Can the hon. the Minister just tell us what the amendment is?

It is a consequential amendment relating to the serving of a summons issued in one division in another division.

Amendment to Clause 6 put and agreed to.

Having listened to this debate now for some two days it seems to me that the struggle, the battle which has been placed on the floor of this House for our discussion, is not so much, as it as been alleged by hon. members on the other side, a struggle for the survival of the White man, or even so much a struggle for the survival of South Africa as far as these hon. members are concerned. It is a struggle for the survival of their power of government in this country. That has been the issue. When the hon. the Prime Minister said that we will not give away one thing which we do not consider to be in the interest of South Africa, I think what he meant, without any doubt, was that there will not be any deviation from the policy of the Nationalist Party because they do not believe it is in the interest of South Africa to have another Government. That is what it amounts to. It does not amount to an appreciation, as they say, that they either have to capitulate or to accept “one man one vote”. Whether it is the internal or the external relations of the Republic, the attitude of hon. gentlemen over there—and I am very sorry to say at the highest level—has been to use this situation purely to keep themselves in the position in which they are at the moment. The hon. the Minister of Justice, after legislation such as we have had in this House, has been as irresponsible as any of his other colleagues in so far as internal matters are concerned. The hon. the Minister of Justice, when he spoke in the country, could not help but make party political capital out of the grave situation in which South Africa finds itself internally.

You are not doing it, of course!

The hon. member is quite right; we are not doing it. The hon. the Minister of Justice when he spoke at Malmesbury spoke about the Bill which he had to introduce to deal with Poqo, to deal with a situation in which South Africa found itself for the first time ever, that the State was unable to control the subversive elements, that it was unable to protect the law-abiding citizens against terrorist organizations, and in those circumstances he introduced this Bill and we know what our attitude was. The hon. the Minister of Justice went to Malmesbury and told the people there, according to the Daily News of 10 May—

What justification is there for that statement? No justification whatever. If anything, the Leader of the Opposition expressed great regret that South Africa found itself in the position that we have to support a measure to put down a situation which this Government through its ineptitude had allowed to develop.

Are you explaining again?

I am not explaining again. The Minister of Justice is one who has something to explain. The Minister went on to say—

It has done its duty to South Africa so well that this Bill has to be introduced.

That is what your Leader in the Senate said.

Our Leader in the Senate did not say that this Government had done its duty in allowing the situation to arise which necessitated this legislation. He did not say that; that is what I am saying, and those are the facts.

And you say it without any substantiation.

Then, Sir, we move along the line; we had from the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) a speech which can only be described as a khaki speech, a speech talking about war. and we had hon. members on the other side cheering the thought that we might go to war. If we were to go to war on those terms it would not be so that we as a country can survive. We would not be pushed into it for that reason so much as we would be pushed into it because a war, in the attitude of the hon. members on the other side, would be the only way in which they could survive as a Nationalist Party. But they are prepared to go to those lengths and to refuse to unbend. They know better than anyone else that we more than anyone else in this country would rally to the cause in South Africa’s hour of need; they know that and they rely on it. That is the tragedy.

You are being idiotic.

If I was idiotic the hon. member and the Government would not press their luck.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it.

What did the hon. the Prime Minister say? He said: “We would do all we can to avoid war”—all except one thing and that is to deviate slightly from their policies, to deviate slightly where that deviation might meet with the disapproval of their supporters. They are not even prepared to do that slight bit because if they did, that would be the end of the Nationalist Government and that is their primary concern.

Of course, that is not politics you are talking now.

Sir, hon. members over there talk about sacrifices that we must make for South Africa, but they are all sacrifices which have to be made at the altar of the Nationalist Party. There are not any sacrifices that we are expected to make at the altar of South Africa, and if there were, then surely this Government being in command should be the one to make some sacrifices. Surely hon. members on that side must also make some sacrifices, and what are their sacrifices? Surely they should make some sacrifices to give us some support in the Western world. Let me mention but three which would make all the difference to the attitude of the Western world towards us. In the first place job reservation should be abolished …

On the mines too?

… and the principle which is accepted throughout the Western world, the rate for the job, should be put in its place. Sir, have you ever heard of people going to war because they have so little faith in themselves that they have to have a law like job reservation? That is what it amounts to. If we could go to the councils of the world and say that we follow the principle of the rate for the job, that every individual regardless of his colour has an opportunity to go as far as he can, then we would be in an extremely powerful position. Hon. members opposite who have visited the councils of the world should know that very well. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) who excelled himself as a diplomat for South Africa, especially upon his return to this country, when he joined with the Minister of Foreign Affairs in slating Great Britain and in slating the United States, should know that.

What did I say?

The hon. member knows what he said to the so-called English-speaking branch of the Nationalist Party, the John X. Merriman Branch. I remember that he called one of those countries a police state.

And that is what you call South Africa.

This is the sort of thing that we get from the man who gives the appearance that he wants to slide into the seat of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This is the sort of thing that happens. Sir, let us face up to it. If the hon. member had sat in the deliberations of the councils of the world he would have seen that our people, excellent as they are, had the great difficulty that they could not say: “Look, in South Africa there is an opportunity for every man to go as far as he is capable of going.” Sir, are we going to go to war because of that? It would be a simple thing to abolish job reservation. Is that too great a sacrifice for hon. members opposite to make in the interests of South Africa? What a difference it would make! You cannot go on saying that they are uncivilized people and at the same time deny them the opportunities to become civilized. You just cannot argue like that anywhere else than on the platteland in the seats where these hon. members have voiced these arguments.

The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), in a speech which I am very sorry did not receive the publicity which it should have received because it deserved to be read by everyone in South Africa, a speech which I am amazed and surprised to see was not reported in the newspapers which I saw which came out just after his speech—true, it was not the fault of anyone in this House because no one in this House could have failed to be so impressed with his speech that it would have been reported—said that it was not the rural Bantu the Bantu in the Transkei or in any of the other Bantu homelands which caused the world to be concerned about South Africa, it was the urban Bantu, or their individuality, or the lack of it so far as this Government was concerned, to which the eyes of the world were directed. There again there is this question of job reservation. The removal of a small thing like job reservation would make all the difference in the world to the image of South Africa in the eyes of the world in so far as the urban Bantu are concerned. Sir, is it too great a sacrifice for the Government to accept that these people are a permanent part of our urban community, a permanent part of our economy? Is it a sacrifice to accept this when it is a fact, and to do something about it? If we can do that, Sir, would we not at least have a case to argue in the Western world? The hon. the Prime Minister says that the foreign policy of South Africa must be directed at the attitude of the West, which is that they do not care what our policy is, they are interested only in doing what the Black states want them to do or what is politic for them to do internationally in relation to those Black states. I do not think he made a case for this; I do not think there is any evidence to support it, but at least my suggestions would give them a basis for supporting us. There is an awful lot of evidence that the West is prepared to accept and support a policy in South Africa which is even less, in many respects, than the policy offered by the responsible side of this House, the official Opposition. Must we go to war because the Government refuses to make this sacrifice?

Let me mention a third and last factor, a question which has been dodged by everyone from the Prime Minister down to the hon. member for Vereeniging: What about the Coloured people and the attitude of this Government?

What about the White people?

Yes, that is what our concern is; our concern is for the White people.

Then why do you talk about the Natives and Coloureds?

