now of creating a Colouredstan, and the moral basis of the Government’s policy falls away entirely when you say that those people are never going to have any say in the government of their own affairs at the national level. The only way in which that can be achieved is by restoring the Coloured representation in this House. I believe that the day will come when we will find it essential as a nation that they should be represented in this House by their own people. The problem of the Indians is one which the Government is toying with. Sir, I say that this Government is failing in the field of race relations. I do not believe that the policy which is being followed by the Government in respect of Indian Affairs is going to lead to a solution of that tremendously difficult problem. We must remember that when it comes to a question of world pressure upon South Africa, the thing which sparked off that pressure in the first place was not the situation of the Bantu within South Africa; it was the position of the Indians in this country of ours. I believe that we have to face that problem too. We on this side of the House believe that it should be faced. Sir, we know that we have tremendous problems before us. Hon. members on the other side have kept on asking what the position would be in the event of troubles arising. Obviously this country is my country as much as it is the country of any hon. member on the other side of the House. Obviously an attack upon South Africa would affect me and the future of my children and my grandchildren just as much as it would affect hon. members on the other side. I believe that these tremendous problems with which we are faced will teach us one day perhaps that whatever our political differences may be—and those differences are vast—the approach to the colour problem in its various fields is clearly one upon which the future welfare of this country depends. This report, I submit, shows that the Government’s policy in respect of the urban Bantu is utterly inadequate to cope with the situation. I believe that the hon. the Minister fully realizes the tremendous difficulties in respect of the rural section of the Bantu population and in respect of his policy of Bantu states which will eventually be independent. We do not believe that you can solve the problem that way. We believe that you have to solve this problem as a whole. We believe that there must be representation in this House. It is no good hon. members opposite telling us that we in the United Party have had a whole series of policies. In principle the policy of this party has always been based on the foundations which were laid by General Smuts and General Hertzog. That is still the position to this day. Some of the details, it is true, have changed, but throughout the cardinal difference between us and the Government has been on this question of representation of the various colour groups, and I say to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development that he bears a very special responsibility in that regard; the Government as a whole bears that responsibility. These tragic events which we have faced recently and which we are discussing here to-day must be taken merely as symptoms. It throws a tremendous responsibility on each and every one of us and, of course, a particular responsibility on those who sit on the other side because they are in power for the time being.

There is one other thing in respect of which I believe that this Government is failing, and it is this: It was very well expressed by an old Roman many, many years ago: “The safety of a nation depends not on its armies but on its friends”. Sir, all of us, whatever our political views might be, cannot help feeling deeply concerned about the fact that South Africa has lost so many friends in the outside world. It is a problem that we must face because the ultimate well-being of South Africa, quite apart from finding a solution to our internal problems, obviously depends upon arriving at a situation where South Africa is once again a member welcomed in the world community and playing its full part. I believe that we can achieve that position but I do not believe that we can achieve it on the basis of the policies followed by this Government at the present time. I would say that the first thing that we have to do in an effort to regain that respect and support is to bend our backs to the task of seeking to give dignity to every individual in the country irrespective of his or her colour. The method is important. There must be the utmost humanity in our approach. I believe that there is a tremendous responsibility on our shoulders, probably the most difficult task that any country on the face of the globe has to face, and that is to bring harmony within this multi-racial country. I believe that it can only be done in the very first place by providing for the recognition of the dignity of the individual and for the utmost humanity in our relations, the one with the other. I believe that the achievement of the security and the happiness of the individual should be the prime objective. Sir, I do not believe that you further that sort of objective by separating a wife from her husband and children. [Time limit.]

It was not my intention to take part in this debate, but after the performance we have just had on the part of the United Party, a performance typical of them, I feel obliged to say a few words. In the first instance the accusation has been levelled at us that we are to a great extent responsible for the position which developed at Paarl. I just want to give a few facts briefly. The hon. member said that we ought to have known that everything was not right in connection with the administration of Bantu affairs at Paarl because of the way the Superintendent and other persons were acting there. I want to say immediately that those things were brought to my attention at that time. I immediately brought the matter to the notice of the police. I instructed all my officials to sort out every possible data and to assist the police as far as possible in those investigations. They did very thorough work. We know what the results of that investigation were, namely, that the superintendent was acquitted but what is more the attitude of everybody concerned was of such a nature that he was not even suspended; he only went on holiday. Subsequently he was found not guilty of all the charges made against him and he was reinstated in his position. To my surprise I received a letter from the Bantu Advisory Board thanking me for his reinstatement. It must be very clearly understood that the Department of Bantu Administration and Development does not appoint superintendents. That is done by the city councils and municipalities. All we do is to approve of the appointments. Unless there is very good reason not to approve of them we do not take any action. This was a case where the person had been in the service of the police for a number of years; he had passed various examinations; the report about him was to the effect that he had done excellent work at Paarl. Everybody only had praise for him and there was no reason whatsoever why he should not be appointed. But even when action is subsequently taken against such a person such action is taken by the city council. It is only in the most extreme cases, when things have been brought to my notice, that I take action. Hon. members must remember that if the Minister were to take action and it is subsequently found that there were insufficient grounds for him to have done so, such a person has grounds to make a very serious case against the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. I think it has been proved in the past that when we have sufficient data at our disposal that such a person is not acting reasonably he is immediately dismissed. In this case there was no proof of that; nobody brought anything of that nature to our attention. There is one thing about which I hold very strong views and in connection which I have warned municipalities, namely, that one of their main duties is to treat the Bantu fairly and reasonably and humanly. I regard that as the key to all success.

I now come to a second attack. The hon. member said there were doubts about the Advisory Board. That Advisory Board was appointed by the Bantu and it was under the supervision of the municipality. It is not under the supervision of the Department. I think that is one of the defects which still exist. When we try to gain a greater measure of control over matters of this nature hon. members opposite are the people who say that the Minister wants to deprive local authorities of all their powers; then they make a whole hullabaloo about it. When anything goes wrong, however, they blame the Minister. Surely that is an unreasonable attitude. I repeat these advisory boards fall under the municipalities and nothing was brought to my attention to indicate that everything was not as it should be. The hon. member wanted to know why we had not already appointed a Bantu board there, but that is something which the Bantu have to do on a voluntary basis. As the hon. member knows that is also the position in Johannesburg. Is it fair on the part of the hon. member to level this charge against the administration?

The accusation has also been made against us that we are breaking up families. But that is not true. I think if ever a Government has promoted family life it is this Government. When we say that migrant labour should be used to a great extent, as in the past, hon. members say we are breaking up families. If they say that they should get up and tell us pertinently that their policy is that every Bantu who comes to work in the urban areas must be entitled to bring his family with him. Then they should say that frankly to the world. They know they are not in favour of that but why do they want the public and the world outside to believe that they are to some extent in favour of it? They pretend that that is the cause of all the trouble here. If such a policy were to be allowed in South Africa from 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the Bantu would be settled in the urban areas within a few years. Nobody who is to-day aware of world tendencies will deny that. Durban has estimated that if they were to provide housing for the Bantu who were there under the migratory labour system alone they would have to provide at least 30,000 houses to accommodate those families. Apart from the stupidity of it, it would be an unwise policy because we shall get the position that the Bantu areas will become depopulated; they will not be developed at all and you will have an influx to the towns.

These matters were also raised in respect of my action in the Mapheele family incident in Paarl. What is the history of that case? Many people talk about this case without having taken the trouble of going into its history. This Bantu worked in Paarl. He got married in 1957. He got married in Sterkspruit near Herschel. His wife remained there. It was discovered in 1962 that his wife had illegally come to Paarl. She says she came there in 1959 but the officials have ascertained that she only came there in 1962. Where was she in the meantime? She was with her family. She and her husband were prepared to live like that; that did not cause any difficulty. If we were to allow every person who leaves an area to get married to bring his wife back with him, I repeat, the Bantu areas will become depopulated. And just think what a position you will have in the White areas, Sir. She then tested the law. I want to say this morning—I have no proof for this—that I am firmly convinced that the Black Sash is behind all this difficulty. She has been instigated to make this case; she did not do so on her own accord. She has been instigated to make this case and now that she has become the victim they run to me. Prior to that they did not know me. Oh no, I did not count at all. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) knows that when there are deserving cases nothing gives me greater pleasure than to assist. Had this been a deserving case that husband and wife should have got in touch with my Department.

I now want to deal with an important matter. My greatest difficulty in South Africa to-day, particularly in the urban areas, is the fact that there are a number of meddlesome old women who have nothing to do. Instead of looking after their families they go amongst the Bantu making them believe that they have grievances. They tell the Bantu from morning to night what terrible laws exist in this country. They tell the Bantu that those terrible laws were made by this terrible Government. They tell the Bantu of all the evil this Government has brought about for them. They think by doing that they will gain the goodwill of the Bantu but what are they really doing? They are promoting the objectives of the Poqo movement. Nothing else. I want to mention one name and that is the name of Mrs. Pearson in Paarl. Many people say she is mad, but she belongs to the Black Sash. These old women are, however, not the only ones who are doing this sort of thing; there are certain people in the employ of municipalities who also do it. They set about it very subtly. If they have to apply a fair and reasonable law—and the Government has passed most of those—they say that law was passed by the municipality. But when the Bantu object to the regulations of the municipality they are told: It is very difficult; this is not a law passed by the municipality; this is a law passed by the Government. They systematically create a grievance against the Government. Whom do they serve by doing that? They serve nobody but these hostile movements which are operating on a large scale in the urban areas.

Is the Minister saying that the City Council of Paarl was hostile to the Government?

I did not say a word about the City Council of Paarl. I was talking about certain officials in city councils. I was showing how some people were obsessed with the idea of undermining the Government. Not only do they do a disservice to the White man in the country but to the Bantu in that area as well. I am convinced that action such as this has been very detrimental to the Bantu. That has been the reason why more than one Bantu has become the victim of those people, so much so that many people have been murdered. That is the sort of result that flows from such action.

The hon. member said there was only one solution and that was that those people should have representation in this House. That will solve everything, Sir! Surely the hon. member knows what is happening in Kenya. There they are represented in Parliament by their own people but do you know of any location where there have been greater dissatisfaction and more murders than in that location of Nairobi? I was there myself. I know what is happening there. In no location in South Africa are more murders committed than in that location. I shall be pleased if the hon. member would just get into his car during the recess and go to Rhodesia and visit that location at Salisbury. Their own people also sit in Parliament there. I ask again: Where is there a location in which more murders are committed and in which there is greater dissatisfaction than in that location in Rhodesia? That did not bring about peace; it has given rise to murder. It has given rise to problems. But I want to remind hon. members again what the position was here prior to 1948, particularly between the years 1939 and 1948. What position did we have in South Africa? How many clashes did we have then?

Many fewer than now.

Just think how many murders were committed among the Bantu themselves. Eventually each group had to establish his own home guard from amongst its own ranks for protection. That is no longer happening in South Africa to-day. Can you remember what the position was here in Cape Town, Sir? Do you remember the terrible things which happened here?

Crime is far more prevalent to-day.

Then you do not know your history. Just imagine a member of Parliament making a statement like that, Sir. How often has it not been proved that crime was far more prevalent in those days? Many more murders were committed and there was much more dissatisfaction than to-day. It was this Government which created order out of chaos. It was this Government which cleared the slums of Johannesburg and which separated the Bantu there in ethnic groups. Why? Because ethnic grouping is the basis of sound family relationships. Go to Johannesburg to-day. They are proud to-day of the healthy state of affairs which obtains in Johannesburg and Pretoria and other places, but that is the result of what this Government has done. I want to say clearly that I think the position in Cape Town can be much better, and it ought to be much better. The facts are there as clear as daylight. The hon. member said that one of the main reasons was the question of human relationships. If there is one aspect which this Government has tackled it is precisely that. Which Government has ever given so much personal attention to human relationships than this Government? Not only outside but in the urban areas as well. A few years ago I appointed an official on a full-time basis whose sole function was to get in touch with the police and other bodies in order to create a better attitude towards the Bantu and to eliminate all the irritating factors. We got wonderful assistance from the police in that respect and they cooperated wonderfully with us. I go further. This Government released some of its officials from office work for a great part of the day. Whereas they were formerly tied to their offices and did all their work just in the offices additional staff were appointed so that they could in future devote most of their time to the urban areas in order to make contact with the Bantu and to make as much contact as possible with people to persuade them to treat the Bantu more humanly. Who are the people who adopt that one-sided attitude, the attitude that the Bantu only constitute a labour market? They do not sit on this side of the House. If ever there has been an unjustified and unfair accusation it is that. Those are the people who have such a great deal to say about South Africa and conditions in South Africa. I even want to accuse the hon. member for Houghton and those who think like her of that. They look upon the Bantu simply as a labour market and not as human beings.

What about Oppenheimer?

Oppenheimer and those people. It is of no avail your saying that the Bantu should be paid higher wages if you yourself do not set an example and pay them better wages. Let the hon. member for Houghton set the example. I am informed that many members who talk about higher wages for the Bantu do not pay their Bantu servants what I pay my little piccanin per month. That is why I say that every section of the community must reveal a more human attitude and it is very unfair on the part of the hon. member to say that it is this side of the House who adopts that attitude. I reject that. I want to say this to-day and I say it because I am convinced in my soul that that is so and because it is based on facts, that no section of the community treats its Bantu people as fairly and as reasonably and as humanly as the farming community, English-speaking as well as Afrikaans-speaking; that old-established community in the Republic of South Africa. Those Bantu families were practically part of the White families. We do not find that in the cities to-day. They are nothing more than labourers; there is no link between them and their employer, so that they can sometimes be treated like human beings. I want to say immediately that there are one or two factories in Durban which have set the fine example of appointing officials to serve as a link between the two and the results have been wonderful. I repeat that I associate myself with the idea that an appeal should be made to our people and I make this appeal not only to this or that party, but I am making this appeal to every White person in South Africa. It is of no avail our passing the most wonderful laws in the world here. Those laws have to be carried out by every White person in South Africa. I repeat that I find it very unreasonable of the United Party. I repeat that I find it very unreasonable of the United Party, whenever we come with sound legislation which must prevent this sort of thing so that we can act when things go wrong, to adopt the attitude that we are making inroads on the powers of local authorities. We have just recently had a heated debate on this subject. Do you remember the fuss the United Party made up about that, Sir, and I am blessed if they do not come here a few days later and ask us why we did not step in and take action sooner? Surely it is not fair to say that. That is why I say it is for every White person in South Africa to carry out our laws as well as for every Bantu of South Africa and the way they carry out those laws rests with those Bantu and those White people. It is in that respect that we plead that those laws should be carried out in the spirit in which they were passed. Because no matter what people say the spirit behind this legislation is the desire to serve South Africa, to serve not only the White section of the population of South Africa, but particularly to serve the Bantu population of South Africa. We should remember that the scheme we have embarked upon is aimed at bringing about the happiness and the salvation of every national group, of every person in South Africa. It is not something which can be achieved overnight. It has to be worked out systematically and in striving for that ideal it may often happen that many people get hurt. That is the inevitable result of every great and noble ideal that is carried into effect. The result is that certain people may suffer hardship. We must, however, bear in mind that our objective is the salvation and happiness of the great masses. That is why this Government cannot be accused of not keeping count with the human dignity of the Bantu. We have now taken these important steps of giving the Bantu a greater say in their own affairs, of assisting them to develop their own areas economically, of developing their own towns where they can have their families with them. What better proof do you need, Sir, that this Government acknowledges the human dignity of the Bantu? However, we are condemned for that time and again by the opposite side.

I just want to deal with two other matters, and I now come to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). Wherever I go I make a point of warning the Bantu against the evil spirits which go about, the wolves and all the rest of it. I thought that if there were one person in this House who would have got up and said: “Mr. Nel, I wish you luck” it would have been the hon. member for South Coast. But what did we get for it?

You said we were wolves.

I find it difficult when the cap fits anybody; I cannot help that; if the cap fits that is their own affair. In that case they must have a guilty conscience. But I have always said very clearly that they were the people who were disturbing the good relationships between White and non-White. They are the people who have only one object in mind, namely, to see what they can get out of the Bantu. They are the people who are bent on creating chaos in South Africa and not order. They are the wolves, the jackals, they are the beasts who walk at night. And now the hon. member for South Coast says: “Why do you assault my little children like that”? He immediately takes those little chickens under his wing and says: “These are my children”.

And I shall also deal with that.

I shall be pleased if he would, Sir, as long as he adheres to the truth. It is the duty of every person to warn the Bantu.

Your own official document!

It is also the task of the hon. member for South Coast. He must not try to make capital out of this. He too should warn the Bantu. I learned one lesson from my late father. At the end of the month when he paid his labourers he usually discussed all their little problems with them; he gave them guidance and advice and nowhere in the world were there labourers who worked better. All that is needed is that little guidance, because the information they get to-day, particularly up till recently, in most cases come from malicious persons. And the duty which rests upon every White man in South Africa and on every Bantu in South Africa is to counter that malicious spirit, no matter who creates it. As far as that duty is concerned we should at least stand together. If the people of South Africa would only take the trouble once a month of having a little heart to heart chat with their own Bantu employees, as was customary amongst the farmers of olden days, we shall really get a new South Africa. I heartily endorse everything Dr. Eiselen has said in this connection. That is why I think the hon. member is very unwise in saying that this is a charge against my Department, or a charge against officials, or against this Government. Surely that is unreasonable.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, as the Boers used to say “Ik hebt gezegt” (I have said all I wanted to say).

That is the best speech you have ever made.

The hon. Minister will forgive me if I do not deal with any of the points he raised because I wish to confine myself in the main with the position of the Coloured people in South Africa, and I am anxious to deal with certain questions which have been raised by certain hon. members opposite with regard to the Coloured people. I am sorry the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) is not here, because he posed certain questions to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the vote for Coloured women. As I understood the speech of the hon. member, it was a speech of despair. It was almost a plaintive cry for assistance and help to the Opposition. He said if only the Leader of the Opposition would do certain things it would help the Government party in regard to their position vis-à-vis the outside world, and then he proceeded to ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he was in favour of extending the vote to Coloured women and the 18-year-olds. Now he is not present. I wanted to put it to him that as he believes, and the Government believes, that the Nationalists will be in power for many more years to come, and therefore that the Coloured people will remain on a separate roll, I want to ask the Government whether under those circumstances they will extend the vote to Coloured women. Unfortunately there is no one here who will answer. The Minister of Coloured Affairs is not here, nor is the hon. member for Vereeniging, and perhaps the Prime Minister may want to answer this question, but perhaps it is too difficult for him. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether they are prepared to give to the Bantu women of South Africa greater rights than to the Coloured women. I want to ask the Minister of Bantu Administration whether he believes that the Bantu women should have greater rights than the Coloured women, because the Bantu women have got the vote, but the Coloured woman is still denied the vote. I want to know the reason for it and why they cannot have the vote.

A qualified vote.

The hon. member says he will give a qualified vote to the Coloured women. Is he speaking for the Government? I have pleaded in this House that the Coloured women who are educated should have the vote. There are thousands of Coloured women more educated than many of our White women are and they are denied the vote, and I want to know why it cannot be extended to them. I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether he has changed his mind in regard to the Coloured youths of 18 years of age. When I raised the question of Coloured youths of 18 at the time when the electoral law was amended to extend the vote to White youths of 18, the Minister of Finance indicated that he would not give the Coloured youth of 18 the vote because he had not reached a sufficiently high state of civilization. He said this—

Of course, that is not quite the position. I am not going to say that it was a dishonest reply, but the Coloured youth who has passed his matriculation and has passed the same examination as other White youths of 18 years of age have surely reached the stage where they, too, can have the vote. I want to know why the Government persists in denying the Coloured youths the same rights that the White youths have. There is no reason for it, except perhaps fear that if they put the Coloured youths on the roll or give the vote to Coloured women the Government will fall. It is therefore not on the basis of justice, but on the basis of fear that the rights which Coloured people are entitled to have, and the rights which the Coloured women are entitled to have, and the rights the Coloured youth of 18 is entitled to have are denied to them. I say the time has arrived that the Minister of Coloured Affairs, as he indicated in his speech at Paarl in regard to the future political rights of the Coloured people, should see that the Coloured woman and the Coloured youth of 18 should receive the vote.

There is another matter. If we want, as hon. members opposite say, to gain the goodwill of the world, what reply can they give to the fact that in the year 1963, 53 years after Union, the Coloured people in the Transvaal and the Free State and Natal are still denied the franchise? There can be no valid reason why in 1963 the same position should obtain that we had in 1910. I say that it is completely wrong of this Government to refuse to have the Coloured people of the Transvaal, the Free State and Natal represented in this House in the same way as the Coloured people of the Cape. I say that if the Minister of Coloured Affairs is sincere, and if the Government is sincere in regard to the Coloureds, they should take immediate steps to have those people represented in this House by Members of Parliament. There is no excuse on this issue. When the hon. member for Vereeniging posed those questions in regard to the vote for the Coloured women and the 18-year-olds, I want to tell him that I am prepared that that should happen. I am sorry he is not here, because I wanted to ask him whether he is in favour of it and it will assist me in attaining that object. We have had several debates in this House from time to time about the economic position of this country and in regard to the dearth of manpower. The Deputy Minister of Labour will remember that we discussed this matter under the Apprenticeship Bill and he will remember the notices of motion which emerged from hon. members opposite in regard to the lack of skilled workers, the lack of European apprentices, to fill the many vacant positions in our industry and in our commerce. We keep on crying out that we have not got the manpower when in fact we have the manpower. The Coloured people of South Africa should be accepted as part and parcel of our commercial and industrial structure, but the Government, because of colour prejudice, refuses to make use of that vast reservoir of labour which is available to this country. I cannot see why the Coloured people should not be accepted. Why should we create the impression that we are short of manpower. The world will say to you, “why do you not employ the thousands and thousands of Coloured people capable of filling those positions”? The attitude of the Government is that they want more immigrants and they will give preference to those immigrants in filling vacancies in our commerce and industries but they will deny that opportunity to the Coloured man. I say it is a blot on the Government’s administration of this country that they refuse to acknowledge the part which the Coloured people can play and want to play in the development of this country. Sir, if people from overseas ask me, “why does the Government not employ the Coloured people”? What am I to reply? I have to tell them that it is purely on the basis of colour prejudice that Coloured youths are not accepted in commerce and industry; that they are not integrated in our economic structure.

Sir, you will permit me just to go back to the question of the vote for Coloured women and Coloured 18-year-olds since the hon. member for Vereeniging has now come back into the Chamber. I want to ask him whether he is in favour of giving Coloured women the vote?

No.

Why not?

I do not think it is right.

What about the 18-year-old Coloured youth?

No.

Also “no”. I have not finished yet. May I put this to the hon. member then: Why did he agree to give Bantu women the vote?

In their own homelands.

You are prepared to give greater rights to the Bantu women than you are prepared to give to the Coloured women.

Absolute nonsense.

It is not nonsense at all. Will the hon. member tell me why he refuses to give the same privilege to the Coloured women as to the Bantu women of this country?

Why not ask your pals over there?

The hon. member is the man who raised this matter. He has enough courage to say why he is not prepared to give the vote to the Coloured women while he was prepared to give it to the Bantu women. I want to say that that question will be put to the Government by the Coloured people.

Are you advising them to ask for it?

What if I am? [Interjection.] I am not interested in the bare result. You see, Sir, the hon. member for Vereeniging has not got the courage to answer me by way of interjection why he is prepared to give the Bantu women the vote and not the Coloured women.

I would say that if I had made the same arrangements with the Coloured people as with the Bantu I would willingly have given it to them.

They are on a separate roll.

We are dealing here with a social problem and you know it.

I want to say that the Coloured people were on a separate roll, and I want to know from the hon. member for Vereeniging why if they are on a separate roll the Coloured women should not have the vote.