The hon. the Prime Minister would not answer the questions which were posed directly to him. Where is the morality of this policy? But, Sir, let me make a suggestion. If they will adopt the United Party policy, you can immediately go to the world and have a case to argue on a proper moral foundation. If you accept that the Coloured people are part of the Western group, then you can break through to the world, because the moment you accept the Coloured people as part of the Western group then your attitude to the Bantu people becomes explicable whereas otherwise it is not explicable. The attitude of this Government is that anyone who is not White is not to share in the administration, the fruits of civilization or the government of the country of which they are citizens, and you cannot sell a case like that.

That is nonsense.

It is not nonsense; it is the Government’s policy.

Of course it is nonsense.

I agree that it is nonsense, but it is nevertheless your policy. Sir, I am not building castles in the air. I speak from experience of the difficulty of selling to people who have no knowledge of South African conditions a policy such as the United Party’s policy which is, let us face it, a conservative policy. Sir, when you can get across to them that your policy is not just based on colour, that it is based upon something else and that you can accept the Coloured people as part of the Western group, then you can go through and explain the rest of your policy.

Were you not in the United States?

Of course I was. I appreciate that the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark is in some difficulty in appreciating that I might have been in the United States and that he cannot understand how I can talk like this. That is the whole point; I could talk like this because of our attitude to the Coloured people and he could not because he did not have that stepping-stone into the minds of the rest of the world. On that basis one can certainly explain our position.

I am very glad that the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has come in. I have been waiting for her to come in so that I can deal very briefly with what she had to say. Unfortunately she has used this opportunity once again to launch an attack upon us.

I no longer belong to your party. Have you forgotten that? I am perfectly justified in saying so if I do not agree with you.

I am very pleased that the hon. member is not a member of my party. I do not mind …

I could not care if you do mind.

All I wanted to say to the hon. member for Houghton was that I wanted to reply to one or two of her points.

Well, get on with it.

If the hon. member will allow me I shall answer some of the points which she made. She asked us—I do not know why she asked this question—whether we were going to abolish influx control. Sir, she knows the answer to that. She suggested that we should. The conditions and the circumstances under which we introduced this idea have not changed.

She was a member of the United Party at the time.

I did not try to change your policy, did I?

The hon. member knew that it was our policy when she joined the United Party. It is necessary in the opinion of persons far more qualified than the hon. member for Houghton, people such as Carr in Johannesburg. They were the people who wanted it, and out of consideration in any event for the permanent urban Bantu, whom we regard as permanent, we could not possibly abolish influx control.

Then the hon. member for Houghton went on to deal with the subject out of which she has made so much political capital this Session, the General Laws Amendment Bill. She suggested that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should read the overseas Press about the support which the official Opposition gave to the Poqo Bill. I must say that for myself I do not consider it necessary. I think I have read the same sort of thing in our own Press.

That is a very good argument!

Sir, let us make the position quite clear: When the security of the State is involved, when it is threatened, we are not going to make political capital out of the situation, just as we are not going to make political capital out of the external situation in relation to this.

How lovely it is when brothers and sisters fight!

We have a duty as the responsible Opposition. I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that the sort of roving newspaper leader of her party, Professor Pistorius, himself said these very things, that it is the duty of every individual, of every citizen, to regard the security of the State as paramount, as being above all other interests.

And what did he say after that?

I hope the hon. member will remember that. I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that it is time she stopped hiding behind the façade of unctuous rectitude behind which she has been hiding so successfully because never once, as far as I know, did the hon. member for Houghton and her party tell the country that she voted against that provision in the Bill which was to deal effectively and quickly with Poqo, with this political hydra whose head being chopped off grew another head. She never told the country that; she assiduously avoided that.

I used it at every public meeting I addressed.

She opposed that clause. She is quite prepared to allow that situation where it is almost impossible to deal with Poqo to continue.

I dealt with that clause extensively.

The two of you should appear on the same platform at Wynberg.

Order! The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) should not bring the hon. member for Houghton into trouble.

Can you imagine, Sir, what chance I will have to speak at all on a platform if the hon. member behaves the way she is behaving to-day? I wonder whether the hon. member has told the country that she voted against a provision in that Bill which provided that people who went overseas to be trained to commit sabotage should be treated as though they had committed treason. I doubt it very much.

Carry on.

No, I have finished with the hon. member. The hon. the Prime Minister, when dealing with the Mapheele case, said you could not make legislation just to deal with the individual; you had to have legislation to deal with the general situation. I think the Prime Minister has put his finger on one of the difficulties in which this Government finds itself both in this country and overseas especially. What about the individual? Does the individual not matter? I thought the hon. the Prime Minister would have learned his lesson. At the time he made his announcement about the Transkei, having jacked up the Press throughout the world, having jacked up in advance advertisements right throughout the world, to announce this great scheme of his for the Transkei, the headlines of the newspapers dealt with the Singh case. You remember that extraordinary case which occurred in Durban, Sir. The one was Indian and the other one was White. They got married in Southern Rhodesia; they lived as man and wife, in fact she was expecting a child at the time, and they were prosecuted under the Immorality Act. Those were the headlines. Does this Government never learn its lesson, Sir? You cannot treat individuals as if they were just part of a scheme and that as individuals they did not matter. Is that not one of our difficulties? Is it too much of a sacrifice for us to make to change our attitude in regard to the importance and dignity of these people? The hon. the Prime Minister talked, as so many hon. members do, about unity; the unity of the White people.

Do you not want it?

I wish the hon. member would not ask me whether I want it. If you want to see unity look at this side of the House. If you want to see unity between the English-speaking and the Afrikaans-speaking people look at this side. Where is the unity on that side? They have a few importations, one in the Senate and one here. What the Prime Minister means is that we have to have unity on the basis of the Nationalist Party’s policy because he is not prepared to sacrifice any part of his policy. Why? Because if they did they would have to change their direction and they might go out of power. Is that not the real reason for his attitude? Quite obviously it is. I wish the hon. members would not talk about unity, that they would not talk about being South African. To be a Nationalist to-day is to be un-South African. To be a member of the United Party is to be a South African.

The hon. the Minister of Justice said we were not looking for a policy but for an alternative, an ad hoc day-to-day alternative, in order to become the Government. Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing that is missing from this Government’s policy, from its ability to control the situation, it is its ability to have an ad hoc policy related to the facts which can keep us going from day to day. They have no such policy. They have no policy to keep us going from the one day to the next. The hon. member for Constantia clearly indicated the dangers which South Africa faced to-day.

In the report of the judicial commission to inquire into a certain event in South Africa the Judge thought it necessary to say in one paragraph “The Message of Paarl”. He made it quite clear that the message of Paarl was that there should be a change in attitude. I think when a Judge prefaces a paragraph by saying this is the message of Paarl we should take heed of that. I think that is probably the foundation of all our difficulties in this country. It is a question of attitude. Everything flows from attitude. If the Government wants to get anywhere it will have to change its attitude, change its attitude towards South Africa, change its attitude towards its policy and use its strength to direct that policy to the interests of South Africa instead of the Nationalist Party; not to dress it up, not to dress up “baasskap” for external consumption and then treat it differently internally for the purpose of “baasskap”.

Do you realize what that means?

Of course I realize what that means. Do you think I will say things without knowing what they mean? The hon. the Minister of Justice—perhaps I can end on this note—very cleverly, he thought, dealt with the speech of the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) by saying he had found an advertisement calling for rummage, and that the United Party should be phoned at a certain number. He suggested that they should call and collect the speech of the hon. member for Hillbrow. It was not very worthy of him. I suggest he look at the Swop column and there he will probably find this: To swop: One policy: 1899 model: for a model which will not kill the occupants when turning corners; or what have you?