Frankly, on a separate roll I would have no objection.

Very well, I have made a little headway now. And is the hon. member prepared to give the 18-year-old Coloured youth the vote if he is on a separate roll?

If they are on a separate roll, then I have no objection if they have reached the necessary educational standard.

In view of that reply, from the hon. member I want to say here that I am going to introduce a motion …

The hon. member for Vereeniging cannot sit down and deliver a speech.

I am answering the hon. member’s questions, Sir.

I think the hon. member for Vereeniging ought to thank you, Sir, for helping him out of a very awkward situation.

Order! The hon. member for Vereeniging must not allow himself to be led astray by the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett).

May I appeal to you, Sir, not to help me in this difficulty!

I must put the question then to the hon. member for Vereeniging which he put to me about the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). If the hon. member for Vereeniging is prepared to give the Coloured women and the Coloured 18-year-olds the vote on the basis of a separate roll will the Prime Minister be prepared to do so?

You had better ask the Prime Minister.

The hon. member asked me about the views of the hon. member for Germiston (District) and I am asking him now about the views of the Prime Minister.

Very well, I will ask the Prime Minister.

Well, I have made some headway. I think the Coloured people will be quite thankful that I have raised this matter, because next year I am going to introduce a motion with regard to this matter and I expect the hon. member to second it.

Are you satisfied that the position will have improved so much this year?

I am satisfied that there are thousands of Coloureds, boys and girls who by passing their matriculation have reached the same educational standard as many European youths who are entitled to the vote, and you cannot deny those Coloured youths the right which you have given to the White youths.

I assure you for what it is worth that I have no objection to their being given the vote on a separate roll.

Anyway, I think we have dealt with the hon. member for Vereeniging now. I think he has got out of a very difficult position very cleanly, and I think the Coloured people will be very happy to know that at least one man on that side adopts that attitude. It is probably his old United Party blood coming out.

Are you speaking on behalf of the United Party?

Sir, I have dealt with the question of the refusal of the Government to recognize the worth of the Coloured man in South Africa in the economic field and in the industrial field. I do believe that the world will want to know why the Coloured people are not accepted to fill the very many vacancies which the Government has told us exists and why industry and commerce should be prejudiced because they are not allowed to fill those vacancies from the ranks of the Coloured people.

I want to say just a few words with regard to the Prime Minister’s speech. I am sorry he has left the Chamber. The Prime Minister’s speech reminded me of the song written by Noel Coward, “Don’t be beastly to the Germans”. The Prime Minister almost said to us, “Don’t be beastly to the Nats” because he said, “Don’t attack us; understand our position; we are doing our best to have parallel development in this country; we are doing all we can for the Coloured, for the Bantu and for the Europeans”, I want to ask the hon. member for Vereeniging and others in which way they are helping the Coloured man when they bring in job reservation? I discussed this matter with a member of the Government the other day.

They are being protected against the Bantu.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) says that job reservation protects the Coloured man against the Native.

Of course it does.

I want to ask him this question: He voted here for a Bill only a week or two ago. Does he know that under that Bill a Coloured man who is a carpenter in Cape Town cannot go and work at East London? Against whom is he protected in East London?

That has nothing to do with Section 77.

I am talking about the Bill which we passed the other day. The hon. member does not know what I am talking about and he does not know which Bill I am talking about.

The Coloured man can work in Cape Town.

Has he no right to go anywhere in South Africa to sell his services? Why should he not be entitled to go and work in East London?

Why cannot he go to Heilbron?

He does not want to be associated with the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) that is why he does not want to go to Heilbron. Sir, this is a serious matter. The hon. member wants to know why he cannot work in Cape Town and why he should work in East London. That is not the point. The point is that the Government has brought in a law preventing Coloured people living in Cape Town who want to go to East London to do a job of work on a building from doing so. The Bill that we passed the other day makes it impossible for a carpenter who works in Cape Town to go to East London because East London is completely protected in favour of the European. Port Elizabeth is partially protected, Mossel Bay is partially protected, but East London is completely protected.

Nonsense.

Hon. members opposite do not know the terms of the Bill for which they voted because they are just a lot of yes-men. When the Minister of Native Affairs tells them to vote a certain way they blindly vote. They do not understand the Bill that they pass. I want to say that I am also going to America next month and I am also going to be asked about the Coloured people in South Africa. What reply am I to give the people in America when I am asked why a Coloured man is only allowed to work here and not in East London. The hon. the Minister of Labour will agree with me that under the job reservation which he brought into being East London is completely reserved for Europeans.

Is that right? He is consulting the Minister of Coloured Affairs.

Group areas are excluded.

Yes, group areas, but East London as a city is completely excluded. [Interjections] Sir, what I say here is correct.

You are not correct. You are wrong as usual.

No, I am right as usual. The Minister of Coloured Affairs does not know anything about our labour legislation. I want to know what I have to tell these people overseas when they ask me why the Coloured people cannot offer their services freely to anybody anywhere in South Africa.

Why should you tell them?

Sir, I have had no reply from hon. members on that side. Anyway, I leave the question of job reservation. It is a most vicious law but I will not say any more about it.

Order! The hon. member cannot attack legislation passed by this House

I withdraw the word “vicious”.

Why do you want to tell America these things? What have they to do with it?

I do not want to tell the people of America about it, but I say this: What is to be my reply to anybody who asks me that question in America.

We are not concerned with their labour legislation; why should they be concerned with ours.

The hon. member must understand that this question of job reservation has received world-wide publicity and I want to ask the hon. member for Vereeniging what my reply is to be if anybody asks me.

Ask the hon. member for Germiston (District). He was there too. Ask him what he said about the mines.

I do not want to ask the hon. member for Germiston (District) anything. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark must not try to shift the onus. Anyway, Sir, there is no answer from the Government. They realize that they have made a mistake and that they have no answer. The Coloured people, Sir, will be called upon in the light of what we have been told by the Minister of Defence to play their part to save the White people of South Africa.

What about themselves?

And themselves; that is quite correct. What are you doing to make it possible for them to help themselves? They are not entitled to be armed; they are not entitled to have the same facilities as the Europeans. These 1,500,000 Coloured people who should belong to us without any strings attached, who should be integrated with us to make our population 4,250,000 as against 11,000,000 Blacks, are being separated from us by the Government. What is the Government doing to help them to protect themselves their families and their children and South Africa? [Time limit.]

May I put a question to you? You say that the Coloureds should be absorbed into the White community. Are you also in favour of taking up into the White community those Coloureds whose fathers are Bantu and who can hardly be distinguished from the Bantu?

Hon. members opposite are trying hard to trap me but they will not succeed. The father has to be classified and his children are classified in the same race. Does the hon. member not know that?

As what?

The Classification Board of the Government will classify them as either Bantu or Coloured. If they are classified as Bantu they will be subject to the laws governing the Bantu but if they are Coloureds then I expect them to be treated as Coloureds. Sir, in times of trouble you cannot expect the Coloured people to come to your assistance while in peacetime you deny them in the elementary right of South African citizenship. You cannot expect them, much as they love South Africa, to fight for South Africa if you apply job reservation and the group areas and other restrictive legislation against them.

I want to say this in conclusion. This debate has indicated one thing and that is that we are all conscious of what might happen in this country in the near future in the light of steps which are being taken in the world against South Africa. There has been a plea, a sincere plea, from both sides in the interest of South Africa to stand together. All I say is that the Coloured people, despite all that you have done to them, will respond to the call of South Africa; I give hon. members that assurance, but I want a change of heart, a changed outlook, on the part of the Government towards the Coloured people, and I promise you that if you do unto them as you want them to do unto you you will have 1,500,000 sincere and loyal people who will stand by you in your hour of need.

I should like to return to the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) and say something in connection with what he has said. I think the hon. member is a little presumptuous when he accuses the hon. the Minister of Justice of having devoted half his time indulging in cheap politics instead of talking about this important Snyman report. The hon. member is condemning his own party by saying that because the hon. the Minister was replying to his leader and members of his party. The hon. member now says that the Minister reacted to cheap politics, in other words, he is accusing the hon. member for Rondebosch (Sir De Villiers Graaff) of having dragged cheap politics into this debate.

He was right there.

I am not saying that he was wrong, but I wonder what he has made himself guilty of. Here we have a person who is legally trained. I am tempted to say to the hon. member that he is only an attorney. I regard attorneys as being semiskilled at law. What does the hon. member do? The report says that in the main the Bantu in the cities have retained their tribal connections. The hon. member actually comes and plays on words and says it also means that they have not in the main retained their tribal connections. As far as I know the words used in the English text mean that the Bantu have in the main retained their tribal connections. Those who have lost their tribal connections are the exceptions, the agitator type, not the other Bantu. I am pleased that the hon. member for Vereeniging has condemned the United Party from A to Z for the attitude they have adopted in this debate. That attitude has disappointed every one of us.

One asks oneself, Sir, why hon. members of the United Party have displayed a bitterness during this debate as we have not had for years. I have never known the United Party members to be so embittered as they were during this debate. Take the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson); take the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp); from the beginning of his speech to the end he wallowed in mud, so deep that I wonder whether he will ever get out of it again. You ask yourself why the United Party adopt this attitude in this debate and you can only come to one conclusion. They maintain that South Africa is going under, but that is because they equate themselves with South Africa. What is really going under in South Africa is the United Party. They have systematically gone backward during the past 15 years. After every sitting they are a few thousand supporters poorer and we a few thousand supporters richer because of the un-South African way they act in this House. It is a pity that that is the position. I have said on previous occasions that I believe there should be a strong opposition in a country, at least so strong that it stands a chance of forming the alternative Government. Unfortunately we cannot say that about this Opposition. Their staunchest supporter cannot regard them as the future Government.

The hon. the Minister of Justice asked the United Party what United Party policy should be advocated overseas seeing that they change their policy so often. I am only sorry that the Minister did not add that they have already abandoned their race federation plan.

In what respect?

The hon. member asks “In what respect”? It was only last year that Senator Fagan said that this Transkei plan fitted in with their race federation plan. Do you not remember that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) wrote articles in which he said that the Transkei would become a separate state under their race federation plan?

He did not say that.

He did.

Unfortunately I do not have those articles of his with me but I shall hand them over to another hon. member in order to prove that what I am saying here is correct. The Russellites who are no longer with us in this Chamber said the same thing on their behalf. They adopted the attitude that the Transkei would become a state within their federation scheme. The former member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) said that and the hon. member for Yeoville repeatedly said so in speeches. What do we find now? They are opposing the Transkei legislation and I want to say this that no provision is made in that legislation for the local Government of the Transkei to have a single power which will not also be granted to a state which forms portion of a federation.

Local Government, yes.

Hon. members of the United Party have based their entire opposition to this measure on what may perhaps be relevant in this House within 25 years when further powers are conferred upon the Transkeian Government or perhaps within 10 years or perhaps within a much longer period. They completely lost sight of the reality and that is the reason why they are losing thousands of votes every year; that is the reason why they are going backward and why they get up in this House in despair and embitterment and say that the country is going under, actually meaning that the United Party is going under.

In connection with this question of the Government’s policy of separate development, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has made two allegations which I want to discuss. The one is that we are creating two separate economies. I wish the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would listen for a moment; I am referring to something he has said. He can talk about Danskraal later on. He said that the policy of separate development would lead to two separate economies and that it would subsequently lead to more separate economies as more separate Bantu Governments were established. I want to know from him what he means by that.

That was not what I said. That is precisely what you do not understand.

It was not only he who said that but one supporter of his after the other said that. They have said that and I want to know from them what they mean by separate economies.

It was the member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) who said it.

I just want to say a word about this question of separate economies. There is no such thing as separate economies even if these areas were to become completely self-governing because the same coinage circulates in both areas; the people can move freely between the two areas and because there are no customs duties payable between the two areas. The entire economy is interchangeable from one corner of the country to the other. The economy is not affected at all by the establishment of these separate areas. The hon. member also said that the Government was now dictating to industry where it may establish itself. The Prime Minister has already reacted to that.

That is not what I said either.

The hon. member does not remember very well what he said. He said there would be two economies and he said industry could only go where the Government, with its border industry policy, said it could go. The hon. the Prime Minister replied to him and said he was wrong. Why did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not say at that stage that that was not what he had said.

When did the Prime Minister say that?

Yesterday. The Prime Minister told him that was not the case because the Government was actually encouraging industries, by means of special concessions, to go to the border areas. That was the Prime Minister’s reply to him. In respect of the whole idea of two economies …

May I ask a question?

No, your question will be a stupid one in any case. I want to ask the Government to introduce legislation similar to that they have in England in connection with the establishment of industries.

What is that?

It is the system of licensing new industries so that you can determine, by way of licensing, where an industry may be established. In that case you can exercise effective control. You can also lay down the conditions under which it can be established at a certain place. Mr. Speaker, in that case we shall have decentralization of industries in this country in the true sense of the word. Nobody will deny that decentralization is essential. We cannot have all our industries situated in one area with the result that they will be all the more vulnerable when there is trouble. I just want to leave this thought with the Government that they should think about getting industries established where they ought to be in the interests of the country by way of a policy of licensing.

The hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) said the Africa states were being assisted by Western powers to take action against us; that those Western countries were assisting them in their attempts to take aggressive steps against us. I want to subscribe to what the hon. member has said and I want to know from the Government whether something cannot be done about that. The first point that comes to my mind, Mr. Speaker, is this that I think these African states who openly say that they want to take aggressive steps against us and who say that they are setting aside 1 per cent of their budget in order to finance that aggression against South Africa are contravening the United Nations Charter. I think a charge should be made against them at UNO. But a second and important point is this that these various Africa states will have no budgets but for the financial assistance they receive from the Western nations and from America. France subsidizes the budget of the former French colonies to the tune of 60 per cent. Britain gives what they call “grants-in-aid” to the former British colonies who are becoming independent and who are making such a big fuss to-day. America gives certain financial assistance to these people. I want to know whether these countries are not acting in conflict with the United Nations Charter in subsidizing aggression against South Africa in this way; whether those countries should not be called upon to withhold their financial support as long as it is their intention to use that money to commit aggression against South Africa—a fellow member of UNO. I just wanted to make this point.

Who is giving assistance to the Transkei?

We are assisting the Transkei.

Are they commiting acts of aggression?

We are not telling the Transkei to use that money to build up armies to go and kill people. America is subsidizing the budgets of those people and those people say they are going to use 1 per cent of their budgets for that purpose. That is a frank statement of policy. The two cases are not analogous at all. It seems to me as if that hon. member is opposed to it that we should object to that. Is he opposed to it that we object at UNO that members of UNO wish to commit aggression against us?

I now want to raise a few financial matters. I notice that the Coinage Committee which has to design our new coins have referred certain suggestion to the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Industries and certain other bodies for their comments. They state what the sizes of the coins are to be and what the unit value will be. They do not, however, mention the “tickey” as a possible coin. I want to associate myself with the pleas which have come, I think, from the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) and the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. van Zyl) that we should retain the “tickey”. I want to assure the hon. the Minister that members of the Chambers of Commerce and Industries have whole-day parking facilities for their cars but that the members of the public who actually keep their businesses going come to the city for half an hour or an hour to do their purchases. The “tickey” is of the utmost importance to them. Thousands of “tickeys” are inserted in parking meters every day in every city where they have them. We must retain that coin and we must retain its present purchasing power—that is the most important. Otherwise it will be replaced by the sixpence in which case the cost of living in respect of the particular article concerned will increase 100 per cent. The hon. member will remember that when we discussed the report of the Decimal Coinage Commission I was opposed to the system of using the 10s. note as the unit because, as I said, it would affect the cost of living. I do not want to raise a controversy as to whether that has or has not happened but I do feel that it has indeed adversely influenced the cost of living to some extent. But by doing away with the “tickey” we shall definitely be doubling the price of telephone calls and parking meter fees. I want to appeal to the Minister not to do away with the “tickey” as a monetary unit. The other day when the Minister told us about this Commission and its activities he told us that the coins would be changed. I agree with him. He advanced as a reason that we should get away from the old names. I want to tell the Minister that I am not so averse to the old names. I see no reason why we should get away from them. I remember the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) telling us at that time that the very reason why we should retain the 10s. piece was so that the shilling could retain its name and so that the “tickey” could retain its name; he said that would be an advantage, particularly in the case of the shilling which was the unit used on the Stock Exchange. The Stock Exchange has, of course, now adopted the cent as the basis of their calculation. I maintain that one of the main reasons why the 10s. system was adopted was the Stock Exchange. I want to predict that the name “shilling” will be retained in general use although it will in practice be ten cents. Most people have a name and a nick name; and our coins can similarly have names and nick names. It is over a hundred years ago that the old rixdollar was abolished in South Africa yet there are still some people to-day who refer to 15c as a “daler” (riksdaalder). There is nothing wrong with that. We should not become impatient for the nation to stop using the old names; let us get rid of them in official documents, yes, but there is nothing wrong with it if the nation still uses them.

I now want to say something about the reply the Minister gave me to the question I asked in connection with the share transactions overseas. I am pleased that the Minister has given us those replies but there is still something which worries me. I should like to state a few points briefly in connection with this matter. As I see the position the following are the points which come to the fore. This scheme was originally announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance. He said that financial institutions and similar approved of institutions would be able to get permits. Every time funds were made available for this purpose we found that share prices went up in London and that they went down in Johannesburg. Another factor is this that it was never announced that this scheme had been changed or that the scheme had been extended, as the Minister put it in his reply. We found, Mr. Speaker, that when no exchange was available and prices dropped in London certain London stockbrokers bought up shares and hung on to them. When exchange became available and prices rose in London they sold those shares to the people in Johannesburg at the higher price; they consequently received their fee as stockbrokers plus a profit. The question which arises is this: How did those people know which shares to buy if they did not receive information beforehand from Johannesburg? Somebody must have said to them: “If exchange is available next week I shall require this or that and you must try to lay your hands on it in the meantime”. Another question is this: How were people from Johannesburg able to give them any information if they did not know that they would obtain the necessary permit to make those purchases? We also find this further fact, Mr. Speaker, that prices rose in London and dropped in Johannesburg regularly depending on the available exchange. It is consequently clear that secrecy has not had the desired effect and that the scheme did promote speculation. In respect of the Minister’s statement I want to ask him on what date it was decided that permits could be issued to stockbrokers to purchase shares for their own account? On whose authority was that decision taken? How did the stockbroker concerned get to know that he could apply for such a permit? I do not believe that any stockbroker would have applied for such a permit to purchase shares direct of his own accord if he had not been tipped off. This is information which the hon. the Minister will have to obtain because I do not believe he will be able to reply to me off the cuff. I definitely do not believe that any stockbroker would have made such an application for a permit if he had not heard that there was a chance of it being approved and that the scheme was to be changed. Had he done so he would have been like Jan Pampoen who enrolls at a university to become a millionaire. The question is this: Who told him that? I notice the Financial Mail of 14 June thinks the Reserve Bank ought to supply the replies to these questions. They add that it is a great pity that Mr. Greaves, who is actually the person in the Reserve Bank who controls this scheme, is overseas at the moment. But they should either get the replies from him by way of a cable or they should go through his desk. Surely he would not have locked all his papers away in such a way that the rest of the Reserve Bank cannot lay its hands on them so as to get all the facts together. The thing that flabbergasts me is that a scheme of this nature, a scheme which was announced in this House as far as I can remember, can be changed without our knowing about it or as is obvious without the Minister being kept up to date and that they were going to change it. I am convinced that the Stock Exchange Committee, particularly now that new members have been elected, will conduct a thorough inquiry as far as the stockbrokers concerned in this are concerned. Apart from the stockbrokers many questions remain unanswered, questions which call for answers. It therefore appears to me that the Minister must ask the Directorate of the Reserve Bank to order an inquiry as to what happened in the Reserve Bank in connection with this whole matter. Thirdly I also want to know whether the Minister cannot have an inquiry made as to why the scheme announced was changed in this way without his having been properly consulted. I am pleased that this scheme of issuing permits to stockbrokers has been abandoned because I think something suspicious has really taken place. It appears to me as if secrecy really serves no purpose whatsoever. It is clear that there were still fluctuations; a rise when exchange was made available and a drop when there was no exchange available. So there was speculation. I wonder whether a certain amount should not be made available every business day for the purchase of shares so that the position can be well-balanced throughout. Everybody overseas and everybody in South Africa knows that we have this scheme and it is simply a question of speculating as to the date on which the money will come through. If an amount of, say, R100,000, were made available every day I think we ought to get better results than under the present system. The amount can be adapted from time to time according to the extent to which its exchange value increases or decreases. You know, Mr. Speaker, I do not like anything happening which may bring the public under the impression that there are people who are connected with the administration of a scheme such as this and who can exploit it, because of its fluctuating character, for their own benefit. I think these are the points to which the Minister should give his attention and perhaps change the scheme accordingly. I hope I shall in due course receive replies to my questions. I do not think I can expect the Minister to reply to these questions in this debate. I do think, however, that the Reserve Bank owes us a clearer reply than the one they have given.

There is one other matter I want to raise and that is our short-term Government loans. In this respect I want to make this point that a higher percentage of Government loans ought to consist of short-term loans. I know the hon. member for Constantia said last year that “we should stop borrowing short and spending long”. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) has been fanatical about this ever since 1953. However, the present market cannot absorb the funds which are available for short-term investment. This market must be extended. Financial institutions complain that they have nowhere to invest money on short term. They have already complained to the Director of Financial Institutions and all he could do was to shrug his shoulders; he cannot do anything about it. The best proof we have of this is the low rate of interest applying to short-term loans. The interest on treasury bills is more than 50 per cent lower than the interest on bills of exchange. That is far too low. In spite of this the Government has already been obliged to embark on many more short-term loans than it was necessary for it to do before the last Budget in order to ease the market to some extent. The Government has already been obliged to allow commercial banks to invest money temporarily overseas on short term in order to ease the position. People may perhaps say that this position is abnormal to some extent at the moment but with the rate of exchange position being what it is and with the control measures which we have, I do not believe the position will change easily. There may be a slight improvement in that more money will be taken up on short term but the market available for short-term investment is not big enough unless the Government expands its own investment market for it. We passed legislation in this House to control all our financial institutions. These institutions are growing very fast; they are growing much faster, from a percentage point of view, than Government loans are growing. We compel these institutions to keep a certain part of their funds liquid. Every insurance company, every building society, every pensions scheme, all these group saving organizations and financial institutions have to keep a certain percentage of their funds liquid. The Public Debt Commissioners have to do so as well; the Post Office Savings Bank has to do so; the National Finance Corporation has to do it. They are in this position, however, that they have nowhere to invest the money they have available for short-term investment. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South)—the total percentage of our loans was 16 per cent in 1953—has already objected strenuously to this on the Public Accounts Select Committee and said too much money was being invested on short term and that that was dangerous. The Treasury appeared before the Select Committee at that time and replied to that. A subsequent Auditor-General, Mr. Cantys, appeared on behalf of the Treasury and stated the Government’s attitude. His attitude was that where it was 16 per cent at the time the Government regarded that as quite normal and safe and that to the extent to which the market for short-term investment expanded in South Africa, to the extent to which these financial institutions increased in number he saw no reason why that percentage could not be increased. He added that it was essential to keep this percentage reasonably high otherwise we would not be able to absorb the money which was available for short-term investment and that the various institutions would be obliged to invest that money overseas which we definitely do not want. In some countries up to 25 per cent of their national debt consists of short-term money. In Britain the people lend their money to the Post Office for seven days—that is a short-term national debt—and in Britain the national debt amounts to over £25,000,000; the money she owes on short term is over £6,000,000,000. It has dropped somewhat since; it varies from time to time. In America no State loan is for a period longer than seven years. That is the maximum period for which State loans are granted in America. In this country everything under five years is regarded as short-term money. Contrary to what it was in 1953 when it was 16 per cent, our present position is that our short-term national debt comprises less than 10 per cent of our total national debt. When the saving levies certificates have been redeemed it will be another 1 per cent or something like that less. So we are overdoing the position completely in the direction of Government stock to the detriment of short-term stock. One cannot say blindly that 16 per cent or 18 per cent of our short-term money ought to be invested in Government loans. The position is one where you have to test your market from day to day and from month to month according to the circumstances. We must, however, see to it that a proper balance is maintained between supply and demand until the interest on short-term loans has reached the stage where it bears a reasonable relationship to the interest on Government stock. A reasonable relationship is when the interest on short-term loans is more or less two-thirds of the interest on your long-term loans. That is more or less a reasonable ratio. At the moment it is less than 50 per cent of the interest on long-term stock. I want to ask the Minister to give his urgent attention to this matter. The position to-day is that these financial institutions which are of the utmost importance to the nation—these are the bodies which make group saving possible; they do so on a very large scale, our pensions funds alone are growing at the rate of more or less R200,000,000 per annum—do not have an investment field and we must see to it that they get one. They have gone so far as to invest in the Stock Exchange with the result that all those shares which are of a less speculative nature have experienced such a rise in prices that I hesitate to think of the financial losses those institutions will suffer one day when they have to realize their shares in order to meet their obligations or if we should have a change in the money market in the meantime. These institutions are being forced to invest more than perhaps a sound percentage of their funds in shares because they do not have a sufficiently big market for short-term investment. I think I have stated the position as I see it and I hope the Minister and the Department will give their attention to it. I hope the Minister and the Treasury will put into the effect the evidence which Mr. Cantys, the former Auditor-General gave before the Select Committee, namely, that 15 per cent/16 per cent is quite a safe percentage as far as your short-term money is concerned and that to the extent to which the market and these institutions which accumulate funds expand that percentage can even be increased.

I want to appeal to the hon. member for Constantia not to allow the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) to lead him by the nose. It is only over the past couple of years that the hon. member for Constantia has been talking about the danger of “borrowing short and spending long”. I want to tell him this that if the various deposit-receiving institutions in South Africa, and that includes the commercial banks, were to adopt that attitude every one of them will be bankrupt within a very short space of time because not one of them will be able to operate on the basis on which they operate to-day, namely, to accept money from people on a daily basis, on a three-monthly basis and even on a 12-monthly basis and on an 18-monthly basis and then to grant mortgage bonds over periods of 30 years. All of them will live in deadly fear. The State is in a much stronger position than any one of those institutions to get out of the difficulty if it really finds itself in difficulty. It can always manoeuvre things by means of treasury bills to meet its obligations.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) took the hon. Leader of the Opposition to task because the hon. Leader of the Opposition, so it was alleged, had remarked that there would be separate economies under the Government’s policy of the development of self-governing states. The Leader of the Opposition said no such thing, but had he said so, it would have been a perfectly legitimate point to make, because after all it is now clear that the step that has been taken so far as the Transkei is concerned, is a step towards eventual independence, and when that time comes, if not before, in the Transkei and in any other Bantu territories which achieve that status, quite clearly there will be facilities available to the authority governing that part of South Africa to establish a separate economy. After all, it is one of the first things that any newly emergent state does to foster its own economy, and one of the ways of doing that is to impose tariffs against the importation of products whose manufacture you wish to foster in your own area. It would be the easiest thing in the world, Sir, for these newly established states to establish tariff barriers against goods which are presently sold from manufacturing industries in the Republic of South Africa.

What section in the Transkeian Act gives him that right?

Of course it is not in the Transkeian Act at the present time, but it is abundantly clear to anyone with eyes to see that the Transkeian Act is the first stage along a line of development, and I shall refer the hon. member to advertisements put in the American Press by his own Department of Information a little later in my speech which make that very clear. But coming back to this point, we in South Africa, in our development over the years, have established barriers against the importation of goods in order to foster our industries here. In the Republic of South Africa, as we know it at the present time, the growing market, the expanding market, the market which is being sought by the majority of agricultural producers and industrialists in South Africa is the Bantu market, because there is the prospect of growth in buying power, and if we are going to cut off from our industries and our producers that growing market by shepherding the Bantu people into separate communities and separate states, from which they can erect barriers against the goods that we produce in South Africa, then that is one of the first steps on the road towards a shrinking of our economy in what is then left as the Republic of South Africa. So, Sir, the point, if it had been made by my hon. leader, is a perfectly valid one and it is one which hon. members who support the policy of the hon. Prime Minister will have to face. I emphasize not only the industrialist in the town but the producer of consumer goods on the farms just as much.

The interesting thing so far as I judge it which has emerged from this debate has been highlighted by the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett), and as he so often does in his humorous way, put his finger on the point at issue. He said to hon. members opposite: What do I tell the people overseas and the Americans in particular, when they ask me about the policy of this Government. In particular he was entitled to say: What do I tell the people overseas when they ask me about the Government’s policy, its policy as a fact and its moral basis in regard to the Coloured people and the Asiatics? The absence of any reply in that regard has been the highlight of this debate. It was painfully obvious when the hon. Prime Minister spoke for nearly two hours, that the one subject on which he was not prepared to say one single word if he could possibly avoid it was his policy towards these two racial groups. The hon. the Prime Minister has a technique which is very effective until you realize that it is a technique. It is that when you put a point to him which requires an answer and when it is embarrassing to him to answer that point, he finds the point closest to it upon which he can give an answer and then gives an answer which is not an answer to the point you put to him. He does it over and over again when the position of the Coloured people and the position of the Asiatics is put to him, as do all other hon. members opposite, except of course that they have not the facility at their finger tips which the Prime Minister has: They keep quiet.

Don’t you worry, you will get the reply all right.

One feels like aping the statement of the hon. member for Boland when he said “I am not allowed to bet in this House, otherwise one would be tempted to do so”. I am quite satisfied that when his debate has come to an end after some two days of debate, not one single member on the Government benches will have said a word as to the Government’s policy in regard to the Coloured people or the Asiatics. All of us have heard the hon. Prime Minister over and over again pinning his faith on one of two clear-cut alternatives. Either, he says, complete equality, or he says, complete separation. He said it yesterday, and he said that only along these lines was there any political morality in a case so far as the situation in South Africa was concerned. Yet, every time he says that, he refers solely to the question of the Bantu people and the White people, as though the remaining 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 did not exist on this planet, let alone in South Africa, the Coloured people and the Asiatics. Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite must imagine that the accredited diplomatic representatives in South Africa who so often sit in these galleries and that the Press representatives from abroad who very often sit in the galleries of this House must be subnormal not to spot this chink; it is not a chink, in the Government’s armour, it is a whole absence of certain parts of their armour. Until such time as the governing party faces up to the facts of the situation that they must produce some answer to the world, if not to this House so far as the Coloured people and the Asiatics are concerned, they cannot hope to carry their case, certainly not here and even less so in the countries abroad. I sometimes wish I were a millionaire, not only because it is nice to be a millionaire at times, but were I a millionaire I would offer to every single hon. member opposite £5,000 and a free air trip to Europe and America, on one condition …

That they do not come back.

… on one condition. I should be delighted to see them back, because the condition I would make would be that they should carry out a lecture tour of Europe and America, explaining to the people there the principles of their Asiatic and their Coloured policy, and I am quite certain that just as we will not hear a single word in this debate on those subjects, not one of them would accept a gift of £5,000 to carry out an assignment, which one would think a public representative of a governing party, anybody, would only be too glad to take and to accept as an easy task.

It must be in some ways quite comforting and quite easy to be a Member of Parliament in the Nationalist interest. Apart from the facilities that one has to attend rugby matches, one has the facility of being able to ignore facts. When a fact is difficult, when a fact presents a problem, one pretends that it does not exist, and that is the one thing, in addition of course to the history which hon. members opposite have to live down, that is the one thing which makes their position impossible not only here so far as thinking people are concerned, but in the world outside. Nothing was more clear than that after we had listened to the speeches of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for Yeoville.

What do you want to know?

It is not what I want to know, it is what I should like to force into the heads of people such as the hon. member because he is one of those who typifies the approach that when a fact is difficult you pretend that it does not exists.

I should like to come for a moment to the argument put up by the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. His attitude was that of course this side misrepresents the true position, and that he represents a party and a Department which fosters family ties. He brought in at that stage the situation of Mrs. Mapheele, referred to by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson). Sir, we are used at times to see the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration becoming worked up with enthusiasm over his policy. He was greatly worked up in this debate with annoyance over what Mrs. Mapheele had done. It is very difficult indeed to follow his arguments. His argument was: Why did she not come to see me or my Department instead of going to a court of law? He was most upset that she had gone to a court of law rather than to see him and his Department in order to get out of her difficulties.

He never said that. He said the Black Sash did it.

I stand by my statement, despite that interruption. What is the position? On the Minister’s own statement in this House, this woman was illegally, contrary to the law, in Paarl. She was living illegally in Paarl. That was the view of the hon. Minister at all times and that was the view of his Department. That being so, what earthly reason could there have been for her to go and see the Minister or the Department? Had she done so, she would merely have been told that she was illegally there.

For the same reason that she wants to rely on mercy.

How can you use reasons of mercy when the law is against you?

Your argument is that she could not approach the Department at first because the law was against her.

The hon. member for Kempton Park has not heard my argument yet. I am merely stating what the Minister’s argument was. He said that that woman was these illegally. But despite that he asks why she did not come to see him instead of going to a court of law. I see the hon. member agrees. Had she gone to see the Minister or his Department, they would have said, had they been law-abiding folk, and I presume they are, “We are very sorry, but the law is against you; we sympathize greatly with your position, but you must go because the law says you must go”.

The Minister has a discretion.

Of course he has not got a discretion in those circumstances. What was she to do in those circumstances but to test the law in the courts, to attempt to show by means of taking the matter to court that the law was different from what the hon. Minister believed it to be and that the law was different from what the Department of Bantu Administration believed it was. Only having done that, had she any chance to stay in the Paarl locality. In other words, she took the only course open to her, on the admission of the hon. Minister himself. Yet he waxes hot over this case. It is symptomatic of his approach and the approach of the Government party to matters of this kind. Individuals, and this is the approach and it is an approach of which I do not approve, individuals may not have rights which they can enforce. They may come and ask for permission, but they may not have rights which they can demand to have enforced by an independent authority. It is that approach which causes a lot of trouble in the administration of Bantu Affairs.

One of the remarkable things in this debate has been the absence of any condemnation by hon. members on the other side of the position at Paarl. We have had a tirade by the hon. Minister against Mrs. Mapheele, who did no more than go to court in an attempt to establish an interpretation of the law favourable to herself, something which any hon. member in this House is entitled to do at any time. Against that we had the tirade of the hon. Minister. But one glance at the Snyman Commission Report reveals a situation amongst certain officials at Paarl which deserves the most severe condemnation. But no, Sir, not one word!

We have not had the report yet. You, on the other side, got advanced copies.

The hon. member could have had it in his possession for the last 48 hours if he had asked for it. Quite apart from copies being available, so far as I know it has been splashed over the Press for two days.

Then the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration went on to say that there was a great deal more crime during the period 1930 to 1948, than under the administration of the present Government. I do not know where he gets his information from because had he glanced at the Report of the Commissioner of the S.A. Police for the year 1961, at page 15, he would have found that there has been a steady increase in crime from 1948, reaching its peak in 1959, and then declining slightly in the years 1960 and 1961, but nevertheless being substantially in advance of what it was in 1948. The figures, something which hon. members opposite at times tend to overlook, the figures of prosecutions per 1,000 of the population were 92 in 1948 and 118 in 1959, and I may say that from 1948 back to 1912 there is a steady decline from 92 to 46. So for the hon. Minister to suggest that there has been a steady increase in crime between 1930 and 1948, and then a decline from 1948 onwards is simply to fly in the face of facts. Then we had a tirade from the hon. Minister on the allegations that have been made by this side of the House that Government policy is to stand for moveable labour units. But that is very close to a phrase used by the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration himself, who used the phrase “interchangeable labour units”.

I did not use those words. Where did I use them?

If the hon. Deputy Minister will refer back to his own speeches, and had he listened to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in his speech he would realize that that was a phrase he used, if I am not mistaken, in the debate on the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill. That is the concept exactly conveyed by that Bill and by the earlier legislation which was withdrawn, not something coined by us, although many of us used a similar phrase in that debate. It is a phrase coined by the hon. Minister which presents exactly his point of view.

The remainder of the speech by the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration was that the Government stands for the fostering of family ties and family units. I said earlier in my speech that it is so comfortable to be a Government member because one simply ignores facts if they are embarrassing. Let us test this. Which party is the party that stands for the prevention of employers housing married employees, or providing houses for married employees? Which party prevents Bantu from living where they work? And I need go no further than domestic servants. Which party endorses out of the Cape Province Bantu who have been here for a long time, whilst at the same time allowing an even greater influx of new Bantu to the western Cape from the eastern Cape areas? What is that other than impermanence? Were all Bantu removed from the western Cape, one could understand it and hon. members opposite could have an argument then that Bantu were being removed because they wish to establish them in communities with family life elsewhere. But that is not the situation. Whilst established Bantu are moved out, a greater number, as we know from the figures for the first three months of this year, moved in, in Government employment apart from anything else. For any Minister who stands for that sort of thing, to stand up in this House and to say that his Government stands for and that his policy is designed to develop family units, makes nonsense of words.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the Snyman Report, as dealt with by the hon. Minister of Justice. The hon. Minister referred to the situation as dealt with in that report, and he emphasized that report as establishing in his view support for the Government contention that the majority of urban Bantu still have tribal links.

Nonsense!

I hope the hon. Deputy Minister will bear with me for five minutes and I will attempt to demonstrate to him where he is wrong. Mr. Speaker, was this an inquiry into the situation of the urban Bantu in South Africa, or was it an inquiry into the riots at Paarl? Was the evidence in this case led to deal with the wants and the likes and the dislikes of the urban Bantu all over South Africa and in the large urban centres of Durban and Johannesburg in particular, or was it to deal with the situation of 5,000 Bantu living in a small municipality in the countryside of the Western Province called Paarl? It is quite clear that the hon. Judge in this case not only was confined by his terms of reference to inquiry into the riots at Paarl, but he was clear in his findings as making no reference to the situation of the urban Bantu community in South Africa at large. I should be very interested to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister where the findings of the Judge did not relate to the riots at Paarl but to the position of the Bantu in South Africa at large, and if the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) is thinking of coming into the debate, I hope he too will deal with that situation. The interesting thing about Paarl, and what limits the scope of this report even further, and what makes the argument of the Deputy Minister even less sound, is that Judge Snyman finds in his report that prior to 1950, there were virtually no Bantu to speak of at Paarl. They have only been there for the last 13 years. The Native community at Paarl has only grown up there since the Nationalist Government has been in power. There was no location there at all prior to 1950, because there were no Bantu to live in it. Now when you have an urban community that has only been there for 13 years, less than half a generation, how can you have a permanent urban population there? In the nature of things if they were not there before 1950 at all, they can only have come there since and consequently they must have very recently arrived from the Bantu areas, and consequently they will still have tribal links, because they have only recently come from the tribal areas. Prior to the advent of the Nationalist Government there were no Bantu permanently established at Paarl. That is not my evidence, that is what is in this report, and the hon. Deputy Minister says that he has read it carefully. I hope that on that small aspect of the report alone, it will be appreciated that one cannot draw conclusions pertaining to the urban Bantu all over South Africa from a report which has to deal with a situation which grew only from the year 1950, and which prior to 1950 did not exist at all. If you are going to use conclusions drawn from such a narrow investigation then quite clearly you are stepping into a hole. It can only lead you to conclusions which are false. The only way to test the matter so far as South Africa as a whole is concerned, would be to institute an inquiry not only into the small scope of events in a small country town such as Paarl, but to institute a commission of inquiry into the position of the urban Bantu throughout the country, and dealing principally with the large urban centres of Durban and Johannesburg where you have the greatest concentration of Bantu people living under urban conditions, and not only living under urban conditions since 1950, but over a period of 30 or 40 years. I specifically exclude Cape Town because the Bantu population here is not only far less than in the other great urban centres, but they are new to the scene. Before the war, if one talks to Cape people, the Bantu were not really known in Cape Town, It is a post-war manifestation and so is no guide to the situation. So for the hon. Minister of Justice to try and make a debating point from this report, really gets us nowhere, and it is surprising perhaps that he overlooked, inadvertently I am quite sure, the other aspects of this report which negative all the conclusions which he asks us to accept.

I mentioned earlier when interrupted by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) that I would refer to the position of the Bantu states by reference to an advertisement which appeared in one of the American periodicals. I have here a photostat copy of an advertisement which appeared in the Christian Science Monitor last year, a well-respected American journal and the advertisement was issued by the information service of South Africa. The third paragraph in the heading of this advertisement is as follows—

I emphasize the words “is the corner-stone of the South African Government’s policy of national reconstruction”. Sir, it must be appreciated that this was not only in respect of the Transkei, but it makes reference to self-government for the “various Bantu nations”. We have had the Transkei established on its first step towards self-government. What about the rest? Reference has been made in this debate by the Leader of the Opposition to a question put by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) to which the hon. Deputy Minister replied that it was not being planned that further additional self-governing states should be established. That was the tenor of the reply. One asks why there is no further planning. I wish to emphasize that the question was not what new self-governing states are to be established, but what planning was being undertaken with the establishment of the next self-governing state, to which the reply was that there is no planning. This is a remarkable change of direction. It has been denied by the Prime Minister, but I will deal with that in a moment. One might ask why there is this change of direction? Why is there no planning, and why have things stopped short at the Transkei? I hope we will get the answer from the hon. member for Heilbron, but I doubt it. One possible reason emerges from the statement I referred to earlier, because it purports to quote the Prime Minister as saying this—

Are we to assume that no other Bantu nation is prepared to approach the Government to ask for its aid in the establishment of a further Bantu state? You will remember, Sir, in the Transkei debate the inordinate lengths the hon. the Minister went to to put across to us that this was not the Government’s idea but that it came from the Transkeian Bantu, and it was their idea. Are we to assume that from recent reports in the Press by Chief Butelezi in Zululand to the effect that these people are not going to ask for this step but will sit back and watch events, to watch this experiment before they take any such step, is to be accepted, and that the defeat suffered by the Commissioner-General for the Zulu ethnic group in his efforts to persuade the Paramount Chief to accept territorial authorities in Zululand …

Where do you get that from, that the Commissioner-General attempted to persuade the Chief?

One knows that some members of this House are naïve, but I did not believe that they could be so naïve. Obviously that hon. member has not met the Commissioner-General for Zululand, because had he done so, or had he been in the company when that gentleman spoke, he would realize that the Commissioner-General had no doubt in his mind as to what his duties were. The point is why have we stopped along this glorious road leading to self-governing states? Is it because the Bantu people are no longer asking for it, or is it because the Government in the troubled world of to-day is afraid to take any further steps? Or is it because, were they to give any answer in that regard, they would have to say something about the Northern Transvaal? The Tomlinson Commission Report has an interesting paragraph in Chapter 36, which says this—

That is the basis for the commission coming to the conclusion that there must be consolidation of the scattered Bantu areas in order to form one cohesive Bantu unit for each of the various ethnic groups.

Let us look for a moment at the Northern Transvaal. We hear a lot about the Transkei and Zululand these days, but it seems that the Zulus are not as fond of this plan as the Deputy Minister is. Perhaps the tribes in the north are more amenable in that regard. If we are to believe the protestations of the Prime Minister that there is no slowing down in this direction, despite the answers given by the Deputy Minister to the hon. member for Orange Grove, and that what he said there was really not that there is no further planning but that there is further planning, it is difficult to reconcile his view with that of the Deputy Minister. No doubt further explanations will elucidate the position. If the Deputy Minister or the hon. member for Heilbron comes into the debate, I hope they will give us a short review of their plans for the Northern Transvaal and some indication of what the plans are for consolidation in that area. One assumes that if the Tomlinson Commission Report is a guide, the town of Pietersburg will become the capital town for the amalgamation of the various bits and pieces of the Pedi tribe. That appears to be the most convenient way of doing it geographically. The hon. member for Heilbron laughs. I gather he does not agree with that point of view. No doubt the true point of view as to what is intended in those areas will be given when they come into this debate. Looking at the Venda unit, which according to the Tomlinson Commission is a fairly cohesive unit, I agree with that point of view, but there are two or three scattered blocks which encircle Louis Trichardt, and one assumes that in this consolidation those scattered blocks will be associated with the main block to the north and the east, and that Louis Trichardt will be the capital town of the Venda. [Laughter.] Again I hear laughter. Ignorant people such as myself are entitled to make mistakes in the absence of any explanation by the Government as to what is intended. It is quite remarkable what detailed explanation we get when the Minister deals with parts of the country that do not vote for him, but when we get to parts of the country which he believes support him a discreet mantle of silence is drawn over the whole thing. [Interjection.] The Deputy Minister says that is nonsense, but let him clear the air for once and for all and let him despatch all these misrepresentations I am delivering by entering the debate after me and explaining what the intentions are in regard to the Northern Transvaal. [Time limit.]

It is not my intention to devote too much of my time to the hon. member who has just sat down. I do not think that there will be anyone on this side of the House who will reply to what he said, with the exception of myself. The hon. member tried to pass comments on the speeches of virtually all the members on this side. He started with the Judge who made the investigation, and then went on to the hon. the Prime Minister and all the other members. A number of them had to tell him that he was talking nonsense. And I agree with them. The impression that I have gained from the hon. member’s speech is that he has set himself up here as a person who knows everything, and I leave him at that.

We have now had the opportunity of listening to this debate for some hours. I agree that hon. members have stood up on both sides of the House who have been very earnest and sincere in regard to the position in which we find ourselves. In the words of the Prime Minister, we are living in a dangerous world. We are living virtually on a volcano. Each day we see new efforts being made to bring about South Africa’s ruin, so much so that during this debate we have heard the terrible word “war” being mentioned, and we have also heard about boycotts and other methods that are being thought up to bring about our destruction. A great deal of fear and concern has been expressed in this House and I want to say that I feel the same way. I am also concerned and I make no secret of it. The writing is on the wall and we have read it, and the man who closes his eyes to it is being irresponsible. One asks oneself: What is actually the cause of it all? The United Party have their side of the matter. They have their views and policy, but we on this side also have our policy. We are living on the Continent of Africa, in which the Blacks have a numerical superiority. The winds of change have now started blowing in the north of the continent. They have blown over 32 states and they are now quite close to us. While we are speaking here to-day I fear that the last stronghold, Southern Rhodesia, is about to fall, in spite of the fact that great concessions have also been made there, concessions which the United Party are also advocating here. I take it that they are honest in their intentions in this regard. But these policies have been tested there, and it is not necessary for me to say anything more in this connection. It is a well-known fact throughout the world that these tests have failed wherever they have been made. There is a Black revolution throughout the whole continent. They have not leftmatters at that. One country after the other has fallen. Now when we at this southern tip of Africa are trying to maintain our civilization, our birthright that we have bought with the blood of our ancestors, and for which we intend to fight and to die if necessary, we ought not to speak boastfully. We must consider the matter in a sober light. It is not necessary for me to comment in this regard. Hon. members on both sides of the House have said during the past two days that our survival as Whites is in jeopardy. Now this side of the House is being accused and it is said that it is our apartheid policy that is to be blamed for what is happening. In my opinion it is very irresponsible to accuse the Government and to say that it as a result of its apartheid policy that we are experiencing all these troubles. This apartheid policy of the Government dates from 1936, when General Smuts and Hertzog saw these conditions arising and realized what would eventually happen in South Africa. Why did they start the Bantu reserve policy; why did they pass the 1936 Act? Was it not that legislation that gave birth to the policy of separate development?