The hon. member has referred to unity in his party. But the hon. member has forgotten that yesterday we had a demonstration of the unity, of the vigorous unity, in his party. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) was asked a question, the Leader of the Opposition was asked a question, the hon. member for North-East Band (Brig. Bronkhorst) was asked a question, and not one answered.

What is your policy?

I am coming to our policy. I am first dealing with the United Party. The hon. member says that if we want to see unity, we must look at the United Party. I have here the secret minutes of the congress of the United Party held in Bloemfontein in 1961. In these minutes the United Party says of itself—

That is a party which is boasting about unity. And this is what it thinks of itself. I shall now tell the House what else it thinks of itself. Its own supporters submitted a motion to the congress and what did they say? They said—

Then the hon. member speaks of unity! That was in 1961 but what has happened since? Where is the member for Wynberg? Why is a by-election being held in Wynberg? Where is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout? We all know that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) is merely a temporary sojourner in the United Party. He has never been politically stable. One does not like to make prophecies in this House but I wonder whether the time is not very close when the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) will be sitting next to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman)? I am making no prophecies; I just leave that thought for hon. members to consider. If there is unity in that party, then there should at least be unity in Natal. After all it is one of the United Party’s strongholds. And what has happened in Natal?—

That is a serious matter. It is this sort of thing which also harms our reputation abroad. What happened there? The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) went there and wherever he goes there is trouble. The report goes on to say—

Where did that happen?

At Michael House in Natal. I know the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) cannot believe it, but ask the hon. member for South Coast; he was there; he caused the affair. Does the House know who had to render assistance? My information is that the South African Police had to go and help. And this is the party which tells us that there is unity in its ranks. Allow me to say something else. The hon. member says that we only want unity on the basis of the policy of the National Party. Did the hon. member not read Dagbreek en Sondagnuus last Sunday? Did he not read that article by the hon. member for Yeoville? I assume that he did. The hon. member for Yeoville said that it was true; unity between the Whites in South Africa was growing. I want to commend that article to the hon. member. Mr. Speaker, our evidence does not emanate from our own ranks. I have got myself into a difficult position, but I cannot help it. I must now call the hon. member for Yeoville as a witness to the fact that there is unity in South Africa. Then the hon. member says we speak of unity but if we want to see unity, we must look at their party. Then he made the following nonsensical submission. He said South Africa should hold up to the outside world a policy which had a moral foundation; otherwise we would not be able to convince the world that we were right. May I tell the hon. member quite clearly that the outside world has nothing to do with South Africa’s domestic policies. It is true that our domestic policies cause problems abroad, but our attitude and that of the Opposition should be that the outside world has nothing to do with our domestic policies.

What about the Prime Minister’s statement regarding his Bantustan policy?

The hon. member does not understand what I am saying. I say that the outside world takes note of what goes on in our country. I say in the second place that we should act in such a way in our country that we do not unnecessarily antagonize the outside world. What I am urging is that in a debate in this House between the Opposition and the Government our attitude should be that the outside world has nothing to do with our domestic policies. If our Transkei policy achieves the success which it has already achieved and which it will achieve abroad, it is to the benefit of South Africa, but it should still not be a bone of contention between the Opposition and the Government as far as the outside world’s attitude is concerned. The hon. member has now made a moral appeal to us and he has said three things. In the first place he has said that we should abandon job reservation. Mr. Speaker, I should like to have respect for the hon. member and I have that respect at the moment. I want him to assist me to retain that respect for him. When he asks me to adopt a moral attitude, he should at least be speaking on a moral basis. When he was in America and he was asked with reference to job reservation whether the United Party was prepared to apply “the rate for the job” in the mines and to abolish job reservation, he said “yes and no”.

I shall not answer that question.

You see, Mr. Speaker—I admit it frankly—it is difficult to make people in America understand what job reservation means or what its object is. It is not easy. My attitude is that we in South Africa accept that job reservation is essential for the continued existence of the White man. Then the hon. member tells me that we should adopt a moral attitude. Where is his morality when his job reservation only applies to half the non-Whites in South Africa? Is this a semi-morality? Semi-morality is not morality; the hon. member knows that is the truth.

The hon. member for Yeoville said yesterday that we should adopt a policy which will be more acceptable to the outside world, as they say. He said: “A policy less than the official policy would be acceptable to the outside world.” What is Rhodesia prepared to do? Rhodesia is prepared to have 12 Black members in the Parliament of Northern Rhodesia at this moment. They have two Black junior Ministers. They have 15 Black members in Southern Rhodesia. They are prepared to tell the world: “Within 15 years this whole Government can be pitch Black,” and the world will not accept that. But they will accept the United Party’s policy! So says the hon. member and then he believes what he says. Mr. Speaker, that is what is so futile about the debates we hold here. The United Party say we are isolated from the world. We are not isolated from the world. The world differs from South Africa on one single point. That is so, but in all other spheres we enjoy the best of co-operation with most Western and civilized countries in the world. But there are people who are isolated. This Session has shown that more than ever before. If ever there were people who are isolated, it is the United Party Members of Parliament. They are isolated from the public of South Africa. Mr. Speaker, South Africa to-day does not have an official Opposition in the true sense of the world. Just read the newspapers, see what is happening outside this House; just see what their own members are saying. South Africa’s problem is, and this may not redound greatly to our credit abroad, that South Africa does not have a proper Opposition. What a unique thing, is not—perhaps in all South Africa’s history—that a Prime Minister can rise—and what did he say? He did so with the support of his party. In the light of the facts facing South Africa, he said—

Why are you cutting up the constituencies?

The hon. member refers to delimitation. May I tell him this. I shall appoint the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog), Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) and South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) as the delimitation commission and it will not make one iota difference to the members in this House. It is simply impossible to give the United Party one more seat by means of delimitation. I challenge the hon. member to tell me where in South Africa one constituency can be cut in a different way so that it will become a United Party seat whereas it is a National Party seat to-day. The position of the parties in this House has nothing to do with the delimitation. The fact of the matter is that the public of South Africa have decided that the National Party represent the salvation of the White man in South Africa and that the United Party are no longer an Opposition. That is the problem with which we are faced to-day. I know why the hon. member is speaking like that. He wants to fight the Wynberg election in this House. He need not worry about that. The hon. the Minister of Justice has told him that they will win at Wynberg. But to win Wynberg they must once again use the old United Party tactics. And what are they? They are the following—

That is your prerogative.

No, Mr. Speaker, do you know who has said that? The hon. member’s future newspaper, the Rand Daily Mail because the Rand Daily Mail is a Progressive newspaper. What else has it said—

Let us go back to the commencement of this Session. I am going back to certain matters which I regard as the crux of the entire political struggle in South Africa. Job reservation or residential segregation or anything like that is not the crux of the matter. The crux of the political struggle in South Africa is the franchise and who it is to be given to and where and when. And as regards this crucial issue the National Party says that every man in South Africa, White or Back, should have the right to vote; one should not deny any man the right to vote. But it says further that every man should have the right to vote where he belongs with his own people in his own country. Hon. members ask me what our attitude is, and I must now say things which have been said again and again. Every White man in South Africa, including the White people of the Transkei, vote for the members of this Parliament. Every Black man will vote for his Parliament in the Transkei or wherever he may be in the future.

And the Coloureds?

They have four representatives in this House and there is not one single Coloured in South Africa who does not have the vote if he has the necessary qualifications.