I would like to ask a question. If that is so why did the Nationalist Party oppose that Act and do everything in its power to convince the Government that that policy was wrong?

No, they agreed with it.

I do not know to what opposition the hon. member is referring. I think that his question is an oblique reference to the split that there was in the National Party at that time. He is now referring to the then purified National Party, which no longer exists. Why must we rake up all those old grievances? This National Party to-day has nothing to do with the purified party of those days. That was a party on its own, just as the old South African Party was different to the present United Party. We cannot link up the policies of the National Party to-day with the policy followed by the National Party at that time. This party has nothing to do with the conditions that prevailed at that time. We have a definite policy of separate development on the grounds of which we are continually being attacked. South Africa has no other choice but separate development. I have already referred to the architects of this policy. This policy dates from the year 1936, and its architects were none other than General Hertzog and General Smuts. That is why all these conditions have developed. When the Prime Minister of Britain spoke here of the winds of change, rebellion and revolution were born. He was the father of that thought. We are attacked by the world because of our policy. The political might of the world is being harnessed against us. They are not interested in our feelings. We are merely an article of trade for which the East is bidding against the West, and that is why the West cannot take our part. If they do support us they will do themselves harm in the eyes of the East. That is why we find ourselves between these two millstones. If the United Party think that the world of the Black countries will accept their policy then I want to tell hon. members on that side that that is merely an idle dream. Rebellion prevails here as it does elsewhere in Africa, and I want to ask the man who does not want to realize this fact to reconsider the position and to see matters in their correct perspective. They will not be satisfied with a concession of representation in this House or in the Senate. This has been tried in our neighbouring States and it has failed hopelessly. Even though the United Party may be honest in its policy, I want to assure them that they will be destroyed. The Bantu are no more prepared to be satisfied with an inferior share or with partnership here than they have been in any other part of Africa. They are in revolt against White authority and “baasskap”.

The poverty of the Bantu for which we are blamed is as old as our nation, but what have the United Party done to improve the position? What did the old South African Party do? All these locations came into being in their time. I want to challenge them to tell us what they have done to improve these conditions. But now that the world is up in arms against us, we are being accused of being responsible for all these things. They blame us for the conditions under which the Bantu are living, but that is a terrible injustice. We are not responsible for those conditions. We inherited this position. Now these people are up in arms about it. Let us be fair towards them. Perhaps they do have the right to make demands, but then the United Party must not tell us that we are responsible for this position. Since we took over and started the policy of separate development everything possible has been done to try to improve conditions. We are doing this good work daily, but to our sorrow there are those members of the United Party who tell the voters that we are “kaffer-boeties” when they address meetings on the platteland. The Opposition form the alternative Government but they will never come into power by means of this sort of loose talk. The proof of this is that our policy has been tested in the country on numbers of occasions through the medium of elections, and what have the people decided on each occasion? It has been said by hon. members opposite that we are standing with our backs to the wall. This not only affects those of us on this side but hon. members opposite as well. If they are sincere in their statements then they are not doing the right thing by making these accusations against us. These accusations are made and when the newspapers appear on the streets containing this news, the non-White public outside are incited and they ask themselves whether some action should not be taken because these things are said in Parliament about the injustice that is being done to them. This is one of the reasons why people are imprisoned and placed under house arrest. In my honest opinion the things that are said in this House are in many respects more dangerous than the things that are said outside this House by people who are trying to destroy us and cripple us. I want to put this question to the United Party. Let us reconsider these matters. If we are going to die here, then we are going to die together; if our country is destroyed, we will all suffer. It will not only be this side of the House or that side of the House that will suffer; we will all be destroyed; our blood will mingle. That will be the eventual result of this sort of talk. I do not expect the United Party to support this side of the House in regard to certain policy matters, but this position that we are faced with to-day is something that should be above all political considerations. The survival of our country and our people, the survival of the White man is at stake, and this is not the time, for the sake of making a little political capital, to say things that are going to harm us and that are going to give the outside world the impression that we have a police state here and that the National Party Government is a dictatorship. Those tales do just as much harm to hon. members on that side and their followers as they do to us on this side, we who are prepared to fight for our survival to the bitter end. The hon. the Prime Minister has been attacked and maligned mercilessly in this House. Mr. Speaker, Welensky fell, but Welensky fell feet first. He is one of the champions of the survival of White civilization here in Southern Africa. The people whom he has led and their children will honour Welensky’s name in years to come. In the same way the name of Verwoerd will be recorded in the annals of our country and nation as being the name of the greatest champion of the survival of the Whites in this country—not the survival of the White supporter of this side of the House, but the survival of White civilization generally in South Africa.

I have actually stood up to discuss another subject, but before I do so, I want to say that I consulted the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, to whom I want to make these representations, who told me that he had unfortunately to leave the House because of some or other official engagement that he had and that he could not wait any longer. But he promised to send me a written reply to my representations. I want to start by saying that we have heard a great deal being said about threats and war and various other dangers. Many of our people may take these things so much to heart that they may not even get up to-morrow morning, thinking the end of the world has already arrived. I say that the end has not yet arrived. The farmers are still going to plough their lands and plant their crops and they are still going to harvest, and they are going to do so for many years yet. I want to make a few remarks about import control. There is no one in this House who has any objection to import control. It is necessary in our young country to protect our young industries against competition from older countries, but import control is a double-edged sword. While it is necessary to have import control, there are certain groups of interests that are detrimentally affected as a result of import control—the farmers in general and the maize farmers in particular because they are the largest users of agricultural implements. It is a well-known fact that organized agriculture, the farmers’ associations and so forth, has expressed itself at congresses in many ways and at many places and times in regard to the worth of the locally manufactured article in comparison with imported makes of the same articles. It is well known to those of us who know farming that the locally manufactured article—I am speaking now not only of agricultural implements such as ploughs, but of machinery in general—does not last as nearly as long as the imported article. At the same time, we have to pay considerably more for the locally manufactured article than for the imported article because of our protective policy. It amounts to this—that our farmers, particularly those who are large-scale buyers of agricultural implements, are the people who have virtually to subsidize these manufacturers of agricultural implements. I want to refer here to one of these factories because I myself have bought a considerable amount of their equipment. I am referring to the Safim factory at Vereeniging. I think that the time has come when we as farmers who have to pay more for a locally manufactured implement than for the imported article have to make these people clearly understand that they must supply us with an article that is the equal in all respects of the imported article. I received a letter in this connection from one of our leading maize farmers in the Sannieshof area, a Mr. Cloete, who is well known to the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) and the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Labuschagne). He wrote to me to say that some of his agricultural implements were manufactured locally and some were imported. He said that as far as the purchase price was concerned, he paid one-third more for the locally manufactured article than for the imported article and that he used three of the locally manufactured articles to one of the imported articles. That is the position that we have to contend with. We as farmers generally have no objection to these undertakings being protected in our country. We also need these people and their employees as consumers of our agricultural products. For this reason we have no quarrel with them, but one thing is certain and that is that matters have reached the stage now where we must protest against the quality of the locally manufactured article.

I want to say a few words about grain bags, about which we have already heard a great deal in this House. We have to pay far more for locally manufactured grain bags than for the imported bags. We have not complained about this because we know that we are making a contribution to the industry and helping it to develop, but at the same time this factory is one of the undertakings that has paid out the highest dividends to its shareholders this year. That money belongs to the maize farmers. We have no objections to this either because we want to be reasonable, as in regard to the previous case that I mentioned—the question of implements. We realize that our local industries must be encouraged, but the maize farmer himself has to fight to make a profit from his farming operations. More than this I need not say; it is a well-known fact. The maize farmer, the largest purchaser of bags, cannot be expected to make this great sacrifice from time to time in the form of higher prices. I personally think that it is the function of the State to subsidize deserving industries; that is not the function of the farmers. If it is necessary to subsidize an industry, let it be done by the Treasury so that everyone can make his contribution. If this is done it will not be necessary for us to raise our voices in protest in this regard.

There is one final question that I want to put to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. As I have already said, he has undertaken to send me a written reply to these questions. I refer to the question of fuel. We know that as far as fuel is concerned we are in all respects dependent upon the outside world. Our entire farming industry, our transport, is based on fuel. Our farming is mechanized to a large extent to-day. I think that the time has come for some formula or other to be worked out to ensure that we have a reserve supply. We cannot wait until it is too late, when our fuel supplies are cut off by some means or other. As it happens—I do not want to be a fear-monger; we have heard enough about dangers that threaten us over the past few days—a front page report appeared yesterday in the Transvaler to the effect that the ship President Steyn had been boycotted in the Suez Canal and that it had to proceed without water and food supplies. This is one of the first incidents of this nature; more such cases may arise and I am concerned about this position. If we expect trouble, then we must at least be prepared so that we will be in a position to supply our own needs. It has been with this in mind that I have considered it necessary to express these few thoughts.

Sir, it is obvious that things other than diamonds come from Lichtenburg, but I must say that I have listened with great interest to the speeches of the hon. members on the other side and not only with interest but with a good deal of distress and I realized how many members on the other side of the House live in a land which existed 300 years ago. It is time the great bulk of them woke up to the fact that we have a future to think of and not a past; the past can be left to take care of itself. We have a past which we can look back on but it is time we forgot that the war which took place in this country was one which was fought by gentlemen riding on horseback and eating biltong. Those days are gone, and this country, if I correctly understand what has been said here before, lives in dangerous times. Sir, I speak with great diffidence on the subject which I now propose to introduce. I am only doing so after a great deal of thought and because I feel it is time somebody mentioned it. I hinted at it last year and I raised the matter again this year under the Agricultural Technical Services Vote, but my remarks fell on stony ground. I feel that I must therefore make my views quite clear. I speak of biological warfare, Sir. Probably there is no semi-industrialized country in the world which is as vulnerable to biological warfare as this country. We are down at the tail-end of a continent; we are surrounded on three sides by the sea. We have at most five ports and one international airport. In these circumstances it would be an easy matter to isolate this country from the rest of the world and to isolate it by illness, because that is by far the most effective measure. No ships will enter harbours where there is infectious disease. That is the threat that we face. I have tried to hint at it before but every time I have mentioned it I have been told until I am sick that our scientists are the best in the world, that we have nothing to learn; that our soldiers and our generals and our police and, above all, our Government leaders are unequalled in the world; that there is nothing that they can learn.

Give us a lecture on biological warfare.

Biological warfare is the introduction of disease. It is, as it were, public health, veterinary health and plant health in reverse. It is really a war which is waged in the Public Health Department incessantly but at least on those occasions, under normal conditions, we wage a war against nature. But when we come to biological warfare we are waging a war against nature assisted by man who wishes to cause disease. I know that most of my words will fall on stony ground, and therefore to some extent I have tried to find out what has happened in the past. There is nothing new in the idea of biological warfare. Disease has played a part in nearly all wars. The Crusaders turned back from the wars of Jerusalem because they were afflicted with plague. The Moors failed to conquer Spain because they had typhus. Napoleon’s army in Moscow failed because it suffered from dysentery, from malnutrition. We all know that the 1914-18 war finished with a world epidemic of influenza, and it is possible that the great German offensive of 1918 was severely handicapped by that influenza epidemic. In times of war plague-infested bodies have been dropped over the walls of besieged cities; bodies of typhoid victims have been dropped in wells. Napoleon, when he was besieging the city of Mantua, flooded the surrounding areas to increase the number of mosquitoes and so weakened the defenders through malaria that he was able to conquer them. The American traders sold blankets infected with smallpox to the Red Indians to make it easier to conquer the country. In World War I the Germans infected horses in Rumania with glanders and also horses in the southern part of the United States to prevent the Allies from obtaining those horses. It is said, although it is denied, that the Japanese used biological warfare in Korea. Sir, these are a few examples of biological warfare over the centuries to show that it is not a method which I have conjured out of my own imagination. What is our position? Of course we have these scientists but how many have we lost? How many of our best people have gone overseas? Sir, do not think that this is something old. We know that within the last six months Great Britain’s secret laboratory which works on germ warfare lost one of its leading scientists from bubonic plague. The great powers who work on this problem and who fear each other do not let their secrets out; they do not talk and that is why we are so helpless because while we can buy guns and aeroplanes and while we can buy ships, can we buy the knowledge to protect our people, our animals, our food supplies and our plants? It is an easy matter for a man to carry in his pocket enough germs to wipe out one or two thousand people. You must not forget, Sir, that these illnesses are self-propagating, and some of them are unknown. One of the things which deterred other countries from starting germ warfare, in the last war particularly, was the fact that they ran the risk of infecting their own people. The same applied to gas warfare—the fear that there would be retaliation. But on whom can we retaliate? Where is our enemy? Nothing is more useful for sabotage than biological warfare—the weakening of a population, the weakening of workers in essential industries through illness spread amongst them—and here we are out on the end of a limb. There are at least three nations who have no love for us who are magnificently equipped to supply, should they wish to do so, all the biological instruments necessary, all the germs necessary, to depopulate this country of its humans and its animals. The countries of Western Europe have withheld their hands from each other because, as I have said, it is a two-edged sword, but we are not a two-edged sword and the people who will and can supply the germs, if they wish to do so, do not mind if they wipe out the Blacks as well. After all, it is not their people and they do not mind sacrificing a few hundred thousand non-Whites to get at the million Whites. The fact that in wiping out the Whites they may wipe out a few hundred thousand non-Whites is of no significance to these other countries who shall be nameless but who are great, well-equipped countries. Do you think that they are not prepared to sacrifice all these people? And what have we to answer with? First of all we know that we will get no knowledge, no encouragement and no teaching from the West. It is unlikely that the West will open the secrets of their laboratories to us. We have already heard from the other side of the House that we are persona non grata in all the Western states. Sir, we have one laboratory. I have pleaded before in this House that the hon. the Minister of Health should give his attention to the fact that with one exception we have no laboratories capable of manufacturing antibodies, and should our animals and our food supplies be attacked, what have we? We have one manufacturing laboratory, a very good one, but it means that there are two places only which may be destroyed or which may become helpless if the personnel is weakened. Sir, I pleaded with the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services to reconsider his policy of making other laboratories available and his reply was that we had nothing to learn; that we were the leading people in this field in the world; that we were world famous. I have been most disheartened by the feeling that I see on the Government benches, by their ignorance of the precipice on which they are walking and the confidence with which they face the future.

Sir, I do not want to go into greater detail. I think perhaps I have said more than enough but I want to stir the Government, I want them to realize that there is an enemy available to those who bear us ill-will, an enemy which we are ill-equipped to face, an enemy who can enter any of our ports, an enemy which can cross any border, which can spread illness throughout the country and which we are not equipped to deal with. Sir, I learned a bitter lesson in 1960-1 when there was a threat of an outbreak of rabies amongst humans, White and non-White, in Natal and Zululand. It took this Government two months to prepare for an outbreak which they knew was coming. The head of the Department of Veterinary Services said to me himself, “We followed that disease down the East Coast of Africa; it started with Egypt,” and he gave me the date. In that case, when they knew that there was an epidemic coming, neither the Department of Veterinary Services nor the Department of Health could take adequate action for some two months.

That is not fair; you raised that question two months ago and the Minister replied.

It was replied to by the Minister and I refuted it in a letter to him, and I am prepared to bring it forward again, if necessary by giving the dates. Anyhow, Sir, those are facts. We have no teams of workers available, either veterinary or medical, who can immediately go out and tackle an epidemic. We have no manufacturing chemists or manufacturing laboratories in the country like other countries no doubt have. Are we likely to get help from any of the other countries? Are their scientists likely to help us? Are their laboratories going to turn to our aid? Why should they? There is no evidence that they will.

We taught the world how to eradicate malaria; why should they not help us?

You live in a fool’s paradise if you think that anybody can eradicate malaria. To say that we taught the world how to eradicate malaria is typical of the attitude we get from hon. members opposite: Our scientists are the best; we do not need any more; we shall teach the world. That is the typical way in which their minds work. They live in a mist created by their own ignorance.

I cannot reply in the same vein to the hon. member who has just sat down because he spoke as a doctor; he is an expert in that sphere. But I am sorry that he adopted such a pessimistic and also unfair attitude in regard to the interjections I made in reply to the points he raised. He is not the only man in this House with a good memory. I think that if all the hon. members of this House had been present, they would have resented the fact that he made those sneering remarks about the Department of Health—that they did nothing for two months and that they did not take steps to combat a certain epidemic that threatened the country. The hon. the Minister gave a full reply in this regard two months ago and the hon. member had nothing more to say at that stage. I say that I cannot argue with the hon. member in regard to the matters to which he referred, particularly when he referred to the period during the war, because I think that he was quite right in that respect. But he must not forget that it was the South African Research Institute that brought malaria under control. It was for that reason that the name of Anneke became known throughout the whole world. The Black population is multiplying to-day by the million because the Bantu are no longer dying of malaria. They have a White South African to thank for this. We must give credit where credit is due. I want to make this further point. The hon. member is a doctor and I am a layman and it appears to me that he would be worth far more than I would in wartime, but in peacetime I can meet him on level terms. Let me tell him this: Armed with “lewensassens” Epsom salts and bicarbonate of soda, I will be able to heal 90 per cent of people’s ailments. I cannot find fault with the purpose of his arguments. It is necessary for us to do as much research as possible in that respect. But I think that the hon. the Minister has already said as much.

I am pleased that the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) has now returned to the Chamber. He issued a very provocative challenge which I want immediately to accept, but on one condition. He mentioned the sum of £5,000; he did not speak in rand but in pounds. I do not want him to pay that R10,000 to enable me to go to America; I will pay for myself out of my own pocket even though I have to ask my hon. friends here to assist me.

Order! The hon. member cannot collect money here.

I accept his challenge on condition that he deposits that sum of R10,000 to the credit of the society distributing Bibles among the Bantu. I shall then travel to America at my own expense and I shall address people at 40 or 50 or 60 different places and explain to them the colour policy of the Government of South Africa. The next move must come from the hon. member. I expect a receipt from the Bible Society shortly. They also have an office here in Cape Town.

Tell us what you are going to tell the people of America.

That is a good question. The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) asked what he should tell the Americans. Unfortunately, the hon. member is not here at the moment but in case there are other hon. members here who are anxious to make the trip, I shall tell them now what they should tell the Americans. Tell the Americans that we here in South Africa are not building up an army to enforce integration; tell them that the standard of living of the Bantu here in South Africa is far higher than that of any other Bantu in Africa; tell them that the Bantu will be given the franchise in the Transkei; that every Bantu there will have a vote; tell the Americans that the Government recently established a Department of Coloured Affairs to promote the interests of the Coloured people and that Department is doing so better than has ever been done in the history of South Africa; tell the Americans that it has never been necessary in this country to call out the whole of the Permanent Force to have one person enrolled at a university. Tell the Americans that we have never had to call out our Permanent Force to prevent racial disturbances. I think that the Americans will probably be anxious to know what our secret weapon is. Tell the Americans that the Bantu who are not subjected to cunning propaganda from other countries in the world are completely contented and happy and that they are thriving. The Bantu in South Africa who are unhappy are those who are subjected to foreign influences. Tell the Americans that we want very much to be friends with them but just as they would not like anyone interfering in their private affairs, so we would also greatly appreciate it if they would confine themselves to their own problems. Tell them that we want very much to build up friendly relationships with them just as we want to do with all the other countries of the world. There are many other things that they can tell the Americans. Tell the Americans further that there are people at UNO who will always remain the enemies of South Africa because the tissue of lies that they tell is so thick that it creates a wall between their common sense and the realities of South Africa.

What are you going to tell them about the Coloureds?

I have told the hon. member what he should tell them about the Coloureds. Must I now repeat the whole story? Tell the Americans that the Coloureds have four representatives in this House who can do a great deal for the Coloureds if they look to their interests instead of continually trying to mislead the Coloureds to a certain extent. Tell the Americans that this Government has done more for the Coloured people than any other Government in this country has ever done. [Interjections.] The hon. member has asked me what he should tell the Americans and now I am telling him what to say.

Must we also tell them about unemployment?

There is no unemployment amongst the Coloured community in South Africa. Is the hon. member going to tell that to them as well? Is he going to tell the Americans that the Coloureds have now for the first time been protected against unfair competition on the part of the Bantu by way of legislation and that the official Opposition in this country has consistently opposed every step that the present Government has taken to ensure that the Coloureds are treated better than has ever been the case in the past? Will the hon. member do that? They ask us to give them more information so that they will know what to say when they arrive in America and so that they will not have to sit there not knowing what to say. I just want to know whether hon. members will do that. I hope that the hon. member for Zululand will give me his answer at a later stage.

When the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) referred to-day to the fact that in terms of the Federation plan of the United Party the Transkei could also become a territory having a say in their race federation, we heard protests raised on all sides by the Opposition. They said that that was not true but now I want to prove it to them. Mr. Speaker, do you see what I have in my hand? It looks like a newspaper and it is, but it is not a recent newspaper; it is an issue of the Sunday Times of 1961. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) referred to this article and hon. members opposite denied what he said.

I want to quote from this article. The date of this issue is 3 December 1961. In it, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) is reported as having said the following, although to-day he also denied having said it—

But not independent.

If that hon. member had been blind, like Jacob, and had sent for a goat in order to cook it, he would probably have said, when the goat had been brought to him: “No, I meant an Angora goat.”

It was not Jacob who sent for a goat; it was Isaac.

Because you have caught me out, Mr. Speaker, as a fine, I am going to send R2 to the Bible Society immediately. The hon. member for Yeoville denied it but it is as clear as can be from this report that the Transkei can very easily be fitted into the whole situation.

I want to deal now with something that has been brought to the fore very pertinently in this debate. I want the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) to listen because she is one who very often supports the United Party. The United Party will at some stage in the future be forced to repeat what the hon. member for Houghton has said to-day. I want to put this question to them: Is it their policy that all the Bantu entering the White areas should bring their families with them?

We have never said that.

In other words, the Government is correct in not wanting to permit them to do so?

That does not follow at all.

But what does follow then? The hon. members must put the matter in such a way that one can understand it. We are always being accused of destroying Bantu family life. I want to ask: What Bantu are they referring to? Are they referring to the Bantu who are here already or the Bantu still to come? In terms of their policy an enormous number of Bantu must be admitted to the White areas to work in industry. Must their families come with them? That is not a difficult question to answer. Nobody wants to reply.

The reply was given yesterday by the hon. member for Yeoville.

If the question was answered yesterday, why did hon. members raise it again to-day? If the hon. member was in the House more often, he would not fall into such a trap. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development did not to-day deal with the penalties meted out for crimes as hon. members alleged. What the hon. the Minister maintained—and I want to corroborate what he said—was that disturbances, revolt and difficulties in regard to some or other grievance occurred far more often during the period of office of the United Party than they have during our period of office, and their incidence is steadily decreasing. Disturbances because of some grievance or other are becoming less frequent in this country. But what was the position in connection with disturbances because of serious grievances during the period of office of the United Party? I want to refer now to 1946-7. There were 41 disturbances in that year. There was one case in which 1,590 were injured. There was another on 6 March “when eight police were injured, two Natives killed, 76 seriously injured and 64 less seriously injured, and when clubs and fire-arms were used to suppress disturbances by 2,500 Natives at Modderfontein East because of the rationing of machau”. There was another incident on 21 April: “Western Reefs, Orkney: Two thousand Natives armed with clubs and iron bars in disturbances. Altogether 61 South African policemen called out. Six Natives injured, eight charged and punished. 22 May: Altogether 1,107 Native workers strike at New Consort Mine, Barberton. Seventy policemen called out. Fifty-five Natives injured. Police remove two loads of weapons.” These were disturbances, Sir, that occurred then but nowadays they are things of the past. Those disturbances arose as a result of grievances. Let me mention another example: “7 August: At Lovedale Native School, Alice. Students throw stones and set fire to building. Staff also threatened. One hundred and fifty-seven arrested and 152 found guilty.” These were disturbances that arose as a result of grievances. What gives those hon. members the right to say that the Bantu have grievances to-day? There are no grievances to-day as has been affirmed by the Snyman Report. But just think of the disturbances that arose during the period of office of the United Party. Let me mention another example: “From 12 to 16 August, 73,557 Natives took part in strikes on various Rand mines. The Star estimates the figures at between 45,000 and 50,000. About 1,600 South African policemen called out. Nine Natives killed and 1,248 injured.” There are a number of these incidents that I can mention but I do not think that there is any hon. member who would want me to mention more of these gruesome happenings. I want hon. members who have such a lot to say about the grievances of the Bantu against the Government to prove to us where anything similar has occurred during our period of office. Crimes have been committed, but hon. members must not forget that these criminals have often had intercessors. We have told hon. members not to use certain expressions here.