What about the Indians?

the hon. member knows what the attitude of the National Party is as regards the Indians. We have now established the Department of Indian Affairs specially to view the Indian problem in its overall perspective and to give attention to that problem. The hon. member must not ask me questions to which he knows the answers. He must not criticize me in respect of things regarding which he knows he may not agree. He is not on a moral basis. He asks whether they will be given a Parliament. Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said quite clearly during this Session that no Indian will sit in this Parliament and that no Indian will have the right to vote for this Parliament. Those were the words of the Prime Minister. But do you know who have asked me this question, Sir? Three members from Natal who cannot tell me what they want to do with the Indians.

May I ask a question? Where will the country be where the Indians will be able to exercise their franchise?

That is a reasonable question. The hon. members know that the Indians do not have a homeland here. History has given us homelands for the Bantu. If I may say so, without being in any way profane: The good Father expected a great deal of the White people of South Africa. We are faced with the tremendous problem of the Black man; we are faced with the problem of the Coloured in South Africa. We must solve these two problems and we shall solve them. But in addition we have the Indian problem and we shall solve it as well.

The crucial question being asked by the voter in South African politics is: The National Party says that only White people will sit in this Parliament, but we do not get a reply from the United Party as to whether or not a Black man may sit here. Hon. members talk of morality! I am moral when I say that he will not sit here. Hon. members may not agree, but is that moral or is it not? The hon. member says it is immoral that the Black man may not sit here. Are hon. members then prepared to allow him to sit here? If they are not prepared to answer in the affirmative, then together with me they are immoral in this regard. That is the crucial issue in South African politics. That is the issue with which we started this Session and it is the issue with which this Session is ending. And this is the issue on which the United Party is condemned to annihilation in South Africa.

I just want to put one further question to hon. members opposite. The hon. member has said that I have attacked the outside world, that I have said Britain is a police state. I have not done so. I shall tell him what I have said. I have said that Britain has passed a law whereby certain non-Whites may no longer enter Great Britain; a White man who wants to emigrate to England is welcome, but a West Indian is not welcome. I then said: Is it right to describe South Africa as a police state if that is happening in Britain? In Australia the position is the same. That is all I have said. I have not said that Britain is a police state. Let me be quite clear as to my attitude towards the outside world: I do not think that the racial disturbances in America or England are any concern of ours. Those are their domestic affairs. We do take note of them. If I had to express my own opinion, I would tell America that I am very sorry that she has these problems. I would point out to them in all friendship that while we have sympathy for them, we have reason for that sympathy because they require 22,000 troops to get one Negro student into a university. There are no policemen near the University of Cape Town; and there are many Coloured students at that university. Without any policemen we still have inter-mingling at certain of our universities. Do hon. members know why? Because our attitude towards the Black man has a moral basis because we say to the Black man: You will be given your own universities but as long as a certain subject is not yet taught at those universities, you can study that subject at our White universities. As far as America is concerned, those are their own problems; I am sorry that they are faced with murder and assault. All one can hope is that these problems will give them a better understanding of our position. You know, the United Party to-day is in very much the same position as Great Britain to-day. Just look at all the trouble the United Party has had with one lady this morning. I say that to me the winds of change have acquired a slight fragrance of perfume. As far as the hon. member for Houghton is concerned, I want to say that I think we should take less notice of her. Who does she really represent? One thing she is trying to do is get great publicity in South Africa and for that purpose she is using the House of Assembly while she actually does not speak for anyone. I think that both sides of the House would do well to pay her less attention than she is enjoying at present. [Injection.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) must not interrupt. He is the greatest protagonist of apartheid in his private life. Yet he criticizes this side of the House because we apply apartheid.

But I am not establishing separate states.

History has given us separate states. But I want to conclude because the public, seeing the situation in which we find ourselves and seeing the political degeneracy of the United Party and the absolute confidence of White as well as non-White in the Government, expect this Session to be adjourned. They do not expect us to discuss these matters any further. We shall return next year and I wonder whether the hon. member for Germiston (District) will then be able to say whether their policy will have a moral basis and whether non-Whites will be able to sit in this Parliament in terms of that policy.

The hon. member who has just sat down has levelled a charge of opportunism at me. But if he were a man of principle, he should be in the kitchen washing the cups from which he drank tea this morning. However, I want to issue a challenge to any hon. member opposite—and I hope they will reply to this challenge—by asking any one of them to say where in all the years I have been in party politics I have deviated from one single fundamental principle. I challenge anyone to prove that. Why does the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark not also criticize the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee)? Why does he not also criticize the hon. the Minister of Information? Why does he not criticize the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Loots)? They have all been members of various parties. Why does he not also criticize the hon. the Minister of Justice? The hon. the Minister was a student with me. He was a violent Nationalist. Thereafter he became a violent supporter of the Ossewabrandwag and accepted national socialism as his declared policy. Then he was an independent; then a member of the Afrikaner Party; and via that party he returned to the National Party.

All my life I have been a democrat. I can see many members opposite who originally were democrats, then became national socialists and are now democrats again. [Interjections.] I have belonged to more than one political party because to me principles are more important than the actions of this or that political party; and I challenge anyone to show from which fundamental political principle I have deviated during the 25 years I have been in politics.

But I leave that there, and I want to turn to the speech made the day before yesterday by the hon. the Prime Minister. I listened with more than ordinary attention to every word of that speech. No matter how sharp our party political divisions, we all admit that our country to-day finds itself in a position which must compel all thinking people to seek, not debating points, but the deeper answers to our difficulties. The hon. the Prime Minister is indisputably a capable debater. That he proved the day before yesterday for the hundredth time. I am afraid, however, that my impression was that too much of what he said consisted of debating points and did not give the deeper answer to our problems. Allow me to give one or two examples. The hon. the Prime Minister likes to point out that his party has the majority amongst the voters. He usually says this in a tone which implies that this is conclusive proof that he is right. It is the position that at the moment the hon. the Prime Minister has a majority amongst the White voters of the country. But it is only a small majority. The surprising thing is that with this complete control over the whole of the Afrikaans daily Press, the radio and the State’s information service, he still has no more than between 50 and 52 per cent of the White voters supporting him to-day. For that reason, if I were hon. members, I would not boast about this majority.

The political history of the world is however studded with examples of majorities which have been tragically wrong. In our time we have had the example of Mussolini in Italy, Peron in Argentina, and Hitler in Germany. These persons had vast political majorities. Under the influence of emotional politics Hitler at one time enjoyed the support of 90 per cent of the voters. But show me one responsible German to-day who will say that Hitler and his Government were right. And yet he had the support of 90 per cent of the voters. As far as I am concerned, this argument is merely a debating point which proves nothing at all. The only valid yardstick in judging matters is the yardstick of results, and judging by the results we are faced under the policy of this Government with greater uncertainty, greater insecurity, greater rebelliousness, greater racial bitterness, greater isolation and greater hostility than ever before in our entire history. And I consider that we are at present going through one of those unfortunate periods in the life of a nation where the majority are tragically wrong.

Another example which hon. members opposite are fond of using is that of Southern Rhodesia, Angola and Kenya. It has become a habit to call out: “What about Kenya?” “What about Southern Rhodesia?” and so on. But once again these points are merely debating points because what on earth does that have to do with the position in South Africa? Let us briefly analyse the position. In Kenya we have a struggle for constitutional independence by a country which hitherto has been a colony. That is the basis of the struggle there. Unfortunately for them the White settlers in that country find themselves in the position where they are regarded as the personification of the colonial power. In essence however it is not a racial struggle that is taking place in Kenya. If newspaper reports are correct, Kenyatta has, inter alia, appointed a White man to his Cabinet, a man who moreover was born in South Africa. In Kenya it was therefore fundamentally a constitutional struggle, not a racial struggle as it is here.

May I ask you a question?

My time is unfortunately too limited. I therefore say that the struggle in Kenya basically is a struggle for independence, a struggle similar to that which we had in our country, with the sole difference that in this country the White man was the leader in the struggle while in Kenya the non-Whites were the leaders and the White settlers tried to oppose it.

What is the position in Angola and Mozambique? Mr. Speaker, there is no racial struggle over Angola because neither Black nor White has any political power or influence. The Portuguese territories are governed from the mother country. I am not taking sides; I am merely giving the facts. What the world, rightly or wrongly, is seeking there is not the domination of Black over White because neither the Blacks nor the Whites have any political power there. In that case the issue is the independence and self-government of a territory which in effect is a colony and White as well as non-White who oppose this struggle there are affected. More or less the same can be said of the Rhodesias. Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland were against their stated desires forced into a political complex of which they did not wish to form part. Once again this is a political struggle for independence. Nyasaland wished to be independent; Northern Rhodesia wished to be independent, but they were forced into a political complex of which they did not wish to form part and which after its establishment in effect was maintained through the pressure of Southern Rhodesia. That is why Southern Rhodesia became the target. They regarded Southern Rhodesia as the element which stood in the way of the independence of the others. I do not have time to go any further into this aspect. I have merely referred to it to show how debating points are being used. In reality there is no similarity between their position and South Africa’s position.

Another point to which the Prime Minister devoted a great deal of time is that of concessions. The impression which he always wants to create is that we on this side are the people who want to make concessions, while he is the man who stands firm. We want to make concessions merely to satisfy other people. But when one analyses this point, one finds that it is merely yet another debating point which has no real substance. If we on this side wished to answer that debating point with another debating point, we could say that the impression we form of the attitude of the hon. the Prime Minister is that he considers that he and his policy are perfect; that he can never make a mistake and that there is not the slightest possibility of his policy being wrong, or of its ever being necessary for him to take the trouble to indulge in a little self-examination to establish whether and in which regard he could improve his policy. But to argue along these lines would be to answer one debating point with another debating point. Where and when has any member on this side ever urged that we should make concessions to satisfy other people? The Opposition’s attitude is not as superficial as that.

What we do say is this: What we call Christian Western civilization, or the Western democracies, of which we want to be a member, are based on certain fundamental principles. We believe that the Government has deviated from these fundamental principles and that it is time, not in the interests of others but in the interests of us ourselves and our future, that it should indulge in a little self-examination to see whether we in South Africa cannot move a little closer to the fundamental principles on which the Western democracies are based. It has nothing whatsoever to do with trying to satisfy outsiders as regards South Africa’s affairs. Our duty is to devise a policy and a system in South Africa which will give satisfaction to the population groups within our country. And I am satisfied that once we have given satisfaction to our own indigenous population groups, foreign dissatisfaction will of its own accord lose its significance and driving force and will collapse. This is therefore our attitude—not in order to satisfy foreigners, but to satisfy our own population groups to such an extent that outside pressure will of its own accord be emasculated and disappear.

Another debating point which is continually being used is that the Government is fighting for the “continued existence” of the White man—as though everyone else is fighting for the elimination of the White man! The issue here is not a difference in approach, because it is a primary principle of life that everyone fights for his continued existence. I know of no person and no nation that will advocate its own destruction. We do not differ over the principle of the continued existence of the White man but over the methods which the Government is using to ensure it. It is our honest opinion that no matter how unimpeachable the Government’s objects may be, it is using methods which are arousing unnecessary bitterness, hostility and rebellion against the White man. In that sense it is therefore precisely this Government which is endangering the future of the White man in South Africa. I think it is clear to all of us to-day that South Africa’s external problems are taking on proportions which in fact endanger the security and the future existence of this country. This is of course no surprise to those who have watched the position and who have warned the Government. And may I say in this regard that the Opposition has not warned the Government in order to enlighten it, but in the expectation that it would do something about the matter. And what is so disturbing is that while all of us can see how matters are developing, the Government has not given the slightest indication during this Session that it has a practical programme which will reduce this hostility towards South Africa and will increase friendship towards South Africa.

Let us briefly examine the position. The movement against South Africa, or rather against the Government of South Africa, started on a small scale, that is to say with India. In India there has been a grievance regarding the treatment of Indians in South Africa since the days of Mahatma Ghandi. Hon. members opposite are fond of defending themselves with the argument that the movement abroad against South Africa had already started in the days of General Smuts. That I readily concede. General Smuts was the first to feel the wind in his face when he asked for the incorporation of South West into the Union. But what hon. members omit to add is that the movement at that time was very limited. They omit to add that General Smuts nevertheless remained surrounded by allies and friends. It is interesting to examine the records of the United Nations and to see how countries such as Britain, Holland, Australia and New Zealand, and even countries like Turkey, Uruguay, Brazil, etc., showed their friendship for General Smuts at that time. Not only was the movement against South Africa of a limited nature, but any sensible Government would have been able to keep it within limits and eventually to obviate it. After General Smuts returned to South Africa from the United Nations, all his actions showed that he was aware of what was happening in the world and that in his own administration he would take this into account. As a matter of fact I am convinced that General Smuts would have overcome this difficulty. That is why he was so embittered when shortly thereafter the National Party came into power and commenced the systematic introduction of apartheid. I sat here in the Gallery and heard General Smuts speak “of the curse of apartheid” precisely with a view to the world situation. Few people understood him at that time, but few informed people will disagree with him on this point to-day.

I have not the slightest doubt that the crux of our difficulties is to be found in the fact that the Government has deviated from the traditional way in which we have handled our human relationships in South Africa and that it has introduced a policy of legal compulsion. My experience is that wherever one goes in the world to-day, it is not the political aspect which arouses feelings; it is the human aspect, the humiliation, and the way in which the dignity of the individual is being affected. This Government can devise any scheme it likes, but as long as it follows a policy which in practice means that a Brown man may not enter a Government building by the same door as a White man because of his colour alone, it will make no headway as far as the outside world is concerned. It remains the practice of apartheid, and as long as that is so, we shall not find friendship anywhere. Government members argue that their policy is our traditional policy. I deny that. The traditional racial pattern in our country has always been that the different groups tend to keep to themselves, but in a natural and unforced way. On that basis race relationships were regulated in the past with a minimum of legislation. Each individual and group was free to decide on his or its own social relationships with other individuals and groups. That was the policy which was implemented until after Fusion. It is interesting to note that when Dr. Malan decided in 1934 not to be a party to the establishment of the United Party, he submitted six points of doubt to General Hertzog. I have here his own statement setting out these doubts. In essence they are the following—

Not a word about racial policy! All the parties were satisfied to deal with race relationships in our traditional way without legal compulsion. It is a political fact that only after the purified party could not make progress against the Fusion Party, they artificially introduced a policy of compulsory apartheid with a view to local success without foreseeing what dangerous conditions for South Africa would eventually be the result. Although I cannot prove it, I have reason to believe that in the last years of his life Dr. Malan as a Christian, as a patriot and as a human being was deeply disturbed by the way in which apartheid had got out of hand in South Africa and had become a Frankenstein.