Who published that?

Does the hon. member imagine that I would quote a number of untruths here in this House? I have a number of other examples here but I think that the hon. member has had enough.

If a document of that nature is distributed, it is necessary for the name of the distributors to appear on it. Will the hon. member give me that name?

The hon. member can have it; I am quoting from a speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister when he was still Minister of Bantu Affairs. He made the speech here in this House. In other words, it is all in Hansard.

Who printed it?

That I am not going to say, but it was not the United Trust Fund! In any case, what difference does it make who published it? The question of who published it cannot detract from the actual facts. If these things spring from a United Party source, then they are good, but if they emanate from any other source, then that source is always made suspect.

Who published it? I challenge you to tell us.

Just for “spite” I shall not tell the hon. member because in asking the question he is merely trying to be funny.

If the position is so much better to-day, why is so much legislation needed to maintain law and order?

The answer to that is obvious. We need legislation because we are progressing; the position is developing. The process of segregation between White and Black is in motion. And so we must have legislation to arrange these matters. At the same time as this process is in motion we find that there are agitators trying to make trouble, and those agitators must, of course, be put in their place in the right way and at the right time.

The hon. member for Boland raised another point. I want to ask him now—and this holds good for the whole of the United Party—whether it is their policy to absorb the whole of the Coloured community in the White areas? In other words, is it their policy to place the Coloureds on the Common Roll for political purposes? Are they going to absorb those Coloureds who have Bantu fathers and who look just like Bantu? When I put these questions to the hon. member for Boland this afternoon he said: “They will be classified. Once they have been classified we will put one group with the Bantu and the other group with the Whites.” But is that legislation not the first legislation they have said they are going to repeal if they come into power? The hon. member for Yeoville has said that if they come into power they will repeal the Population Registration Act. _ If they repeal this legislation how are they going to make the classifications?

May I ask another question? Does the hon. member know that in terms of the Natives Representation Act, 1936, of the United Party, persons like those whom the hon. member has mentioned, those who have Black fathers are classified as Natives?

Yes, they are classified as Natives then, but when we classify them as Natives now hon. members call them “hardships”. They call a person who is between a White and a Coloured person to-day a “hardship”. Does the hon. member want to classify them under the 1936 Act or does he want to classify them under the Population Registration Act?

If the 1936 Act is restored to the Statute Book it will be clear that they have to be classified as Natives.

Order! I cannot permit those two hon. members to carry on their own private debate.

I think that you, Mr. Speaker, and other hon. members are also interested in our debate! In other words, the reply given by the hon. member for Boland and that given by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) are not in conformity with one another; they differ from one another. In other words, if the United Party comes into power and they repeal the Population Registration Act, they will make the classifications in terms of the 1936 Act. Is that the answer?

May I ask how the Coloureds were classified and placed on the Voters’ Roll and how the Natives were classified as Natives before the Population Registration Act was passed?

What difference does it make if I answer the question? In the past the classification was very simple. When the Bantu had a Voters’ Roll no distinction was drawn between them, and the Coloureds were on the Common Voters’ Roll together with the Whites.

As Coloureds, without the need for population registration.

Yes, but did we have the objections about “hardships” then that we have now? Do you see, Mr. Speaker, when one trips up the hon. members on their own arguments they do not know what to say. I have been waiting for that. The hon. member for Boland has said that classification will take place and it will be a far easier process than is the case to-day under the population registration system. In other words, according to the policy of the United Party there will be no difficulty in absorbing the Coloured community in the White area. But now that they realize that they are frustrating their own policy because they have said that the first Act that they will repeal is the Population Registration Act they are being driven into a corner. The question that I want to put to them immediately is: If the Population Registration Act and its system of race classification is repealed how on earth are those hon. members going to draw a distinction between a White person, a Coloured and a Bantu, and between those specific classes of people who are between a Bantu and a Coloured and whom it is very difficult to classify? Now that they are faced with that difficulty they realize that because of their policy they are not only drawing no distinction for the present between White and Coloured, but are building a very wide bridge between the Whites and even the Bantu in this country. That is what they are doing. Hon. members have tried to be very clever here this afternoon by asking all sorts of questions. In dealing with matters of this nature it is usually the man who has asked the question who ensures that he is conveniently not there when that question is replied to. We must take these debating points to their logical conclusion. I have found one thing on this earth that is just the same as the members of the United Party and their policy. Do hon. members know what it is? I am sorry to say this. Have they read Brink’s book “Lobola vir die Lewe”? If hon. members will read that book they will see in it the whole pattern of the United Party, its nature, its whole attitude and being. If they read that book they will see how they speak, how they think, how they reason, how illogical they are, how insusceptible they are to common sense. If they read that book they will see how impossible it is to follow their reasoning in this House in dealing with a matter of this nature, which, after all, cannot be left in the air. The United Party cannot expect this matter to be left in the air permanently. The parties who hold these views must carry them through to their logical conclusion so that what they are advocating will be understood by the public whose support they are seeking. If the United Party is not prepared to face up to these conclusions, then it does not have the right to hold these things up to the people and then at some later stage, when it is caught in its own net, to turn around and say that that was not what it meant. This was brought home to us clearly this afternoon when the hon. member for Yeoville denied the allegation of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) that in terms of their federation policy they also suggest the Transkei, amongst others, as one of the members of that federation.

I hope the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) will forgive me if I do not follow him to any great extent, but I will answer one or two of the statements which he has made. For the rest I think I can leave him to the official Opposition whom he was attacking. He made the statement that when the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration was referring to the remarkably small number of troubles and difficulties in this country as compared with previous years, the Minister was obviously talking about inter-racial troubles, or difficulties that arose out of inter-racial problems, and that he was not talking about ordinary crime at all. But surely the hon. member for Krugersdorp knows that one cannot divorce ordinary misdeeds from the society in which people live; that the misdeeds, the ordinary crimes, the waves of crime in a society are a clear reflection of the degree of contentedness of the society. Any sociologist will bear out what I am saying. Does he attach no significance whatever then to the figures which were given recently by the Commissioner of Prisons who showed us that the average daily number of people in goals in South Africa has reached a new high level of over 67,000 people? Does he attach no importance to the latest report of the Commissioner of Prisons which shows also that a maximum number of strokes, namely 86,583, were imposed on 17,576 people? Does he attach no importance at all to the fact that a new all-high record of 128 people were actually executed in South Africa?

For criminal acts.

Yes, which arise out of the general state of society and cannot be divorced but are closely related, and the hon. member is deceiving himself when he thinks that there is no relationship between the two. These are all part and parcel of a discontented society. The fact that 5,000 people have been arrested under the recent sweeps is also an indication of a discontented society. The fact that we read in the newspapers yesterday or to-day that the number of people held under Section 17, the 90 days detention clause, has now reached well over 100 are all symptoms of a discontented society, and since this is essentially a multi-racial society where the difficulties arise largely out of inter-racial problems, this is all a reflection on the whole practical implementation of Government policy, and as I say the hon. member deceives himself completely if he thinks there is no relationship I am not going to answer his questions about America. Other people will do that. I just want to tell him this that if he goes to America they will be asking him questions, and the questions that they will be asking him will be: What political rights the people who are not White have in South Africa? What direct representation such people have in the Parliament of this country? They will ask him whether African people can join recognized trade unions and exercise their right of collective bargaining. They will ask him what are the average wages in this country for unskilled workers? They will ask: Can people move freely around the country of their birth? And they will ask. can such people take any jobs that they want? And if those answers are not in comformity with the pattern of modern Western society, then they will continue to have the bad opinion of South Africa which they have at the present moment.

I have been listening to this debate with great care over the last two days, and I could not help being amused at the spectacle of both the Government and the official Opposition fighting to claim bits and pieces of the Snyman Commission Report as upholding their respective policies. Of course both the Government and the official Opposition reject those parts of the Snyman Commission Report which do not happen to conform to their particular policy. Thus we have the Government choosing certain paragraphs to prove that the Paarl riots had nothing whatever to do with Government policy and we had the official Opposition choosing other paragraphs to prove that the Paarl rioting was the direct result of Government policy. It seems to me that “you pay your money and you take your choice” is the best overall description of the Snyman Commission Report. Now I could find bits and pieces that would suit me. I could for instance find the pieces which were mentioned in the Cape Times leading article this morning which prove that Judge Snyman, the Commissioner, had had to redirect his thinking about the real emergency which he claimed in his first interim report. But in fact, I think perhaps the fairest summing up of this whole report was given by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) when he said quite correctly that the Snyman Commission essentially had as its terms of reference: “An inquiry into the basic causes of the Paarl riots” and did not have as reference an examination of the socioeconomic conditions that govern the urban African. That is my opinion as well. Therefore the remarks that the hon. Prime Minister made about the Bantu being Bantu and different from White men because of what the Snyman Commission said, do not carry any weight at all because the Snyman Commission Report did not conduct an exhaustive inquiry into the typical urban Bantu in the large metropolitan centres where they have been much longer than since 1950 as is the case in Paarl, but have been there since before World War I in fact, when the industrialization of this country began, and unless we have a proper commission inquiring into the causes and difficulties, I cannot accept the Snyman Commission Report as giving findings on the whole socioeconomic conditions of urban Africans throughout South Africa. Its terms of reference were specific, the Commissioner had a few months in which to report. That is as far as one can go in regard to the Snyman Commission Report.

A very good job.

In some respects, in some not. But before I leave that report, I want to ask the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration why he cannot take steps against Mr. le Roux of the Bantu Administration section there? He answered the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) by saying that this person had been charged in a court of law and been found not guilty, and he added that when he had been reinstated, he had received a letter of thanks and gratitude from the Bantu Advisory Council of Paarl. I want to point out to the hon. Minister that people do not get dismissed only as a result of criminal charges. They get dismissed in the light of their general overall administrative ability which they display, and one thing is absolutely clear, leaving apart the clear and unequivocal charges of corruption brought against this man by Mr. Justice Snyman, there is clear evidence in this report that the man’s administration was grossly at fault, and the hon. Minister ought to take steps in that regard. It is no good his telling me that this is a municipal employee, because time and again we hear it in this House from the hon. member for Heilbron and the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration that the Bantu Administration officials of the municipal councils are licensed agents of the Government. Therefore all the hon. Minister had to do was to move the licence of Mr. le Roux to discontinue Mr. le Roux acting as his licensed agent in the Paarl municipal area. I will come back to this matter a little later.

Now I want to say that I agree with a good deal that the hon. Leader of the Opposition said when he introduced his motion, and the reason of course is that a great deal of what he said was very largely Progressive Party policy, and I want to point out exactly what I mean by that. The hon. Leader of the Opposition gave us a long talk about a controlled labour force being abhorrent to a free society. He talked about how bad it was to deny the differential of the human being. He mentioned the importance of the ego of the individual worker. All absolutely excellent statements, but all absolute Progressive Party policy, and in complete opposition to pronounced United Party policies! Sir, a controlled labour force means pass laws and influx control. Is the United Party going to do away with influx control and pass laws? If you want to remove this question of a controlled labour force, you must do away with all job reservation, including job reservation on the mines. And I might say that this talk about the differential of the human being and the individual worker, and so on, is surely an exact example of individual merit, which is Progressive Party policy and a direct negation of United Party policy which is race federation which talks in terms of racial groups. I sincerely hope that what the hon. Leader of the Opposition was expressing was not just an attack of a disease known as Wynbergitis, but is really an important symptom of a real change of heart, because these are essential things which the official Opposition of South Africa should adopt, and indeed if it did, so far as I am concerned, I would be delighted to have them as the official Government of the country. Of course I do not agree with everything the hon. Leader of the Opposition said. I do not agree with what he says about buying time by supporting certain measures of the Government. The only time that we have bought is to allow the hon. Minister of Justice to go rushing around arresting people without bringing them before the courts, without the normal processes of the law. That is the only time that we have bought. We certainly have not bought time in retaining our friends in the Western world. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition should know the comments of the Conservative newspapers in the Western world about the Vorster Act and the United Party as the official Opposition backing that Act. Then he will realize that we have bought no time in retaining friendships in the Western world. I indeed agree with the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) when he said that it is a good thing to let the rest of the world know that civilized opinion is against what the Government is doing, civilized opinion in this country. But the official Opposition should have shown that there is an enormous number of people who support their party who are indeed against the actions of the Government as far as the Vorster Bill is concerned. There were fortunately other sections of course who did show the outside world that there is a large section of civilized people in South Africa that is against such action. I am not referring only to my own party. I am referring to statements made by an ex-Chief Justice, I am referring to the Johannesburg Bar Council, and I am referring, practically without exception, to every English language newspaper in South Africa.

What about Harry Oppenheimer?

Mr. Harry Oppenheimer who was quoted by the hon. Leader of the Opposition also made his views known on this and he linked the whole question with economic growth, and the hon. Leader of the Opposition told us that he was at least prepared to pay some respect to Mr. Oppenheimer’s knowledge of economics. I want him to know that Mr. Oppenheimer said that the violation of individual freedom created a hesitancy which hampers economic growth. He went on to say that there had been a number of instances of sabotage and murder to which the Government have reacted by taking arbitrary powers of arrest and detention without trial, such as could not be justified except in a case of war or real emergency.

Therefore although I shall support the amendment which was moved by the hon. Leader of the Opposition as far as it goes—I do not believe that it goes far enough—I wish to move as an amendment to the amendment—

1. (d) the Government has abandoned the basic tenets of the rule of law; and
2. (e) the Government refuses to abandon its policy of race discrimination.”.

Who is going to second your amendment?

Thousands and thousands of people, a lot more than the hon. member would ever believe, millions of voteless people and the entire civilized world.

I want to say a few things to the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration who made a number of very wild statements earlier this afternoon about the Black Sash and the Mapheele case. In fact he was quite wrong when he said that he was quite sure that the Black Sash encouraged Mrs. Mapheele to go to a court of law. This is not in fact true. Who did take her, I do not know. But that is quite beside the point. As far as I am concerned it does not matter who encouraged Mrs. Mapheele to go to the court. What is of vital importance is the Minister’s attitude about people going to a court of law. I would like to point out to the hon. the Minister that the courts are not only there for the State to prosecute any citizen. The courts are also there for citizens to claim redress when they feel that their rights have been infringed either by other citizens or by the State. That is the purpose of the courts of law. And I want to tell the hon. Minister that his statement—that incredible statement of his, that because Mrs. Mapheele went to the court of law she was challenging the Government and adopting a defiant attitude, and therefore was not shown clemency—I want to tell him that that statement of his will completely nullify anything that the hon. Minister of Information can do in the outside world, and that he might just as well take the R2,750,000 voted on his Vote and chuck it into Table Bay, because the effect of that statement will nullify anything that the hon. Minister of Information can say overseas about South Africa. I want to say that when I brought the Manjati case to this House, I was called a “beswadderaar”, because I had brought that case to the House. I want to tell the hon. Minister that his act of compassion in that case has had a far better effect than anything that the hon. Minister of Information could have done, and as far as I am concerned, the act of spite in the Mapheele case will undo any good resulting from acts of compassion. In his own way the attacks of the hon. Minister on the right of Mrs. Mapheele to go to the courts of law is similar to the attacks levelled at me the other day by the hon. Minister of Justice, who I am sorry is not here, because I have a lot of things to say to him. The gravamen of the charge against me was that I obtained information for an organization which assisted in providing defence for certain people brought before the courts of law, the Defence and Aid Fund, and the Minister called me an agent of the fund, and thumping himself mightily on the chest, he declared that he never made any allegations without being absolutely certain of his facts. Well, we will pass over a few obvious examples of Vorsterian fallibilities, and there are quite a number I could mention—certain people that he said are dead are in fact alive; certain people that he said are alive are in fact dead, and certain people have got nothing whatever to do with liquor stores although he claimed they did have—we leave all those little slips aside. I want to get down to the specific case that he had against me. First of all he called me an agent, which has an unpleasant connotation, but I want to inform him that I did a little research into my own questions in this House, and I find that out of 137 questions I put last year, exactly one was put on behalf of the Defence and Aid Organization and of the, I believe, 176 questions I put this year, exactly one was on behalf of Defence and Aid, and that was the question the hon. Minister referred to. Now I am not in any way apologizing for putting these questions. I would not mind at all if I put a great number of additional questions, because as I say, I have a completely different concept of the use of the courts of law from the concept of hon. members opposite. I believe that people are entitled to defence, and I would have no hesitation in again assisting an organization which is attempting to provide defence for people. I want to tell the hon. Minister that there was a time when he himself and the party to which he belongs were absolutely passionate in their defence of the right of people to be defended in the courts of law, even when the country was in actual state of declared war, let alone an undeclared state of a non-existing emergency, such as the one that we have to-day. I took a little trouble to look up the debates that took place in this House in 1942 when the war was at its height and I found that on 2 February the late Dr. Malan introduced an amendment to the Part Appropriation Motion (Hansard, Col. 1320), in which he stated that the Opposition (to which he belonged then) would not approve the second reading of the Part Appropriation Bill unless the Government undertook—

Speaking to this amendment Dr. Malan said—

I could not put it better myself.

Against whom did he direct his attack?

I could not care less, it is the principle which is being expressed that interests me, and it is a principle that should interest the hon. member, who can never think straight on any of these issues. But perhaps an even more interesting speech was made by the present Minister of Finance. In those days he was the hon. member for Fauresmith and he waxed very eloquent indeed about civil liberties and the curtailment of freedom. He said (Col. 1523 of 5 February 1942) that he found the violation of at least four clearly recognized sound principles of justice, principles in connection with the Government of the country. He said—

The hon. member, as he then was, even quoted the famous words of Lewis Carroll—

Those were the words of the present Minister of Finance. Interestingly enough the hon. Minister of Finance actually even compared those famous I.R.A. regulations with the emergency regulations of those days and proved that the I.R.A. regulations were less stringent than the emergency regulations, and I of course could prove that the Vorster Bill goes further than the action of the Government of those days as far as internments were concerned, because there is not even any appeal to a commissioner as was allowed during the war. The final point which the hon. Minister of Finance made in those days was to say—

That is my point too. The hon. Minister of Justice who took me to task because he thought it so terrible that I should help people who were assisting other people with their defence in courts of law, the hon. Minister himself defended people who were on trial for subversion, and he saw nothing wrong in those days in a fund to assist in defending people who were in difficulties because of the charges of subversion which were made against them, and that was called the Relief Fund of the Ossewabrandwag. The Defence and Aid Fund provides only assistance in the defence of people in courts of law, and this of course is considered now almost a treacherous act.

What has happened to the hon. Minister and his colleague since the roaring days of the Ossewabrandwag, what has happened since the roaring ’40s to change their whole concept of justice? I will tell the House what has happened. That side of the House has come into power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And never was there a more living exhibition of this famous phrase than the present Government of this country. Now all is different. Any criticism is unpatriotic! Any challenge in the courts of law is defiance of the Government. Any opposition to the laws that it introduces is an intolerable defiance of this Government. So what does the Government do? What does the Minister for Justice do? The Government bullies and it threatens and it tries to intimidate anybody who offers any real opposition, and when those tactics do not work the Government resorts to smear tactics, a very old, old form of strategy. This will be my last opportunity this Session to tell the Minister that his smear tactics are not going to work either. In fact, I want to say now that if I had been a little smarter the other day I would have immediately taken a point of privilege against the Minister, but unfortunately I left it a little too late.

And yet you can make this speech in Parliament.

I do not think the hon. member knows what I am talking about. He is still living in the roaring days of the Ossewabrandwag and the Greyshirts. I want to tell hon. members opposite that as long as I am in this House, and it will be a good deal longer than hon. members think or hope, I shall continue to criticize and to question and to censure the deeds of this Government whenever I think it necessary, and I might say that I will do the same if necessary in regard to the official Opposition. In other words, as long as I am politically alive I shall continue to kick.

Now we are in the closing days of what has been one of the most disastrous sessions of this Parliament, in my opinion. It has been characterized by the usual spate of apartheid legislation; it seems that we cannot do without that. We had the transfer of Coloured education, the proposed setting up of a Bantustan, the necessary preliminaries to the deprivation of rights for Africans living outside the Bantustans in the so-called White Republic of South Africa. We have had a further case of the Government’s determination to force its obsession and its prejudices on all South Africans by means of the Censorship Act. That is another example of the Government’s absolute determination to force all its own standards on the rest of the country. We have had the Publications Act. [Interjection.] The hon. member knows exactly what I am talking about. Its correct name would be the Censorship Act, just as the correct name of the Abolition of Passes Act is the Implementation of the Restriction of Movement Act, and just as the Separate Universities Act should have been called the Deprivation of the Rights of non-Whites to Attend Open Universities Act, and just as the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act should have had a different name as well. It should have been called the Deprivation of the Rights of Bantu Act.

Order! That is irrelevant.

We have witnessed the spectacle of the Minister of Community Development—and if ever there was a misnomer it is that—who sits there acquiescing while the lives of thousands upon thousands of Indians are destroyed before his eyes, while their livelihood is wrecked, and while they are compulsorily removed from places they have occupied peacefully for well over half a century, to such an extent that out of the total Indian population of the Transvaal of 48,000, 38,000 are already under the shadow of compulsory removal under the Group Areas Act and the rest are awaiting their fate. Worst of all, we have had a further assault on the rule of law, the most serious assault to date, and this, of course, is not unexpected, because if the Government intends at all costs to enforce apartheid in the teeth of all legal and practical difficulties, and they are many, then the Government has only one thing it can do, and that is to abandon the rule of law; because the theory of apartheid, which has all these enforced removals and restrictions inherent in it is completely incompatible with the theory of the rule of law, which has civil liberties as its basic premise. Therefore, one or the other has to go, and, of course, what has to go if we have to have apartheid is the rule of law, and I am sure that we will see an ever increasing slide away from the rule of law in this country, and we were only saved from a further slide away from the rule of law by means of a change in criminal procedure through the lateness of the Session.