I have said that the movement against South Africa started on a small scale and I say that a wise Government could have halted it. Yet the Government allowed it to develop and even aggravated the position by its legislation. The Government cannot refute the charge that by its legislation it has caused our international position to worsen. To-day it is no longer India alone. The whole of Africa is involved. That need not have been the position. I have just read an interesting article by Mr. J. J. J. Scholtz, the foreign editor of the Burger, on conditions in Africa. He says that Mr. Tom Mboya, one of the leaders in Kenya, was a great admirer of the Boers and of their struggle. He then said (the Burger supplement, 8 June 1963)—

That is the crux of the matter: The desire to be treated with respect. I maintain that the crucial mistake we have made in South Africa and are still making is that the policy of compulsory apartheid does not take into account this basic desire of people to be treated with respect and dignity.

I know that the Government has great expectations for the Transkei, and that they think that they will thereby change the overseas picture of South Africa. So much has been said on this point already that I do not want to say much more. Nevertheless I do just want to say that even if one regards the Transkei undertaking in the most favourable light for the Government, one is still faced with the naked fact that the Transkei still lacks dynamic development with free capital. Development by means of free capital is the only way to make it a viable state. To say that to allow White capital will result in exploitation is to dispute the whole concept of capitalism which is the basis of our democratic state. Unfortunately the Transkei has also become linked in the eyes of the world with the removal of the Bantu from the western Cape; in addition it is linked to the deliberate uprooting from the territory not only of the established Coloureds but also of its most stable, skilled and financially strong element, namely the Whites. Furthermore, the whole undertaking only affects a small section of the Bantu people, while it leaves untouched the problem of the Coloured minority, the Indian minority and the established Bantu in the mixed areas of South Africa. And if they say there is no such thing as a detribalized Bantu I advise the National Party to study its old programme of principles which always used the term “detribalized Native”. However, the main weakness of the Transkei plan has in my opinion been best described by a prominent Government supporter, namely Mr. Willem van Heerden, in an article which he wrote in Dagbreek en Sondagnuus of 9 September 1962. He considers that in theory separate development still appears to be the best solution. But that, he says, is in theory. He then goes on—

He then refers to a letter which he had received, and he says—

To this question Mr. van Heerden answers himself—

We can argue as we like, but time after time we come back to the one point which Mr. van Heerden also mentions here, namely that apartheid, compulsory apartheid, has not brought racial peace and that it will never do so because it is regarded as a humiliation of and a stigma on the human dignity of people. It is this point which the Government consistently refuses to see. We have now sat here in Parliament for five months and passed a vast amount of legislation. But I am sorry to say that when we examine this legislation in the light of the serious times in which we live, we shall find that we have curtailed a large number of civil rights, with the Liquor Bill as the only exception. If I must briefly sum up the legislation passed this Session, I would have to describe it as less freedom to think, and more freedom to drink! If one asks oneself which basic problems this Session has resolved, one is disappointed because we are no nearer the solution of any of our basic problems. I know the Government is basing its hopes on the development of a strong Defence Force as a deterrent to the African states. The Opposition will not stand in the Government’s way as far as the strengthening of the Defence Force is concerned. We realize that the Government’s diplomatic front has collapsed and that we therefore have no alternative but to strengthen our Defence Force. The Government therefore has our support in this regard. But allow me to say that the strengthening of the Defence Force is a tragic commentary on our position. It is tragic that in times of peace we have to maintain a stronger Defence Force than that which we had in time of war. And I have a terrible feeling that it could very easily become a modern Maginot Line, because all the indications are that we are not heading for a limited conflict between us and the rest of Africa alone. If it were merely a matter between us and the other African states, we could probably defeat them. As matters are developing, I am afraid however that within a comparatively short time we shall have a head-on collision with the leaders of the West. Where will we then be with the Army we are now building up? I know hon. members will say that I am wrong; but let us discuss the matter again in a year or two. [Interjections.] I ask my hon. friend over there to quote me one warning which I did not give in this caucus at that time and which has not been proved true.

Not one has been proved true.

The worst of our position is not that we have India against us, nor that we have Africa against us, because that we can deal with. The tragic aspect of our position is that this Government has made it impossible for the leaders of the West to remain South Africa’s friends. That is the crux of the problem. I am sorry to say that the position of the Government has deteriorated to such an extent abroad, in Africa and in the West, that it can no longer successfully speak on behalf of the White people of South Africa. The Government blames everyone except itself. Above all others it blames the Press. I do not deny that on occasion deplorable things have been said about South Africa in the foreign Press, but I was in America for three months and in Europe for three months and I visited the Far East. On many occasions I had difficulty in finding out whether South Africa still existed. What is said about South Africa in the foreign Press is a drop in the ocean compared with what is published in those newspapers. Most people overseas are too absorbed in their own lives and do not even know where South Africa is. I had to show prominent people overseas on a map where South Africa was. It is an exaggeration to say that the feelings encountered abroad are due to the Press. What appears in the Press is a drop in the ocean, but what I did find everywhere I went abroad is that those people who are the political leaders and who influence Government policy are remarkably well informed on the position in South Africa and they do not derive their information from the newspapers. What responsible foreign Government leader when he wants to establish what the policy of another Government is, judges it by what the Opposition to the Government concerned says about it? He refers directly to the statements by the Government itself and not to the interpretation of the Opposition. All the foreign Governments have their own representatives here in South Africa which send them reports. These are not newspaper reports but what the Government does and says; it is on these that the attitude against South Africa is based. Allow me to give one practical example. We have discussed the case of Mrs. Mapheele in Paarl. In the court case Judge Beyers asked the prosecutor where the woman’s home was and he said he did not know. It is only in South Africa that one finds such a position. In all the other countries of the world a woman’s home is where her husband is domiciled, but here we have a double standard. Here a Bantu woman’s place is where the Government’s political policies decide she should be, and not with her husband. It is this double standard which makes the position completely impossible for South Africa throughout the world.

Take the reaction to this amongst South Africans. Professor Wouter de Vos wrote in the Burger that in principle he supported apartheid, but—

That is the reaction in South Africa; how much worse will the reaction not be abroad? My question to hon. members opposite is this. When these facts relating to one case such as that of Mrs. Mapheele is reported in the Press, who is harming South Africa’s good name? Is it the Press reporter who reports the facts or the Government? It is pointless the Prime Minister hiding behind the law. If the law is unreasonable and inhuman, it is his duty to change the law. There is not the slightest doubt that the picture which the outside world has of South Africa is due in the first place to the Government’s actions and the policy which it applies. The Prime Minister after all attended the Commonwealth Conference himself. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has the best platform in the world for putting his point of view, and what is the result? I am not referring to the communists or the Afro-Asian countries, but what has been the result amongst the Western countries? Furthermore I want to ask, if this is the Opposition’s fault, how it is that everyone who comes from abroad and examines the position for himself in South Africa forms an unfavourable impression of apartheid in this country? Lord Fraser of Lonsdale one of South Africa’s best friends, has said—

Mr. W. E. Luke, the chairman-elect of the London Committee of the South African Foundation, was in South Africa. He examined everything and he said that he preferred the Opposition’s policy of racial federation to the policy of the Government. He then went on to say—

A man like Mr. Clement Jones, editor of a British journal, expresses his love for South Africa, and says—

These are not reports which he read; he was here himself. Lord Montgomery, a great friend of the Government, has said—

Major Patrick Wall was here in South Africa as a guest of the South African Foundation and examined everything, and what was his finding? He found apartheid “morally abhorrent, intellectually grotesque and spiritually indefensible”. But hon. members opposite go on seeking the cause everywhere except in themselves. These people who have visited South Africa want to assist us. They long to do so, but the Government is making it completely impossible for the West.

I want to conclude by saying that we obviously have a duty towards South Africa, but our duty does not stop there. We also have a duty towards mankind and the West of which we form part, and after all America, England, France and other countries are in the vanguard of the struggle against Communism in which we have a vital interest. They are our front line. They are our main protectors, the leaders of the Western states. We have a real interest in the welfare of the West. The question which comes to my mind is whether we do not have a duty towards the West? Must we not act in such a way that we also strengthen the position of the West in its struggle against Communism? Then it will be of no avail our merely stockpiling armaments, because they will not be short of them. The struggle here is one of ideas, and I feel we must act in such a way that we no longer make South Africa an argument in the hands of the communists against the West, and that is what is happening to-day. We are an argument in the hands of the communists, and everywhere South Africa is being used to incite people against the West and the White man. I believe that before the world we must abandon the dogma of absolute compulsory apartheid as the basis on which human relationships are governed in this country. That does not mean that we must accept forced integration and that we must make it our policy. All the racial difficulties in the world are due to the element of compulsion—compulsory apartheid here and compulsory integration in the southern states of America. We must reject both, and in their place we must put natural, unforced human relationships with the right of every individual and every group to decide on their way of life in the everyday world according to their own wishes and customs. That alone will remove the stigma from the Government’s policy and reduce the tension. That will create a climate in which we can sit down and speak as man to man without this stigma on the majority of the population, and we can with good results and through consultation work out a political system under which the one group will not dominate the other. I say it can be done. To hon. members who say our position is so hopeless, I want to say that we have 3,000,000 Whites and 1,500,000 half-Whites, Westerners. We have 4,500,000 people whom we regard as Westerners, and in addition we have 500,000 Indians. Together the 3,000,000 Whites and the 1,500,000 Coloureds outnumber the Bantu who are permanently settled outside the Bantu areas. I say that our position is 1,000 per cent stronger than that of any country in Africa, and there is no comparison between us and the rest of Africa. I believe that our position is of such a nature that if we can remove those things which derogate from the dignity of individuals, we shall create a climate in which we in South Africa can work out a political system under which the one group will not dominate the other. [Time limit.]

I have listened attentively to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and shall now reply to some of the points raised by him, and in the course of my speech I shall also deal with the rest of his speech. The hon. member referred to Kenya, Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland and Angola, and he said that those territories are different from South Africa. I agree. They are different from South Africa, but that is not really the point in issue. The point is not how in our opinion our country compares with those territories. The point is how, in the opinion of Africa, we compare with those territories. Then I should like to read to the hon. member an extract from the minutes of the 1957 Congress of the All-African Peoples Conference, held in Accra. The chairman said this in his opening speech—

Africa does not differentiate between Kenya and South Africa. They label all of us with the same tag. The hon. member for Pinelands says there is a difference and we also say there is a difference, but the whole Africa says there is no difference and all of us must be ruled by the “African people”.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also quoted Tom Mboya which quotation was more favourable to his point of view, but what did Tom Mboya say at this congress?—

Just there the point the hon. member has tried to make of the difference between South Africa and those territories falls completely flat.

The hon. member has made a second point. He said that we in South Africa must satisfy our own population groups. I cannot agree more with him, but it is precisely the aim and the aspiration of the Government. However, our problem is that the Opposition persistently doubts our sincerity and the genuineness of our intentions. They are the people who are mostly casting reflections upon our good intentions for all the population groups. Then the hon. member referred to how well General Smuts fared on his last visit to UN. That is quite correct. On the face of it he fared well, but what was the division of power in the world at that time? At that time there was, on the one hand, only the communist states, about 17 of them, and the whole of the rest of the free Western world with all the states under their influence on the other hand, and they were at that time in agreement on all matters, even on South Africa’s case. That was the division of power at the time, but since then a third great factor has been added, and I need not dilate upon that, because hon. members are fully acquainted with it. The great Afro-Asian bloc in UN arose, and that bloc votes against us on these matters. Whereas at that time there were merely two or three members from Africa at UN, such as Nigeria and Egypt, to-day there is a multitude of them, and that explains to a large extent why the voting is so different.

Then I should like to deal with the hon. member on this point. He said General Smuts was a great protagonist of a pattern of free apartheid or separation. That is true. The hon. member said that he sat here in this gallery and listened to a famous speech General Smuts made on the subject. I merely want to ask him this: Did he go and join the National Party after that speech? The hon. member may correct me if I am wrong, but if at that time he had listened to the late General Smuts with so much heart-stirring agreement, and endorsed his views, why did he then join the party which applies compulsory apartheid? On this point I admit that if it were possible for us voluntarily to maintain the traditional separation in South Africa I shall be glad. But times have changed and we shall not be able to do it any longer. An element has emerged which will have nothing to do with that, which wishes to foment unrest in the country, and which will utilize all those points of contact between the various population groups to sabotage the national pattern. Therefore, however loath one may be, one just has to accept the pattern of compulsory apartheid. I am not saying that President Kennedy is correct, but he also has found that a pattern of voluntary integration in his country does not pay, and he is now also resorting to legislation.

Later on in the course of my speech I shall deal with some other points the hon. member raised. I think we can rightfully say that the great battles we experienced during this Session were all lost by the Opposition. Now towards the end of the Session, they want to unleash a final skirmish. They wanted to relieve themselves of much smoke and gunpowder, and while the political air was polluted, they wanted to retire over the last little hill into the safe bosom of the recess. I do not think this Session was so very unfruitful. It was an important Session to me. Two things, among others, flowed from it. The one was that this Session brought us the reply to those subversive forces, those forces of sabotage and violence which sought to overthrow the State. This Session has shown to all and sundry that this Government is absolutely determined to maintain law and order by means of legislative and administrative powers. Secondly, this Session brought us a further instalment in the implementation of our policy and efforts to ensure freedom and human dignity to all in South Africa, in spite of what the Opposition says. South Africa has shown to itself and to the world that it is in earnest, in its honesty and the sincerity of its aims, to pursue a course which ultimately must amount to this, that we are prepared to give other people that which we are asking for ourselves, namely full human rights.

Apart from these direct consequences of the Session, I should like to deal with some indirect consequences. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout concluded his speech by stating that we were heading for a head-on clash with the leaders of the Western world. Then the hon. member, quite illogically, said that we on this side say the position is hopeless, immediately after he himself has said that it was hopeless. We do not say the position is hopeless, but we appreciate that it is serious, and if it were to become more serious, and were to lead to a head-on clash with the leaders of the Western world, what will I and the members opposite say to those people? What is there we can cling to? What truths are there which the Western world cannot begrudge us? What are the realities of our situation? What can the West not escape from? The first statement I wish to make is that it is an absolute fact that here in South Africa we are a nation in our own right. Our origin and development here is exactly comparable with that of Australia and the U.S.A. We are a nation with an own fatherland, with an only fatherland, and we have a right to it; like all the others we are not begrudging that right in Africa. If anybody wishes to attack us, he must reason this fact away, that there is a White nation in this country which is a nation in its own right. I do not think the Opposition deny that. Nobody can deny that. Our friends accept it as self-evident and our enemies must admit it. We shall proclaim this fact with all the power and conviction at our disposal. In the final result, if it becomes necessary, we will defend it with all the strength of our bodies, and we are preparing ourselves for that, and for that reason we are asking the people of South Africa to stand together, and I think the Opposition will stand by us. Here is a White nation in its own right and anybody who wishes to attack us must violate this principle, and then he will also do violence to his own conscience, and I do not believe that our friends in the West are prepared to do that.