Now the hon. the Prime Minister—and I must give him his due—is a past master at using logical arguments based on false premises. One can sit and listen to him for two hours and one can follow logically step by step everything he says. He fascinates me, like a snake fascinates a canary. [Interjections.] The point is that one can follow his arguments step by step, but suddenly one wakes up and sees that it is all based on false premises and then one comes back to reality with a bump. The canary falls off the bough and comes back to reality. I want to tell him that the picture he has built up of himself as the valiant protector of White civilization in Africa, the bulwark against Communism, is not shared by the rest of the Western world. Quite the contrary. He is the gravest embarrassment to the whole of the Western world, which is fighting hard to keep the uncommitted African and Asian States from the blandishments of the communists. The Prime Minister, who thinks that he stands there like a knight in shining armour defending White Africa against Communism, is deceiving himself, because nobody else, except perhaps his own supporters, sees him in that light. He talked a good deal about not yielding to pressures. There is always a good deal of this “We shall not yield” talk from the Nationalist benches. I think they build up their own courage with expressions like that. But I want to point out that it is not a case of yielding to pressure; it is a case of straightening out a completely skew set of values. Is our Government the only one which is in step and the rest of the Governments of the world are out of step on this question of racial discrimination? This is the very essence of our unpopularity. It is not that we do not hand the country over to the Blacks, but the essence of our unpopularity is that of all the countries in the world our Government’s policy is to uphold and entrench and perpetuate race discrimination. I say that South Africa has become a sick society where all the normal judgments and values and standards which go to make up a democracy have gone by the board, and we will pay the price for it sooner or later. This is only the beginning. We will suffer a similar fate in every international body in the world, be they sporting bodies or scientific bodies, because we are going against the whole tide of world feeling and we cannot do it indefinitely. The Government’s reaction to this is not that it will adapt itself to changing conditions, but it simply clings to its old habits, and I say that this can only lead us ultimately to disaster, because the world to-day is not built for isolation. On the contrary, it is built for increasing communication and contact, and any country that tries to remain isolated and out of contact will sooner or later find itself frozen to death like the old Eskimo grandmother who gets put outside the igloo. That is what will happen to us. We will be frozen to death because we eschew contact with the outside world and claim isolation for ourselves instead. One can only hope that before this disaster strikes us there will be enough people in South Africa with the common sense to know that we should make adaptations in time. I do not mean in the course of time, but before it is too late, and this of course entails one major change in the direction of policy, and that is a change away from race discrimination and towards the sharing of rights and responsibilities with all people who have reached certain stages in our multi-racial society. That is our only hope. There are two alternatives to accepting this inevitable adaptation which I believe we have to make. The one is of course to leave South Africa. Well, many people do not want to leave South Africa, because it is a fine country. Many people cannot leave this country for various reasons, and by far the majority of people do not want to leave South Africa. The other alternative is to climb into the White laager, and I think it is silly to deny that many people are doing this, and it is silly to deny that the Government is strong enough to hold this laager for quite a considerable length of time. But I believe it is equally silly to deny that life in the laager is going to grow increasingly uncomfortable for everybody who lives in it, and that pressures from outside and from inside South Africa will continue to grow, and eventually those pressures will burst that laager wide open. How much simpler and safer would it be to accept the inevitable now and to make the necessary adaptation before it is too late, to make concessions from strength and not from weakness. That is the only hope for this country. I believe that just as Whites will have to forego their extremism, the Blacks will have to forego their extremism as well, because we will simply have to come to an understanding in regard to running this country as a multi-racial country, which it is in fact. We are most fortunately placed on the whole continent of Africa to make a success of a multi-racial experiment, because we have a stable White population, which is settled here and will not leave, which means that extremist Blacks will have to make concessions, and we have a virile economy which can support the entire population at growing standards of living, which again makes for peaceful conditions, and most important of all, we have the most developed, educated and sophisticated non-White population on the whole of the continent of Africa, and they are people who readily appreciate the advantages of a developed industrial society and they will not likely forego those advantages. [Time limit.]

Who seconds the amendment?

There being no seconder, the amendment dropped.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has now repeated the usual humanistic and liberalistic cliches to which we have been listening in this House for the past 15 years. She says that we refuse to have regard to realities, but that is exactly what she fails to do. She is concerned with a philosophy only and she ignores the realities. She says that there are two possible ways in which to meet the pressure exerted upon us by the outside world. The one is to leave South Africa, which she regards as unpractical, or “to climb into the White laager”, and then she says “The pressures in the White laager will grow increasingly” until the White laager disintegrates. Her whole philosophy can be summarized in these few words: “Relax and enjoy”. She asks what the difference is between the “roaring forties” and the times in which we are living at present. It seems to me that she does not realize that we are living in the “sizzling sixties”; that times have changed considerably, and that we have to cope with the communists and that since the last war we have been engaged in a cold war which has produced new techniques for the subversion of countries. But she does not take those facts into account.

However, I rise really to reply to a statement with which she associated herself. She said that the Snyman Commission “did not institute an inquiry into the socio-economic position of the Bantu in the urban areas”. She associated herself with what the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) had said, that the finding of Judge Snyman in paragraph 86 is not a factual finding but an opinion based on the local circumstances at Paarl, and that it was not a country-wide inquiry. What was the finding of Judge Snyman in paragraph 68?—

They now say that is merely an opinion because it is not based on a country-wide inquiry. But in the same paragraph he mentions the members of Bantu in the urban areas, and the people to whom he refers there are the Bantu in the whole of the Republic. He says in that paragraph that there are 10,900,000 Bantu in South Africa; he does not say that they are detribalized Bantu, but he says that there are 3,471,000, including foreign Bantu, living in the urban areas. In other words, when he made this finding he was dealing with the entire Bantu population in all the urban areas of South Africa. But I am not basing my attitude on that statement; I simply mention it.

What were the terms of reference of that Commission? They were two-fold. First of all the Commission had to inquire into the occurrences at Paarl, and then it had to inquire into “the causes that gave rise thereto”. The Judge went on to say that he heard evidence, and in the first chapter he deals with all the evidence he heard, and he points out that that evidence came from all over the country. He says in paragraph 7—

The Judge then goes on to say that there are two kinds of causes for the occurrences at Paarl, “the remote causes or background” under which he lists “subversive activities in South Africa with particular reference to Poqo and the P.A.C.” That not only concerns Paarl but the whole of South Africa. Then he deals with the direct and immediate causes of the occurrences at Paarl, and that knocks the bottom out of the argument of the hon. member for Zululand. What does Judge Snyman say in paragraph 67? He says—

Here he is not dealing with the Bantu at Paarl but the Bantu of South Africa—

This does not deal with the small number of Bantu at Paarl, but he says that the aims of Poqo and the P.A.C. are directed against the whole Bantu population and particularly against their traditional tribal system—

And that does not include only Paarl and Cape Town—

Surely on this evidence alone it is perfectly clear that the argument which the hon. member tried to develop here is without substance. He should go and peruse the report once again and then he will see that Judge Snyman went into all the causes which are country-wide, which he called “the remote causes and the background”, and it was on that basis that he made his finding that the bulk of the Bantu in the urban areas still retained their tribal connections.

Can the hon. member refer this House to any witness who gave evidence before that Commission in respect of urban conditions at Johannesburg or Durban?

If the hon. member had referred to the Report he would have seen there are several memoranda dealing with this very aspect of the matter. I can only come to the conclusion that the hon. member has not read the report. I know that there are only a few copies of the report available, but that is no reason why the hon. member should come along and make these allegations. It is clear that several memoranda were submitted on this very matter. I now wish to deal with another matter, and in the course of my speech I shall quote those memoranda.

The hon. member has alleged, among other things, that the cause of the occurrences at Paarl was the breaking up of families. During recent weeks we have frequently heard that the policy of the Government is to break up families, and I should like to read out what Judge Snyman says in that regard. In this case he was dealing with the evidence of a certain Lydia Kaze, the general secretary of the Food and Canning Workers’ Union of Cape Town, who had submitted a memorandum. This is what Judge Snyman says about it—

This memorandum does not deal with Paarl, but with all the “urban communities”. He goes on to say—

That is what she alleges are the immediate causes of the occurrences at Paarl. What does Judge Snyman find on that point? He says this in paragraph 234—

You have omitted a material sentence.

No, I have not omitted a material sentence. Now what are the causes of the disturbances as listed by her?—

But the Judge finds that not one of these is the cause of the disturbances at Paarl. But I have not finished with the hon. member yet. The hon. member for Zululand revealed great ignorance here this afternoon. He showed that he knew very little about the matters he was discussing. I made the interjection “Where ignorance is bliss ’tis folly to be wise”, and in his case that is really true. Let us examine one of the other arguments he used. He says that they asked the Minister whether we were going to establish further Bantu self-governing units after the Transkei and that the Minister then said that no further units were being planned, and from that he drew the inference that we, as he said, “had made a right-about turn” and that we have abandoned further planning. I do not know on what he bases that.

Tell us what happened.

They are in a great hurry now. Hon. members opposite are so >pleased with the Transkei that they want more. I shall tell you what the position is. We are not as mad as those people in Central Africa and elsewhere. You will recall that in 1956 the Transkei was given a Territorial Authority and from then onwards that authority developed. After a number of years it came along and asked for the next step. What is the position regarding the other Territorial Authorities? The oldest of them is two years old. I refer to the Tswana Territorial Authority which was established in 1961. The other three established last year were established in December, and the Zulu Territorial Authority has not even been established as yet. How could they have advanced to self-governing units? These territorial authorities have hardly been in operation; they are still at the stage of development; how can we make them self-governing units at this stage already? We would then be committing the same act of folly that is being committed in Central Africa.

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

Evening Sitting

When business was suspended, I was dealing with what the hon. member for Zululand had said. I should like to touch upon one other point he made. He is not here now but I think it is necessary to mention it. He quoted the Tomlinson Report and pointed out that only the Transkei and Vendaland had been consolidated to such an extent that they can be governed as separate political units. Then he referred to the other Bantu areas which according to him are so divided and spread out that they do not lend themselves to being regarded as political units. I should like to advise the hon. the member, who is a young member, when he reads the Tomlinson Report, to refer also to the White Paper which the Government issued at the time. He will find the policy of this Government recorded in that White Paper. Apparently he has never seen that document. Had he made a proper study of it he would have seen what the Government contemplates with this consolidation, in other words, how they wish to carry it out. If he had read that document he would not have made the ridiculous statement that Pietersburg and Louis Trichardt will become the capitals of Bantu areas. Apparently he does not even know that Louis Trichardt is situated within the Sibasa area which is one of the areas which falls within what is known as Vendaland. The capital of that area is Sibasa, so Louis Trichardt does not even come into the picture. As regards Pietersburg, it does not even fall within a Bantu area at all.

But I do not propose to deal with the hon. member for Zululand at greater length. I want to return to the speech of the hon. member for Vereeniging and the reaction of the United Party to that speech. The hon. member for Vereeniging asked the Opposition certain questions. Among other things he asked whether the United Party would be willing, if foreign pressure reaches breaking point, to establish a regime in South Africa which will be acceptable to the outside world and which has not been elected by a majority of the White electorate? I regard that as a very important question, particularly when regard is had to the foreign pressure which is being exerted upon S.A. at the present time. I watched hon. members of the Opposition very carefully to see what their reaction was. There were only two hon. members who reacted to it evasively, namely the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) and the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant). However, they did not reply to the question directly. As far as I am concerned I want to say, that if the United Party is innocent and does not contemplate a step of that kind I would have expected them to have rejected with great indignation the innuendo contained in the question of the hon. member for Vereeniging.

The hon. member for Turffontein made a statement last night which in my view is the key to the attitude of the Opposition in this regard. The same statement was made also by the hon. member for Durban (Point). They said that South Africa had no enemies in the outside world; that all the hostility in the outside world was directed against the South African Government and not against the South African nation. Apart from whether that is true or not, I accept that as the key to the conduct of the United Party here in this House as well as outside. The speech of the hon. member for Constantia can only be understood in the light of that proposition. In essence that speech was no more and no less than an invitation to the outside world to intensify its pressure against South Africa so that this Government which, according to him, would then be acceptable to the outside world. May I be permitted to motivate this admission.

The hon. member for Constantia began yesterday by painting the completely false picture of the Government’s colour policy in the outside world in even blacker and more frightening terms. That is why he referred to the case of the Bantu woman Mapheele of Paarl and added the false allegation that it was the policy of this Government to break up the family life of the Bantu. The hon. the Prime Minister has already cleared up this matter and I do not propose therefore to enlarge upon it. In any case, the hon. member continued along the same lines. He described this Government as un-Christian and cruel. He himself admitted that he said these things because he wanted the outside world to understand that all the civilized people in South Africa differed from this Government. He said that under the pressure of the outside world this Government had only two courses open to it, namely abdication or war. Then he went on to emphasize all the risks and horrors of war. He said he himself had experienced two wars and that he knew of the suffering and the misery of war. Then he used these significant words—

It is clear therefore that the hon. member was inviting the outside world to continue its pressure on the Government so that it can abdicate and make room for a United Party regime. It is as clear as a pikestaff from the speeches of these hon. members, namely the hon. member for Constantia, the hon. member for Durban (Point) and the hon. member for Turffontein, that the United Party has given up all hope of getting into power with the aid of the votes of the White electorate of this country. Moreover, it is clear that the United Party desires foreign intervention in order to put it into power.

This is a well-known pattern, a pattern which emerged more particularly during the last war when minority governments were established in countries with foreign aid. I do not want to mention their names, because I do not want to talk to people like Quisling, Schusnig and Kadar. I merely wish to emphasize that if the United Party thinks it can come into power in South Africa without the vote of the White electorate of South Africa it is most certainly making a grave mistake as to what the White electorate will and can do. The White people of South Africa will not tolerate capitulation in any form to foreign pressure if it is going to endanger their survival. There is complete unity in this country to-day on one thing, between English-and Afrikaans-speaking people—I wish to emphasize that—and that is that the Whites here in South Africa hold the view that they are not expendable and they must continue to remain here. That is perfectly clear. It has been proved elsewhere in Africa that foreign pressure in the first place means that the White man is regarded as “expendable”, and secondly that “partnership” or “multi-racial states” or any concession of any kind whatsoever means that the White man will be destroyed. Therefore the White people in South Africa are in complete agreement on one thing and that is that no concessions can be made which will endanger their survival. But I go further and say that the Coloureds and the Indians in this country also agreed that any concession to foreign pressure will mean Bantu supremacy and that their survival in this country is closely connected with the survival of the White people of this country. Moreover, I wish to emphasize that even the Bantu is appreciating to an increasing extent that the policy of separate development is essential for his own survival and development. The pattern of Africa has shown the Bantu of South Africa that if that same pattern were followed here in South Africa it would mean more and more that the Bantu would simply exchange one master for another; in other words, he would have to exchange colonialism for Communism. The Bantu of South Africa also realizes that freedom can only be achieved if he is fully developed to take over the management of his own affairs. Hence the Transkei pattern. I do not wish to refer here to Matanzima and all the other leaders of the Bantu in the Transkei. But it is clear that they accept that there can be no concessions to foreign pressure, for otherwise they will have to forfeit their liberty. They prefer therefore to achieve freedom by way of separate development in accordance with the pattern now being devised in the Transkei.

As regards the Whites, the Coloureds and the Bantu, therefore, the outside world must realize that any interference whereby concessions are enforced in accordance with the pattern which is being followed elsewhere in Africa, would mean a Quisling government in South Africa, a minority government. I say to the United Party that if they think they can govern without the majority vote of the White people, they will be a Quisling government. In that case Alabama and Birmingham will be child’s play in comparison with what will occur in South Africa. Therefore I should like once again to repeat the question of the hon. member for Vereeniging. Do members of the Opposition reject all foreign intervention and will they resist it together with the Government? The Opposition must reply to this question clearly, unequivocably and positively, otherwise the United Party must not complain if they are suspected of wanting to negotiate with foreign countries and of being prepared to make concessions to them. If the United Party want to satisfy foreign countries without the preservation and the continued existence of the Whites, they should tell us, as a token of their bona fides, how they propose to do it. The hon. member for Durban (Point) was asked last night why, if the National Party Government was not acceptable, a United Party Government would be acceptable? But let us see whether a United Party policy would be acceptable to foreign countries. Here I wish to quote from their policy as published in the Sunday Times. I merely quote the summary of it. The hon. member for Durban (Point) would not tell us why their policy would be more acceptable abroad. But let us look at their policy as summarized in the Sunday Times. The first point is this—

I ask the hon. member for Durban (Point) whether a regime “under European leadership” would be acceptable to the outside world. The pattern elsewhere in Africa is essentially to get rid of the “European leadership”; how is it going to relieve the pressure exerted upon us by the outside world if that is going to be the policy in South Africa? Point No. 2 of their policy is this—

So they do not wish to repeal all the “discriminatory laws”; they merely want to amend or repeal some of them. Would that satisfy foreign countries or relieve the pressure exerted upon us by the outside world? Point No. 3 is this—

If that “voice in the central Parliament” is not on the basis of “one man, one vote”, will that policy of theirs satisfy the outside world? Certainly not, because the outside world is in fact demanding “one man, one vote”. Point No. 4 is this—

What the outside world demands is that there should be equality throughout. Would “race groups” satisfy the outside world? The hon. member for Germiston (District) made a very important admission this morning. He said that it was the policy of the Indian Government which “sparked off the outside world’s pressure” against South Africa. So it was the Indian question which sparked off this pressure. But under whose regime did this question come to the fore? Was it not during the regime of General Smuts in 1947? I am convinced that unless the United Party can show the country why they think their policy would be more acceptable to the outside world, their bona fides will necessarily be doubted. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) has another point of criticizm. He says that we have no moral basis for our policy. Let me deal with this policy for a few moments. As far as I am concerned, I say that we do have a moral basis for our policy. The fact of the matter is that the hon. member for Yeoville, in fact the whole United Party, never wanted to listen to an exposition of that moral basis. Is it moral when we say to the Bantu “there is your homeland” and to the White man “here is your homeland”? Is it wrong to give each his own area where he can live, acquire property rights and obtain social, economic and political rights? Is it immoral to say that we admit that the economy of the Bantu is backward while that of the White man has become highly developed and then proceed to help the Bantu? Is it immoral to say to the Bantu that we require his labour for our economic development, but at the same time tell him also that he requires his wage for the development of his own economy? Is it immoral to say that if they wish to build up their economy by selling their labour in the White areas, we shall have to make use of the system of migrant labour? I have here an article dealing with migrant labour in Germany and setting out all the difficulties connected with it. Unfortunately I do not have the time to go into it now.

I admit that the migrant labour system brings evils in its wake. But surely it is at least an honest attempt on the part of the one party to help the other. Is it immoral to say that the economy of the Bantu requires capital, but that that capital can only be utilized by persons on a basis of agency? If that is not done, the economy of the Bantu will not be preserved to himself. Is that immoral? Why, in order to place our policy on a moral basis, according to the hon. member for Yeoville, must more capital be invested in the Bantu areas than in the White areas? The hon. member also referred to the Coloureds. I do not wish to go into that, because the Minister of Coloured Affairs has stated the Government’s attitude in that regard very clearly, and that is that the Coloureds are an appendage of the Whites and must as a minority group, be considered with the Whites. That is admitted and attempts are being made to alleviate their lot. Is that immoral?

No, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the United Party has not shown its bona fides in this matter and that they dare not reply to the question which the hon. member for Vereeniging put to them.

As I am the first United Party speaker to address the House after the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). I assume that it is expected of me to refer to her speech. Now, the hon. member is in the convenient position in which she is able to be impartial insofar as she may attack both the Government and the United Party with equal objectivity. Consequently, she lashes out at the United Party and at the Government side with equal relish. I, however, am not so fortunate—although I do not regard that in itself to be a misfortune. I happen to be a member of the Official Opposition in this House, of the responsible Opposition—and so, instead of enjoying the privilege of the hon. member for Houghton who always has a choice of targets, I have only one target, namely. the National Party and its Government. That is a comforting thought! I may also say, in passing, that the hon. member for Houghton does not have to be guided into a debate by a Whip. In fact, one might say that she is un-whipped—and posterity may say of her that she was “un-whipped, unhonoured and unsung”. But at the same time, I hope that when she enters Heaven one day, she will find the hon. member for Durban (North) waiting for her!

I should like to deal very briefly with the speech of the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman), especially that part of his address before he started to read from a very carefully prepared speech. I should like to confine myself to his “off-the-cuff” speech, in which he referred to matters such as the Snyman Report and Poqo. I am not suggesting that the report of the learned judge should not be treated as seriously as it has been, but we must not fall into the error or believing, and speaking, as if that is the last word in South Africa’s history. It is by no means the first report of a judicial commission on matters such as those the learned Justice Snyman was asked to inquire into.

I remember one which was appointed as far back as 1922.

Yes. The hon. member, my better and my elder, has a longer memory than I have. I cannot, by means of personal recollection only, go back so far. However, on two occasions during this session I did try to draw the attention of this House to the report of a judicial commission of inquiry of 1958, under the chairmanship of a former Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Centlivres, and including a former Judge President of the Transvaal, Mr. Justice Greenberg, and also Mr. Justice Roper. If ever there was a commission appointed to inquire into a riot, that was the commission, because it dealt with a far bigger riot, of far larger proportions and of far greater consequence than the riots at Paarl. This inquiry under Mr. Justice Centlivres covered the whole South-West complex of Johannesburg, (not merely the township of Dube) where some 437,000 urban Natives live.

That commission of inquiry made certain findings, but every time I tried to read some of them, nobody on that side of the House would listen—and yet those findings are to this day as relevant to the position of the Bantu in the towns, as they were when the report was first made. In fact, they dismissed the whole thing. The Government at that time took the attitude that because the commission had been appointed to inquire into something in Johannesburg by the Johannesburg City Council, and consisted of persons who were, judicially speaking, “personae non gratae” with the National Party, the report was to be considered as being of no importance whatsoever. Consequently, the Government even went so far as to refuse to contribute anything towards the costs of that inquiry. That is the story of that commission of inquiry.

Every time I think of the Snyman Report. I think how misfortune has dogged the footsteps of the people of South Africa since the advent of the National Party to office. The reaction to the report of the commission of inquiry of 1958 constitutes a typical example of the attitude of this Government, because had it been prepared to take half as much notice of that report, then I make bold to say that the riots at Paarl might not even have occurred. We would then not have had to listen morning, noon and night to a discussion of the Snyman Report and its relation to the position of the urban Native who has been living in Paarl as an urban Native for perhaps 10 years only, this in comparison with Johannesburg, where the fourth generation of Bantu born there forms part of the urban Native population. Consequently, I hope the hon. member for Heilbron will forgive me if I do not follow him in his devious examination of the Snyman Report and the Poqo situation. I have my own opinion on it. and on how it might very well have been avoided but for the obtuse attitude of the Government.

Mr. Speaker, I have not prepared a speech, but yet there are a few things I should like to say. I want to deal with what can justifiably be called the “ambivalence” of this Government—it has two minds about almost everything, except one, and that is to stay in power by all and every means. Otherwise it has virtually two minds on every important subject with which this Assembly has to deal. Therefore, I think it is fair to say that the symbol of this Government is the character of Hamlet. But let me, first of all, deal with the attitude of the hon. the Prime Minister. At times he says that we stand alone. As a matter of fact, at Cradock he recently said that isolation was a virtue. In fact, he practically wallowed, if I may put it that way, in this glorious isolation which he said was a virtue. Then again, at other times I have heard him asking this House, how it can be said that we have no friends? Within the last few months, for that matter, I have seen him standing there, saying that he had received letters from outside the country showing how friendly people are. He did not disclose the contents of those letters, nor did he disclose from whom they came. At any rate, that is what he said—namely, that we had friends. I give him credit for it that he obviously realizes that it is necessary for any Government, for any people, to have friends. He made that clear during the visit of Sir Roy Welensky, who is now virtually a Prime Minister without a country but. still, a head of a country. According to Press reports the hon. the Prime Minister said, in reference to their meeting in a holiday atmosphere—

This is only too true. However, this goes completely against what the Prime Minister is reported to have said at Cradock, namely, that isolation was the supreme example of our strength. I have approached this matter on the basis of the test that “friends visit one another”. Mr. Speaker, if you and I were on friendly terms, we would also be on what is called “visiting terms”. Friends visit each other; that is the symbol of friendship, i.e. the exchange of meetings, and the exchange of compliments. In this connection. I should like to refer to a question which I put on the that I asked the Prime Minister—

How many members of your party during the past year invited you to visit them?

As this is purely a private matter, I am prepared to tell the hon. member that outside the House. At any rate, the second paragraph of the question was—

The reply to this was “yes” in respect of (1). In respect of (1) (a), (b) and (c) and (2) (a) and (b) the reply was—

Now, if this is not a “brush-off”, I do not know the meaning of that Americanism, because it becomes common knowledge when the one head of State is going to visit another even long before that visit is to take place. This is a matter which the head of State of the host country is delighted to release as public information. It is common knowledge that during 1962 President Kennedy received and entertained the heads of 38 foreign States. So why should there be any mystery about the matter? Why tell me that it is not customary to disclose any information in this regard? What is the true reason for this type of answer? What is anybody to believe is the true reason for it? The fact is that since this Government came to power Mr. Macmillan came to visit us. It must be remembered, however, that he came here as the Prime Minister who stands at the head of the Commonwealth, and in the course of a tour of other member States of the Commonwealth. Leaving this visit out of account, this country has had only one solitary visit from a head of State, i.e. from the then President of Portugal, President Craveiro Lopez, during 1957. The position, according to my recollection, is that during the 15 years this Government has been in power, only one head of a foreign State visited us. if we leave out of account the formal and normal visit of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom while we were still in the Commonwealth.

Now is that not significant? If you turn the coin and look at the obverse side, what do we find? Since this party came into power, where has the Prime Minister of South Africa been received as a visitor? Where has he been received, except in Britain? There is not a single country in the entire world that I can think of now, friendly or neutral or of any description, where the Prime Minister has been received during the 15 years this party has been in power.

What about Mr. Menzies?

And the Prime Minister of the Netherlands? Of course, you would not know!

Of course not, because I am not on nodding terms with all Prime Ministers except the Prime Minister of Britain! If there were other visits, why then was I not given that information in reply to the question which I put on the Order Paper? Then the public would have known that we do not, in fact, enjoy this splendid isolation of which the Prime Minister boasted in Cradock.

You must read the question and the answer together.

I have done that quite often. Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Finance can read between the lines and then tell me what the reply was intended to convey. I read it as I found it. I shall not now do more than refer to the fact that recently I got an answer from the Minister of Foreign Affairs which contained certain slighting references to me personally—but when I looked in Hansard, I found that those references were deleted! Here I presume the answer by the Prime Minister was given to me exactly as was intended. At any rate, we know that at the time the Prime Minister went to London for the Commonwealth Conference it was, to my own knowledge, mooted that he might visit Germany. But we can all recall what happened. You will recall what happened, Sir. No invitation came from West Germany—on the contrary! Will the hon. Minister of Finance deny that? What is more, Sir, here I have a Press report of what one might call a projected visit to France, a friendly nation, a country with which we have good trade relations and upon whom we may well rely for the supply of essential planes and other armaments. According to this report, the Prime Minister wanted to make an official visit to France, “but de Gaulle decided it would not increase France’s popularity with Algeria”. It goes on—

Mr. Monnerville is, of course, Coloured. So that projected visit to France collapsed. I hope the hon. the Minister of Finance will not tell me that I have the wrong slant on this one, too, and that the visit was paid to France by the hon. the Prime Minister, but that he saw fit not to tell South Africa, so as not to show how our head of State was received by friendly nations; that he wanted to suppress this information in order to make us go on worrying about our isolation.

You should read something about Protocol.

I know something about Protocol—but I say again that President Kennedy and all those who surround him have publicly boasted of the fact that in 1962 he received the heads of 38 States. We would suppress it, of course, if that happens to us! [Interjections.] Unfortunately, I have no mandate to represent the Republic of South Africa!

Before I illustrate my point by further facts, Sir, I want to tell hon. members that Shakespeare might well have been thinking of the hon. the Prime Minister when he wrote the play, Hamlet, because we know the hon. the Prime Minister is unable to make up his mind whether we are to fight or to abdicate, to be friendly or to be unfriendly, whether we are in complete isolation or whether we have an embarrassment of riches in the form of friends. Sometimes we are told that South Africa is peaceful and orderly, but it is also in a state of turmoil and crisis! I think that sort of ambivalence must have been in the mind of Shakespeare when he wrote the soliloquy by Hamlet who appears—and I hope the hon. the Minister of Finance will not deny that this is accurate!—in Act III, Scene I—and says:

And so on, Sir, until there is another more relevant, and even more eloquent, passage. And here is the point; this is the reason why this Government is completely rooted to the spot. It cannot move forward, it cannot move backwards, it cannot even move sideways any more. Hamlet says to himself—

“And lose the name of action”! How true, Sir! I maintain that, on all the facts, this Government has in fact lost “the name of action”. Because whenever we as a responsible Opposition try to prod this Government into action—action that will take the form of positive proof—that we have have a Government in power in which reason still prevails, that we do not want to be in this splendid isolation of which the Prime Minister boasted at Cradock—there is no action whatsoever! Then we have the sorry picture that we had in the Foreign Affairs Debate, after the Minister of Foreign Affairs had made that sad statement. Then we had the picture again when the hon. the Prime Minister made his statement yesterday afternoon. Then you hear the moaning, and the whining and the wailing: “What are we to do”? I have said this before, Sir sometimes I think that by some latter-day miracle the Wailing Wall of Jerusalem has transplanted itself to the south-east corner of this Chamber!

How else can one delineate the attitude of the Government, even in fairness to the Government, except as ambivalence, except as the Hamlet complex, especially when the hon. the Minister of Finance who is so critical of my views? Does he require further proof. I have a file on it. Had Shakespeare been alive he could have written his play on Hamlet all over again on this information alone and I do not have a monopoly! Here is, for example, the sort of information we get from the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. S. F. Steyn) who, we know, is one of the acknowledged “thinkers” of the National Party. When he talks about the Coloured people he says—

If somebody would be kind enough to explain to me whether they are part of the South African nation or not whether they be part of the South African nation of whether they be not part of the South African nation—I would be extremely grateful. Despite the fact that we have been assured that the Bantu are in truth part of the body politic in South Africa, the hon. member for Kempton Park said on the 17th of June—

Now, I ask, you Mr. Speaker! Who among the hon. gentlemen on that side will guide my poor weak mind to the truth? If the Bantu are constitutionally citizens of the Republic, then how does it happen, according to the hon. member for Kempton Park, that they were never “full” citizens of the country. What is a citizen. Sir? Have you ever heard of half a citizen? Perhaps half a citizen is better than no citizen! But is this not ambivalence? Is this not another Hamlet—there are many minor Hamlets on that side—but is this not another Hamlet speaking? Here is another utterance from another one of the “backroom boys”-—

I believe they are called—the coming members of the Nationalist Party; namely, the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) when he addressed the Oranjeclub in this City as recently at last Friday. He said—

That is, to the schoolboys and the schoolgirls. You see, Sir, together with the explanation about the birds and the bees, the hon. member for Randfontein thinks he should now also explain the racial situation! He says—

Sir, how does that square with what we heard in the debate in Bantu Laws Amendment Bill? Where is the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) now? Where is the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) now? Where is the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration? They say the Bantu do not belong in South Africa. They do not belong here at all; they belong in the “heartlands”! Why then must Dr. Mulder tell innocent people outside of this House differently last Friday night?

Another aspect of the matter that puzzles me considerably is the attitude of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration. As I have said before, Sir, he is a most amiable gentleman—but not a very lucid thinker, in my humble opinion. We have been told quite recently that the Transkei Constitution is designed to set the Transkei on its course to full independence. I know that had the House not now been so barren on that side—I mean in numbers, of course—there would have been an outcry against this. But the point that was made yesterday, and again to-day, was that the hon. the Prime Minister was giving the House the correct information on this matter when he said: “We have no further plans for any further Bantustans”. [Interjections.] Nothing has happened to my tongue. I sometimes wonder what has happened to your mind. You take care of your mind I take care of my tongue! There were not going to be any further Bantustans—there were no plans for any further Bantustans. They were so indignant at the very suggestion. They said: “Do you want us to establish further Bantustans”? In other words: “Are you inciting us now to establish further Bantustans”? Here is another Press cutting, Sir. The chickens sometimes come home to roost in the form of the printed words. Extraordinary, Sir, as they say in Latin: mirabile dictu! Here is a Press report which goes back to the 12th October, 1962—

This is a Press report; it has never been denied—

“Crash programme”! Do you know what that means, Sir? This is, in aeronautical parlance, something that has to be done very quickly—

…part of the Government’s crash programme for “Operation Zulustan” …

Then Mr. Corrie Nel, the Commissioner-General, said he only hoped that it would be “soon”! Here in the Chamber we are told that there are no plans for any further Bantustans, that that is just another United Party pipe dream, just like the one that we “concocted” from 1958 onwards when we were telling the country that there were going to be Bantustans. There is another sign of ambivalence from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Believe me, Sir, I am not critical of him; I have a high regard for him—it is just that I do not always follow his reasoning. He says the Bantustans have all the wherewithal, all the prerequisites of what is to-day called “viability”. And yesterday we had the Prime Minister reacting very indignantly when it was suggested that the Transkei did not have those prerequisites. For example, you could not establish industries that the Bantu would run there. He said there were Bantu in Johannesburg who had businesses and that they would forthwith go and do in the Bantustans what they had been doing in Moroka, for instance; he said even the lawyers would go there, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). So it was not a question of when they will become viable, but the hon. the Prime Minister said they were viable now! I recall that very clearly—they are viable now.

Here I have a report of the Bureau of Racial Affairs. I think this is the body called Sabra. The date of the report is 10 June 1963. A conference was held in Pretoria to “survey the progress of the Government’s border industries plan”—

The report also says—

I am not saving that. I take the word of an industrialist like Dr. Visser, and of the Bureau of Racial Affairs. But how do you explain that, when this is said authoritatively, we are told by the hon. the Prime Minister that this question of viability is just a lot of loose talk—“they are viable now”; people can go and work there and set up businesses and industries!

Then I come to the question of our preparedness in the event of war. Of course, as we know, we are not supposed to know clearly whether we are confronted with the possibility of war, or whether we have so many friends in the world that war does not arise as a possibility. According to the Press and my own recollection, last March when the hon. the Minister of Defence warned the country he said in Parliament that if we became involved in a war to-morrow because of aggression against us by a state not far away from our borders, he accepted that “no Western power would step in. Then we would have to take a stand alone.” The appeal that was made to us yesterday—that we must stand with the Government in the interest of South Africa—is a curious one. I think the reasoning behind it is this: “Although your policy,” they tell us, not in so many words but that is the idea, “is undoubtedly the one that will save South Africa, although we believe you have the policy that will convince the outside world that we in South Africa are no threat to world peace, you cannot expect us, a mighty Government, with 105 members to come over to you, a small Opposition with 50 members; you cannot expect that.” What is in turn behind that argument is this: “We won the last general election and two or three before that; the majority of the voters voted for us; therefore when South Africa must be united in order to save itself, you must stand with the Government.” That is the argument. This story about the mandate of the people should also be examined, I think, for a change. Will anybody deny that at the 1961 election the number of votes cast for the Nationalist Party was 370,431?

What has that got to do with this debate?

I shall tell you now. Will the hon. member also agree that the total number of votes cast at that election was 797,645?

So what?

So this: If you deduct 370,431 from 797,645 you get 427,214. And that was the number of votes cast against the Government at the last election! Did the hon. member know that? You forget about the contribution from a delimitation here and there, yon forget about those things conveniently and say “We have a mandate from the people; the majority of the people voted for us.” So, in conclusion I would say, in regard to this appeal “Come stand with us for the sake of South Africa”, the boot is, in fact, on the other foot—you come and stand with us for the sake of South Africa; firstly, because your policy having been tried for 15 years has been completely discredited in this country and outside: secondly, because the policy of the United Party, for the past 15 years, has been evolved after very careful consideration not only of our basic principles, but in the light of all the mistakes you have made. (I have not the time to catalogue those, Mr. Speaker.) Thirdly, for the reason that in the ultimate and final issue, they know as well as we that we will stand together for the sake of South Africa. But they must never expect me to stand with the Nationalist Party to save its policy. As long as a party equates itself, firstly, with the State, secondly, with the nation, and thirdly, with all the people in it, so long as is it “round the bend”. And, therefore, we of the United Party say that as long as this Government bestride this country, as long as the South African nation has to carry the incubus of the National Party, we can never expect anything but weeping and wailing and whining and moaning. But as soon as the Government does the patriotic thing, and accepts the appeal which was made in another context, “In God’s name, GO!”, as soon as they are patriotic enough to “GO”, we shall see in South Africa a peaceful, prosperous and united nation.

I have often noticed at a circus that the clowns are brought on to entertain people between acts. But I have never known anybody replying to the pranks of a clown.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member allowed to call the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) a clown?

Sit down!

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I have never known anyone to take any notice of the antics of a clown. This whole House is as sick and tired of his sort of clowning as the members of his own party are.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the hon. the Minister gave us figures in the Budget papers that he submitted to this House of the savings possibilities in South Africa. He pointed out that the real income in 1961-2 was R4,601,000,000 while in 1950-1 it was only R2,301,000,000. He told us further that the personal savings of the public in 1953 amounted to 235 or 8.4 per cent and that this had increased in 1963 to 598 or 12.9 per cent. This shows a good improvement. I want to ask this question: What becomes of these savings? Whose money is it and how is it invested? In asking this question I want to inquire whether the State gives the necessary protection to the people who save their money so that they will know that the money that they are saving is given the necessary protection by sound and solvent bodies. I know that the hon. the Minister himself is very concerned about this question. I know that together with the Registrar of Financial Institutions, the hon. the Minister has made plans to give the necessary protection to people who save their money. A short while ago a Bill was passed to establish an inspectorate for the Registrar to investigate these matters. I do not know whether that is adequate. I do not know whether with the laws and the machinery that we have we can exercise the necessary control; I do not know whether we can apply the correct methods. I do not know whether we can afford public savings the necessary protection to enable us to uphold the prestige and the financial stability of the Republic. I refer to an article that appeared in Dagbreek on 26 May in which it was stated that over the past 18 months no fewer than ten financial bodies have gone insolvent. This has meant a loss of far more than R10,000,000 to the general public. This amount includes savings, premiums and claims that could not be met. Certain of these bodies were also mentioned by name. This means that the savings of thousands of people, money that they have already paid off on plots has been lost to them. This amount of R10,000,000 in the form of savings, premiums and claims that could not be met, third party premiums that have again to be paid, has all been lost. I would almost say that it has been stolen. As I say, the hon. the Minister is worried about this matter and so he has appointed an inspectorate. He introduced an amending Bill into this House and when he introduced it he told us why he was introducing it. He said that he wanted to put a stop to this sort of thing. There are companies that are guilty of sabotaging our good race relationships because of this sort of uncontrolled exploitation—I could almost call it fraud. These companies deceive the Bantu; they exploit the Bantu. I want to mention one or two examples in this regard. One finds, Mr. Speaker, that an insurance company also controls a motor company. The motor firm sells a car to a Bantu under a hire-purchase agreement. It then compels the Bantu to take out his third party and comprehensive insurance with its parent insurance company. The premiums are far above normal and amount to between R60 and R80 for a car costing between R600 and R800. The third party insurance is then included in the instalments to be paid over 12 months, which is actually against the law. A very high rate of interest is charged, not only on the hire-purchase agreement, but also on the insurance policy. There is a compulsory clause in the contract which provides that if a claim for an accident is made, the Bantu has to pay the first R200. What happens then? As soon as the Bantu is involved in an accident, he goes to the insurance company which sends him to the original motor firm which is in any event its own business. When the Bantu goes to the motor firm, the damage to his car is assessed by an assessor who is also an official of the insurance company. That Bantu is then told that he has to pay the first R200. He does not have the money so he goes back to the insurance company which lends him the R200 and he signs an acknowledgment of debt for R240 payable at R20 per month plus interest at almost 30 per cent. What is the result? As soon as the Bantu finds himself in difficulty again, he takes a further loan on the car with the insurance company. When he cannot meet his instalments in this regard, the company refers the matter to the motor firm. Then the Bantu is told: You have broken the law because you cannot take a loan on a car that is being purchased under a hire-purchase agreement. The Bantu then becomes so discouraged that he allows them to repossess the car. This is one of the examples that I want to mention this evening. This is one of the cruelest ways in which financial bodies disturb our race relationships. It is all very well to treat the Bantu strictly but we must always treat him fairly. If we go on in this way the Bantu in South Africa wall not respect the White man because he will regard the White man as a thief. I want to ask, Mr. Speaker, whether the time has not come when we should have more co-ordination between the Registrar of Financial Institutions, the Registrar of Companies and the South African Police. They often make independent investigations with the result that the one does not know what the other is doing. When an insurance company is registered and it does insurance work of this nature, a thorough investigation must be made into its affairs to ascertain its connection with the motor firm that is exploiting these people. We must have that co-ordination.

I know that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs ordered an inquiry into certain companies on 2 February 1962. I want to ask what has become of that report. Has the Registrar of Financial Institutions access to such a report? Does he receive the report? The police have informed me that they themselves made an investigation. They made an investigation as a result of certain complaints. The one complaint was that so many claims were defended in court that the people involved eventually settled the matter out of court. I want to mention a few of the inquiries that have been undertaken by the police. I also want to mention the name of the firm concerned: “That Auto-Protection delays unnecessarily claims that have been made against its organization under compulsory third party insurance and so doing increases the cost of litigation to such an extent that claimants are compelled to settle out of court”. Who are these claimants? I have made an analysis of the court cases from 1 November 1960 to 26 October 1961 in the Johannesburg regional court. I found that out of a total of 311 cases, this one insurance company had 240 proved against it and that of those 240, 111 were claims by non-Whites. When one considers that 240 cases were proved against one insurance company, one wonders how many non-Whites who could not afford attorney’s fees simply did not proceed with their cases but settled out of court. This is another example of how the less privileged people, the people who cannot afford an attorney, are left in the lurch and deceived. Then hon. members accuse this Government in this House and say that race relationships have deteriorated because of the laws passed by this Government. Race relationships in South Africa have never ever been aggravated by laws or simply because these people have not been able to agree with us. Race relationships are aggravated as a result of economic exploitation. When we look at Africa we ask ourselves why it is that the White man is hated in every part of Africa. He is not hated because he has not given political rights to these people because they know nothing about political rights; he is hated because the non-Whites feel that they are exploited economically; that economically they are carrying the White man on their backs and that even with that they are treated in the way that I have just mentioned. This is an important matter which the United Party will have to investigate with us. Together with us they will have to tell every White man in South Africa: “Put your hand into your own bosom and ask yourself how you are treating the non-White”. They must not come along to this House and advocate political rights for these people and nothing else. We must treat these people honestly and not exploit them and then we will have a different position in our country. Mr. Speaker, this investigation went further. Auto-Protection ommitted to hand in its balance sheet for 1959 and 1960. I have the police report before me. They say that in 1962 Auto-Protection registred bonds to an amount of R160,000 on property that was worth only R16,000 and that because of this fact the assets of Auto-Protection were deceptively high. I do not want to go any further into this matter. I just want to say that in their report the police say [Translation]—

I want to discuss this matter for a moment. Why should we have the position in South Africa where we allow wangling to take place? It is not a crime; wangling allows this sort of thing to happen when people are exploited in this way—it allows an amount of R10,000,000 to disappear within a short time. But it is not a crime. Because this is so, I ask whether the time has not come for the hon. the Minister, together with the others that I have mentioned, to have an investigation made? I know that he has already said here in the House that he is trying—I know that the Registrar of Financial Institutions will also try—to prosecute people who are guilty of mismanagement or bad control, but I do not think that cur laws and available machinery always make this possible. I want to mention another example in regard to this question of the registration of bonds that was investigated. Dunns Gazette of 17 January 1962 reports that this company passed a bond for an amount of R34,000 in regard to plot No. 237 in Mayfair and that the municipal valuation of that plot was only R4,400. In other words, a bond of R34,000 was registered on a plot valued at R4,400 and investors invest their money although these assets are grossly inflated. We not only have this one case; I can mention various other examples. While this was going on we find that this company continued to do third-party insurrance; it continued to do so until it was stopped as a result of steps taken by the Registrar of Financial Institutions in March. But prior to this, the company continued to collect these premiums simply because the machinery that we have at the moment is not adequate to control this sort of thing. I want to mention another example. I want to discuss what took place in regard to a few companies. We find that the Auditors Roos, Brink and Du Toit reported in June, 1961 that the Farmers’ Bank was insolvent. In November and December that same Farmers’ Bank amalgamated with Trans-Africa. Even though it was found to be insolvent in June, it amalgamated with this other concern at a later date. And then we find the following disturbing evidence given in court—

The witness said that he had not seen that report. It was stated further—

He could only allow it because he did not have that machinery available—this was still before the inspectors had been appointed—to take the necessary precautions. But what happened then? The result was that not only did the Farmers’ Bank become insolvent but Trans-Africa had also to become insolvent because of this unholy alliance.

May I put a question to the hon member? Can the hon. member tell us what the capital of that Farmers’ Bank was?

I do not have the figures here but I can obtain that information for the hon. member. I only have the report of the auditors here. They go on to say—

The auditors reported insolvency, but the amalgamation went through. I want to say further, that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs ordered an investigation, apparently as a result of the police report that I have already mentioned, and that instruction was given on 12 January 1962. What was the result of that inquiry? I want to mention a few of the companies involved. We find that the Tradition Transport Company, the Auto-Protection Insurance Company, Bagley and Steventon (Pty), Ltd., Lyons Transport and Sand Co. (Pty), Ltd., Jack Meyer Transport (Pty), Ltd., S.A. Reinsurance Corporation, Ltd. and the Provident Assurance Corporation of Africa (Ltd)., all came under one umbrella; they were all in the hands of one group of people and all of them had the same firm of auditors; they had the same secretariat; they were affiliated companies; they were all the same people.

Naughty boys!

Yes, but what is to become of the country? I am really concerned because in looking at the shares, I found that the Tradition Transport Company was set up in such a way that Auto-Protection Insurance Company hold 100,000 if its shares—half of the number of shares issued. Let us look at the South African Reinsurance Corporation. 187,500 shares in that company were held by Auto-Protection and 38,964 shares were held by the S.A.R.C. Holdings (Pty.) Ltd. These were the same people. We know that these people are the reinsurers for Sentrakas; these people are the reinsurers for numbers of our cooperatives. Because this is so, I think that it is our task and our duty to ask ourselves whether this reinsurance is sound. I want to mention an example of the finding of an independent auditor who investigated this matter. He has this to say in connection with his investigation [Translation]—

He goes on to say [Translation]—

He goes further and he has this to say of the South African Reinsurance Corporation Ltd. and the Provident Assurance Corporation of Africa [Translation]—

1. (1) Auto-Protection Insurance Company Ltd. is the controlling company of South African Reinsurance Corporation with a shareholding of 75 per cent.
2. (2) South African Reinsurance Corporation Ltd. is the controlling company of the Provident Assurance Corporation of Africa Ltd. with a shareholding of 100 per cent.

And we all know that the Provident Assurance Corporation has already been placed under judicial management; it has already been declared insolvent and S.A.R.C. is the owner of it. But S.A.R.C. is in its turn the owner of Auto-Protection. An alternative request was made to the court in the case of Auto-Protection, a request that it should either be placed under judicial management or, if not, that it should stop offering third-party insurance cover and that it should increase its share capital. What did it do? The South African Reinsurance Corporation was a reinsurance body. Auto-Protection was not. It simply stated: My reinsurers owe me so much money and because of this fact my capital has now increased, although in the meantime it was the owner of the reinsuring company. How can it owe itself so much money? I really find cause for concern as far as this matter is concerned. Let us analyse it further. What does the Financial Mail have to say? it states—

It goes on to say—

We find this occurrence—that Auto-Protection could no longer do third-party insurance but channelled all the third-party insurance business through to Yeoman. It could not do the business itself but its proprietary company that it owned could do the business. Because this has happened, I feel that the time has come for us to take the necessary steps in this connection to ensure that these companies will not be allowed to get away with this sort of thing. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to ensure that steps are taken.

A commission has already been appointed.

I know that the hon. the Minister has already appointed a commission. That is sufficient proof to the investors that the hon. the Minister is concerned about this matter. But the question that we have to decide is whether the legal position is such that an investigation ordered by the hon. the Minister of Finance, an investigation ordered by the hon. the Minister if Economic Affairs and an investigation by the police will be co-ordinated whether co-ordinated action can be taken. Is the position such that when one company is investigated it can immediately warn and inform the others? The Registrar of Financial Institutions made an investigation in connection with the Farmers’ Bank and Trans-Africa. But before the police could do anything, the managing director had left the country and he is now in France together with all the money. Is this not sufficient proof that we should ask ourselves what steps should be taken to have more co-ordination, more consultation in this connection? [Interjections.] It appears to me that hon. members are being petty. Mr. Speaker, do you know why these hon. members are being over-sensitive. These hon. members do not want us to put our finger on this sort of thing that is happening and that is disturbing our race relationships in South Africa. These hon. members do not want me to produce proof to show how these companies exploit the Bantu in such a flagrant manner, just as the City Council of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) did not want Sophiatown to be cleared because it had too many persons collecting rentals from those Bantu.

On a point of order, is that not a direct accusation of improper conduct? It appears so to me. Perhaps I understood the hon. member wrongly. I hope that he will repeat what he has just said.

What does the hon. member mean?

I am prepared to repeat what I said. I said that those hon. members do not want us to turn the spotlight on the way in which financial institutions exploit the Bantu. I pointed out further that, in the same way. hon. members did not want us to clear Sophiatown because there were financial institutions involved that were being paid rentals by those Bantu living in those hovels [Interjection.] I said that the hon. gentlemen were being over-sensitive. I am mentioning these examples and I want to thank the hon. the Minister for having ordered this investigation. I want to express the fear that the machinery that the hon. the Minister has is not adequate to take strict action when all these results are shown. Secondly, I want to express the fear that the machinery that we have as far as the new inspectorate that has been established is concerned, will not be adequate because of a shortage of staff and because of the fact that these people have found all sorts of loopholes in the Companies Act to enable them to juggle with shares. That is why I do not think that our present machinery is adequate.

You have no point.

I want to mention another example to the hon. the member who says that I have no point to make. I want to mention another company, Jack Meyer Transport (Pty.), Ltd. Only two shares of R1 each were sold in this company at a cost of R5,937. From the minutes it appears that these shares were posted from one cash book to another—“By Cash, R7,000; establishment costs R111”. And what did the auditor find in this connection; he found this (Translation)—

He goes on to say [Translation]—

I can mention one example after the other in this regard, but we have this problem with which we have to deal—that the Registrar of Financial Institutions makes an investigation in regard to one aspect of financial institutions but that the Registrar of Companies is not aware of it at that moment and so there is no co-ordination between the two in order to clarify this matter.

Time does not permit me to mention further examples. I have said that we must thank the hon. the Minister for what is being done but I want to ask in all earnestness: When we think that in the past 18 months ten financial institutions have gone bankrupt and that five of those ten have robbed the investing public of R10,000,000—these savings about which we have so much to say—then we realize the seriousness of the position. And who are the investing public? They are not the great share magnates who are continually studying the share market and investing money in mining companies; no, they are the poor people, the orphans and widows, the less privileged people who have invested their savings. Thousands of rand were invested with the Farmers’ Bank. It is the widows and the orphans who take out this insurance in order to cover themselves; it is the third party insurers in the Johannesburg Insurance Company who will now have to pay twice for their policies. It is these people who, because they are not acquainted with financial institutions are unfortunately always wanting to take out the cheapest policies—which they do—with certain of our insurance companies. They think that they are saving their money by doing so, but in the long run they lose these very large amounts of money. That is why I think that the time has come for us to call a halt but we can only do so if we have coordinated action between the police, the Registrar of Companies and the Registrar of Financial Institutions so that when an investigation is made, they will all be called in together. In this way the whole undertaking to be investigated, together with all its affiliated companies, can be investigated as a group and not singly.

I was greatly impressed by the plea of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom, and I think that I would like to support his plea that there must be a most thorough inquiry in connection with what is going on in this country to-day. I should like to have a judicial inquiry also to find how that hon. member for instance succeeded in getting crayfish quotas not so long ago. I would like to find out by means of an inquiry how the hon. member for Wakkerstroom got several concessions in the Pongola Reserve. I would like to have this whole thing investigated, Sir. It looks to me on the evidence produced by that hon. member as though all is not well in this country of ours. But I would like to extend the scope of this inquiry a bit. I would like to find out what concessions the hon. member holds in Pongola and how he got them?

You are welcome.

That is a mean reflection.

You hear, Sir, that the hon. member is supporting me. I don’t know why it should be a mean reflection when an hon. member gets up here and asks for a certain inquiry.

Are you making an accusation against an hon. member?

There is no accusation. This is an honest and sincere request to the hon. the Minister of Information to tell us what is going on in this country. That is not all. That is not the only inquiry I would like to have. I would like to have an inquiry into the whole of the crayfish and the fishing industries to see who the people are who received concessions over the last few years. I would like to have an inquiry into diamond concessions in this country and to find out exactly who made all the millions that had been made here by a handful of people.

Sir. I would like to draw your attention to a report in the latest issue of Dagbreek of the 23rd of this month, which talks of a big inquiry into a diamond company. In this report they say some serious things—

They talk here of “tienduisende aandele is verkoop, wat in prys gewissel het tussen ’n paar Rand tot R60,000 na gelang van die aantal aandele wat verkoop is”. They even go so far to say that sheep and cattle were exchanged for shares.

What company is that?

I say that great interest has been taken in the off-shore diamond ventures in South West Africa. You know the groups? Groups including Mr. Oppenheimer, Sam Collins of the Marine Diamond Corporation who recently borrowed R2,000,000 from Mr. Oppenheimer, the world oil tycoon, Paul Getty, who is helping Mr. Cohen to tackle his concessions. To the north of Mr. Collins, Terra Marina, backed by Afrikaans Finance, Bonuskor, has got a 700 mile concession further north up to the Kunene River.

What is wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with that, but I say very little information has officially been issued in regard to these ventures, except by Diamond Royalties and Holdings, which is nearly a quarter of the shares in Marine Diamond Corporation. I think the public is entitled to know a little more. There have been reports of a wild diamond rush on the West Coast, not only offshore in South West, but also in regard to the land south of the Orange River, where the Government itself is due one of these days to allocate many new concessions to some lucky applicants. When will these concessions be granted?

What are you insinuating?

The hon. member there is in a far better position to get in touch with the people who organize these things. At present the situation is not creating confidence because no one knows who will get what.

Mr. Speaker. I would like to refer you to another incident. The South West Administration told applicants for the 700 miles concession up to the Kunene that it would be granted only in 1966. Yet this concession was granted in quick time to Terra Marina. The ground given was that it was good to have a newcomer in the field. Is this good enough when existing applications are thrust aside in such a manner?

Now we come to oil. There are persistent rumours that there is oil in the West Coast. Does the Government know anything about it? Is it true? Will there be a confirmation or will there be a denial? The people surely ought to know. The uncertainty, with all the speculation that goes with it, cannot continue. The implications for the future of South Africa and South West Africa if oil were found offshore are tremendous. It affects the whole trend of the cold war if new rich oilfields are found in the Atlantic here. Surely there is ground for a full-scale inquiry into the mineral resources of the West Coast and the many companies involved. I say that when rumours are rife as is the position at the present moment that certain people are making fortunes because the public in South Africa is being kept in the dark, then surely there is a good case for a full-scale inquiry into this whole business.

We hear so much of the sucking of diamonds out of the sea. There was a report, for instance—I do not know whether it is correct, perhaps the Government can tell us—that experts were sent by the Government to check on the disturbance of crayfish beds in sea-diamond operations. What was their report to the Department? Are they doing any harm to the crayfish industry and to what extent?

Not at all!

Who is the expert? That is the position that some people have got inside information here in South Africa and we do not know about it. That is exactly our difficulty, and that is why I say there should be a full-scale inquiry. Because there you have an hon. member who claims that he comes from the area, who claims that he has certain connections with all these concessions, he comes here in this House …

Order! What is the hon. member referring to?

Just this, Sir, that he told me that he is a shareholder in some of these ventures. I don’t know how true it is.

That is a lie.

Order! The hon. member should withdraw those words.

I withdraw that, but it is not correct.

I am sorry. Sir. If the hon. member does not have any interests in those ventures then he did not tell me the truth. But it does not matter. Apparently he has got information that the rest of South Africa has not got, and I say that a full inquiry is necessary.

On a point of order, the hon. member has said he does not have any shares in those companies.

I say that if people have information which is not known to the rest of South Africa it is the Government’s duty to tell South Africa, or otherwise there must be a full-scale judicial inquiry into just what is going on. Because here you have a case. Here I mentioned that I believe that experts were told to investigate the effect of diamond sucking from the sea on the crayfish industry. The hon. member says he has got the information. But here in Cape Town, strangely enough, in the Republic diving for crayfish has been stopped by Government order. It was maintained that divers disturbed crayfish under the water. Other arguments were also given. But the one fact emerges and that is that not one bit of information was made available to say that diving for crayfish did any harm to the industry whatsoever. These people claim that they are in a better position to preserve crayfish life because they can see and they take out only crayfish of the required size whereas netting and trapping kill ever so many young crayfish. These crayfish divers maintain, whether it is right or wrong, I do not know, but I wish the Government would tell us, that certain vested interests in the fishing industry have succeeded in prohibiting them from catching crayfish by diving. Will the Minister please tell us what scientific evidence he has and why he stopped crayfish diving in the Republic of South Africa? Has he any evidence whatsoever? It has reached this stage now that a person in South Africa cannot, unless he gets a concession, have a fishmeal factory, but once he has got that, Sir, they can expand their operation to that extent that the ordinary citizen can’t buy a boat any more and catch fish for that factory. They have taken a complete monopoly over the whole industry. There is nothing left for anybody else. It is well known that certain people, and many people have become millionaires out of these ventures, not because they were so clever, but because they succeeded in getting concessions when other people could not get concessions when they applied for these concessions. I think the Government owes the public of South Africa an explanation and a statement to show what is going on. Who are the owners of these concessions? How did these people get them? Sir, when you raise a matter like this which is of vital interest to South Africa—I am not making accusations against anybody—one is only doing one’s duty. This is the rumour in the Republic of South Africa that people are becoming wealthy while others are starving. But when you ask for an inquiry, and there I link up with the hon. member for Wakkerstroom, then you are shouted down and you are told that you are making insinuations.

Order! Who is shouting the hon. member down?

Not now, Sir.

Order! The hon. member is reflecting on the Chair and he must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw that, Sir.

J say again that we have reached a stage where a statement by the Government is very, very necessary. Politically South Africa is practically destroyed. Here we have the sorry spectacle of our Prime Minister getting up and giving us no message of hope, none whatsoever. All that he could say was that he would love to make contacts with Prime Ministers of the West, with the leaders of the West, but he thinks that his very presence with those people will be an embarrassment to those leaders at present. After 15 years of rule by the Nationalist Government this is the position in South Africa—not a ray of hope. I get the impression, and the people of the Republic get the impression, that here you have a Government pursuing policies which are so unrealistic that it has brought South Africa to a standstill politically. Now they have switched over to the policy of Epicurus who said: “Let us eat and drink and make merry because to-morrow we die.” That is where we find ourselves today. One gets the impression that nobody is worried any more to save South Africa while some people are trying to fill their pockets. I think it is high time that we should have a thorough inquiry into this whole …

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think we have reached the stage where the hon. member should make a substantive motion to this House or guard his words. Because what is he saying now? He makes an accusation against the Government. The accusation he makes against the Government is this: That the Government has failed with its policies and now it allows people and itself to make money in an unworthy and illegal way. That is what he is saying.

I never implied that anybody was making money illegally. Let me put that straight right away. I do not say for one moment that anybody is making money illegally. I think it is very legal. I think these people have obtained their concessions very legally although possibly wrongly. But I would not even say that they were wrongly obtained. I only say that I think it is time that the Government should have a thorough investigation into the whole matter to put the Republic at ease.

Why should they have an investigation?

I do not see that there is anything wrong with it. I think the hon. the Minister should like to make a statement on the matter because he must have heard the rumours too. We have all heard them.

What rumours?

Too few people are making too much. I can see nothing wrong in making this statement. I think it is my duty to ask the Government to make a statement in regard to the matter and perhaps to appoint a commission to find out exactly what has been going on. The Government has made claims available in Namaqualand. Who have applied for them? When are they going to be allocated? We should like to know. We should like to know what is happening at present in regard to the crayfish quotas here in the Cape. Fifty-thousand cases were taken away from certain people who had the quotas before. Incidentally, I agree with the Government’s action in this particular instance. Five-thousand of these cases were given to the Coloured people but not to the Coloured people as such. They were given to the Coloured Development Corporation to be packed by a European person allegedly for all the Coloured fishermen. Why is this being done while in the case of the White fishermen the White man was allowed to make the profit for himself as it beholds a capitalist country? For the Coloureds, however, a White concern will pack for the Coloured people and pocket the profit. Why should that be so? There may be good reasons for it. However, I should like the hon. the Minister to stand up and tell us how many Coloured people applied and how many people got a quota.

You inquired with my Department and you have all the facts.

The facts are these. First of all the Department of Coloured Affairs asked for a certain allocation for the Coloured crayfish fishermen. Five-thousand cases were granted. These, however, were not granted in order to be distributed amongst individual Coloured fishermen to pack but they were given to the Coloured Development Corporation to be packed for that Corporation and the proceeds to be used for all the Coloured fishermen.

Those are not all the facts. Give all the facts.

I do not know any other facts. Perhaps the hon. Minister can give us those facts.

You were very interested in the whole matter. You were given all the facts.

Unless the Minister says that this is done on a temporary basis, I know of no other facts. As a matter of fact, I hope that is so in fact.

Now you are coming nearer to the truth.

I do not like to put words in the mouth of the hon. the Minister. But if he says it was done on a temporary basis and that he will later reconsider the position …

Annually.

Let the hon. the Minister say that. I say this. It was given to White packers even if only for this year. The proceeds of that would be used for the benefit of all the Coloured fishermen. But, Sir, I do not like to go into this case any further. It just goes to show how impossible it is for the Coloured fishermen, of whom there must be hundreds and hundreds and hundreds, to get any benefit whatsoever. The people who will benefit are the people who are packing on behalf of the Coloured Development Corporation. It may have been that they did not have time during this particular year and if that is so, I accept it readily. It may be so that he did not have time to make the allocation. However, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is his policy to allocate to Coloured fishermen to pack for their own benefit? I have no other facts than those I have already given.

I opened all the channels for you to get all the facts. If you know the facts, why then do you not produce them here?

I do not know any other facts. I say it is a pity that we have created the impression with the Coloured fishermen that in the case of the White man it is packed for the White man individually and that he can put the money in his pocket and so become a capitalist whereas Coloured fishermen will be dealt with as though they are in a socialist State. I say that it is a pity that with all our political troubles we should have created the impression that all is not well in the State of Denmark. I was going to deal with the political situation as I see it, but seeing that the hon. the Minister is so anxious to give us all the facts, I shall now sit down to give the hon. the Minister the opportunity for doing that. I want to be the last person in this world to be guilty of misquoting him or to say anything which is not fair to him. Let me say this to the hon. the Minister. He and his Department were most fair.

You have all the facts. All the facts were given to you.

I know of no other facts. But I shall now sit down in order to enable the hon. the Minister to give us all the other facts.

I put the Question.

Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary for me to say much more.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. the Minister now replying to the debate?

Well, I put the Question and nobody stood up to speak.

With respect, Sir, the hon. member for Ventersdorp stood up.

Yes, but the hon. the Minister was the senior member.

Mr. Speaker, we have other people yet to take part in this debate. If the hon. the Minister now replies, that will be the end of the debate.

Hon. members should keep me informed of the fact that there are other speakers who want to take part in this debate. I was informed that the debate would terminate about 9.45 p.m. In the circumstances, I shall again put the Question.

Mr. Speaker, I want to dispose very quickly of the attack of the hon. member in regard to the question of concessions. I want to tell him that the National Party has an unequalled record in that no fraud has been committed underhand activities taken place in connection with any of its policies. All the transactions that have been entered into or initiated in the past by the National Party have been entered into in an honourable way. I am not at all afraid of the commission of inquiry for which the hon. member has asked. Indeed, I do not think that a commission of inquiry of this nature is even necessary because the hon. member made out no case for it. He spoke about the rock lobster quota allocated to the Coloured Development Corporation.

It is just gossip.

Mr. Speaker, 5,000 cases of 20 lbs. of rock lobster each were allocated to the Coloured Development Corporation as an export quota at the last allocation. To catch rock lobsters, to pack them for export and at the same time to comply with all the requirements in regard to this whole matter, requires a great deal of capital. At the moment we do not have an organization or company among our Coloureds that can undertake this work.

That is not true.

It is true. That was why the allocation for the Coloured Corporation was only made for one year. It was made until such time as the Coloureds could set up their own organization, with the assistance of the Coloured Development Corporation, to exploit those quotas to the advantage and the benefit of the whole of the Coloured population. That is my answer. Am I right, Mr. Minister?

Yes, I gave the same answer to the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson).

May I ask a question?

No, I do not have the time. In any case, I think that I have replied adequately to the hon. member as far as the rock lobster export quota that was allocated to the Coloured Development Corporation is concerned. The hon. the Minister has already said that that information is correct. In connection with the restrictions on the diving for rock lobsters I want to point out that we have an annual closed season during which the catching of rock lobster is forbidden. The rock lobster divers, however, knew no closed season.

That is not true.

Yes, it is true. There are also certain regulations in regard to the size of the rock lobsters that may be caught. These regulations were introduced for the protection of rock lobsters. I do not want to accuse all the divers of having broken the regulations and of having caught rock lobsters indiscriminately. I do not want to allege that for one moment. But there were some of them who acted recklessly and made use of the opportunities that they had to catch rock lobsters on Sundays and over week-ends. As far as size was concerned many of those rock lobsters did not conform to the prescribed regulations. That was why it was necessary to introduce this restriction. I think that with these few remarks I have dealt adequately with the usually brief speech of the hon. member!

It was a distasteful speech.

I come now to the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan). The hon. member in his column “Padlangs” in the Weekblad of 14 June wrote about the expressions used by hon. members in this House and declared by the Speaker to be un-parliamentary. This is a distasteful article calculated to give the public the impression that the members of the United Party are little angels and completely above this side of the House, the Nationalists. Amongst other things, he had this to say [Translation]—

These cultured, well-educated and Christian national little gentlemen are the hon. members on this side of the House! I do not think that there has ever been any reference of this nature to the United Party in any of the newspapers supporting the National Party.

He withdraws it!

Order! The hon. member for Sea Point must not make a laughing-stock of this House.

In his article the hon. member went on to say [Translation]—

All these words are attributed to us. He went on to say [Translation]—

That hon. member with the high moral principles did not tell his readers about the words used by hon. members on his own side of the House. I remember very well how the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) on 30 April 1962 used the expression “go to hell” in this House in referring to this side of the House. Is it not a shameful thing to accuse this side of the House of saying these things while the hon. member in this article says nothing about the language used by the members of his own party? This is the civilized gentleman from Orange Grove, the great suppressor, but there is something else that he could have mentioned. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) always pretends to be a man who can preach to us in this House. I am so sick and tired of his preaching now that when he rises to speak I want to walk out. What did he say? On 1 May 1962, he accused an hon. member here of being a “monster”. But the actual point that I want to make is that even though one is a member of the Opposition, there is after all such a thing as decency. I want to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove that this sort of article will have no effect upon our people. Our people know what goes on in this House. Does he really think that he will gain votes in this way? Never!

Twenty-five years ago the Opposition sang the praises of the Red colossus, the Red colossus that stands astride the world to-day and against which the Western world is waging a fierce struggle. When we warned them 25 years ago that they were strengthening this Red colossus because of their attitude, they accused us of being Nazis and Quislings. Who was right? We were correct. What is the position to-day? They are no longer serving that Red colossus but the Black colossus in Africa today. Indeed, throughout this Session they have stood in the shadow of the Black colossus that casts its shadow over Africa. To make things even worse, behind this Black colossus stands the Red colossus that they created 25 years ago. That is how history repeats itself. Behind this Black colossus that is operating in Africa to-day and which aims deliberately and fiercely at driving the White man from Africa, stands the Red colossus that we warned about 25 years ago, and we were right. Not only we as Whites but the entire Western world is to-day engaged in a fierce struggle for life and death against this Red colossus which the United Party helped to create. And Mr. Speaker, this Black colossus of Africa operates in various forms. It is this fact precisely that makes it so dangerous. On one hand it operates in the form of Pan-Africanism, as was clearly brought home to us during the conference at Addis Ababa. Behind this Black colossus also stands the Communism of Peking and Moscow. Behind it stands a legion of organizations operating in Africa; they are journalists, they are women’s organizations, they are labour organisations and they all have different names. All of them are active in Africa. Beside Communism and beside this number of “front” organizations, stands the whole of the Afro-Asian bloc with post-war liberalism behind it. They are playing off the West in Africa against Asia and against Communism. Twenty-five years ago hon. members opposite hoisted the red flag. To-day they are hoisting the white flag—surrender, concessions. The hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) said “modify your policies”, “soften your attitude”, “concede”. I want now to draw the attention of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, the high priest of our culture, to a brief report that appeared in this morning’s issue of the Cape Times. This is a report that deals with a “plan to isolate South Africa culturally”. It reads as follows—

Then follows the names of the people who signed it. They are as follows: Daphne du Maurier, Graham Greene, Arthur Miller, John Osborne, J. B. Priestley, C. P. Snow, Arnold Wesker, Angus Wilson and Lieutenant-Col. Robert Gore-Browne. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), the most responsible member of the United Party present here to-day, or the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) whether this is one of the concessions that they want to make in order to satisfy the Addis Ababa group? Let me ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout whether this is one of the concessions that he wants to make? Because this is what these people are demanding. They are making demands and we must concede. Hon. members opposite tell us every day that we must make concessions, that our policy is too granite-like. That is why we must make concessions. Is this the type of concession that they want to make—that we should permit mixed audiences in all our theatres? When one reads the report further one notices that these writers are co-operating with the “Antiapartheid movement” which has organizations throughout England. I ask again: Is this one of the concessions that they want to make? I want to emphasize the fact that if this is done with a view to gaining their friendship, we may as well write “Finis” across our civilization.

But the Party opposite is not a Party that has only served the Black and the Red colossi and hoisted the white flag; they are also a party that has been the champion of the right to vote again. How well we still remember their slogan of a number of years ago: “Vote for the right to vote again”. To-day they are fighting for the vote for every man in South Africa. That is what their policy is heading for. Not only have they hoisted the white flag; not only have they served the Black colossus; not only have they unleashed a struggle for the right to vote again; they have also been a party of plans. They have had many plans. I remember full well the fanfare with which they announced the Senate Plan. By the way. what has become of that Senate Plan? Can the hon. member for Germiston (District) perhaps tell me? Then they came forward with a Race Federation plan and with each plan an attempt was made to make a break-through in order to catch the White man behind the colour bar.

But where does that Party opposite us stand at this critical moment? How do they stand against Addis Ababa? How do they stand against the National Party? When we advocate a strong policy and use forthright terms, we find that hon. members opposite not only contradict one another but also argue with the help of abstractions. Indeed, their statements are a conglomeration of abstractions, a conglomeration of generalities. And things are put in such a way that each one of them can make use of what has been said to his own advantage. Have they said one single word about Kenya which played such an important role at Addis Ababa? Have they said one single word against Egypt, Nigeria, the Sudan, Somalia and Guinea?

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.