The second fact I wish to mention is that South Africa does not constitute a threat to the peace and the security of the world. We have not been a threat, and we are not now. South Africa has never, by word or deed, threatened the borders of any country. On the contrary, our hand of friendship has always been extended to all countries of the world. We participate in the international communications between States in all spheres and we make our contribution, How then can the hon. member for Constantia say that our foreign policy has broken down completely? Is our foreign policy not exactly what it has been all these years, a policy built upon friendship and co-operation and upon Section 2 (7) of the charter of UN, which says that no State shall interfere in the domestic affairs of another? That has been the basis of our foreign policy since the time of General Smuts, and it is still our policy. It has not changed. Why should it have broken down now? But the hon. members say it has broken down because the world outside no longer likes us. Since when has the foreign policy of any country been determined by what the outside world expects of it? What will the U.S.A. look like if it were to adapt its foreign policy to suit Russia, if it were not to assist Africa, and that it should not interfere directly or indirectly in Cuba, but that it shall withdraw from all the places where it is operating overseas because it is anxious to comply with the wishes of Russia? Is that the basis of a foreign policy now? No, our foreign policy is still exactly what it has been all along, based on the basis of friendship and cooperation and Article 2 (7) of the Charter of UN. I repeat this absolute fact that any State which wishes to attack us will have to account for its actions to itself and to the world. I repeat that South Africa does not constitute a threat to the peace of the security of the world.

I now come to a third fact. This present historical set-up in South Africa has produced good results—“it has delivered the goods”. We have this fantastic development and economic prosperity, plenty of work, with money in circulation, which produces benefits for all our people. But we have not reserved all these things for only one section of our people. We have not reserved it only for the White people; we have shared it with everybody in the country, and we are still doing so. The figures reveal that. Wherever one goes in the country, and looks at the daily lives of the people, one sees it, and it is not a process which has come to an end. It is an evolutionary process of progress for all the people of our country, and it is still continuing. The people in our country are content. As recently as last night Mr. Golding said that they were satisfied and accepted this wonderful pattern of development for their people. The people in our country are content. Who are the people who are discontented? The people who are not satisfied are the people outside South Africa, the liberals and the progressives, and after this debate it seems to me that the Opposition are not satisfied either. But the people in our country are satisfied. The Opposition in this House are much more dissatisfied than the people outside the House.

I am extremely sorry the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) is not here now, because he now wants to send us to America. He wants to know from us what we are going to tell America. But that hon. member has been in America already and I wonder what he told America. I wonder also what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson), who spoke before me, and who has also been to America and other countries, told them. What was the reply of those hon. members when they were asked: “Do the Coloured women in your country also vote?” And what was their reply when they were asked: “If you get into power, are you going to give the Coloured women the vote on the Common Roll; are you going to give the 18-year-old Coloureds the franchise; are you going to give the Coloureds in the northern provinces the vote?” While that hon. member was putting questions to us, these are the questions I should have liked to put to him. What was his reply in America to those questions? The hon. member for Germiston District (Mr. Tucker) said here yesterday: “Yes, your policy is not immoral; but on the highest international level your policy is deficient”. I shall tell the people what our policy is. I shall say to them: “Here we have this wonderful university college for the Coloureds; here we have the wonderful town we are building for our Coloured people”. I shall say to them: “For every non-White traffic constable we remove from the centre of the city of Cape Town it is our sincere aim to place one in the Athlone Coloured Township”. As regards job reservation—and I shall make a better study of it than I have made thus far—I shall say to them: “It is not such a terrible thing because here in my country, in the whole of the building industry in the western Cape, 99 per cent of that industry has been reserved for the Coloured population”. That does not seem to me to be so terribly unfair. I shall say to them: “My son may not marry a non-White girl under the laws of my land, because history has taught us that the relatives on both sides, and the children born of such a mixed marriage, are unhappy and that is why we have done this; we should have liked to leave it to people on a voluntary basis, but we passed a law for the 5 per cent for whom an Act is necessary”. I have not the slightest doubt as to what I shall tell America, namely that this present historical dispensation, which in substance is a transitory one, has worked well and that the people who are prepared to co-operate with the sinister forces, the friends we actually have at the present time (because I do believe that we still have many friends in the world) will not achieve what they would like to achieve; they will have to account for their actions, because they will only replace order in South Africa with chaos and disorder; they will replace progress and prosperity with stagnation and depression; they will replace full state coffers with empty coffers which will be unable to pay public servants; they will replace opportunities for employment with unemployment. They will replace plenty of food with starvation, and before some of our friends overseas go too far along those lines, they should give due consideration to these things.

There is a fourth fact, and it is this: I am convinced that South Africa is not so terribly out of step with world opinion as some people are trying to allege. We do not merely talk about human rights; we are doing much more about it. Just refer to the history of our country. Mr. Speaker, we did not hunt and kill people here when this country was wide open and untamed. There were wars and skirmishes, but as soon as they were over we drew the border lines and lived in peace with people and protected them. There sits the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford). Yesterday he referred to people on this side of the House who are still living in the old days of the Anglo-Boer War in the year 1900; that we are still riding around on horseback with biltong in our saddlebags. That is what that hon. member said. I understand that hon. member has built up a great reputation for himself in the medical sphere in this country. One merely pities him when he now comes along and says these things here. We realize on this side of the House that we are living in the second half of the 20th century. We realize that a tide is sweeping over the world, an historical development which demands that discrimination must be done away with in the world. That whole outcry concerns this question of human rights and fundamental freedoms. After all we also think; after all we are not quite such political monkeys as we are sometimes depicted to be. We feel that we want to try to adapt ourselves to this thing, but the only way in which we see our way clear to adapt ourself to it is on the basis of what history has taught us through the ages, namely that boundaries must be set up between nations and peoples, and once you have set up those boundaries, you can give all those freedoms to people. That is what we are trying to do in our structure of state we are trying to bring about here. We cannot accede to the demands of the world as they want us to do, namely all together in one multiracial fatherland. We cannot see our way open to doing that; we say that candidly to the world, but if we can draw the boundary lines we see our way clear to reconciling ourselves with this world movement with which we are faced. In my honest opinion the world is quarrelling with us because it does not understand us properly, because part of the world is unwilling to understand us properly. But I do think that after all we have the elementary right to ask our friends in the Western world in particular: For goodness sake, do try to understand us; we tried to understand you. I am in favour of the world trying to understand us. Every country has its own problems. In the light of its own history, in the light of its constitution and in the light of its position in the world, every country has its own problems, and it is my contention that we should try to understand them, and then we should ask them also to try to understand us.

There remains only the question of our honesty. There I feel the Opposition is leaving us and South Africa in the lurch. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout this morning again referred to the picture of South Africa. What is the picture of South Africa?

Ask the Prime Minister.

No, the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp), is completely wrong. He can ask the Prime Minister; he is not wrong there, but the picture of South Africa is this: We have a State here where Providence has put the people who are here—white, brown and black. That is the picture of South Africa, of a young, progressive democratic country, where the people are trying to create a pattern of life, of how the people here can live together. That is the picture of South Africa. Whether we are in the Government benches, or whether we are in the Opposition benches, we have a democratic system; there has to be a Government, and if there is a Government then it is obvious that the Government will have a policy and a plan for this pattern of life we have to create; there is an Opposition, and it also has a policy and a plan. But the picture of South Africa is a picture of White people the vast majority of whom are imbued with goodwill towards the non-Whites. It has been said time and again during this debate by hon. members opposite that there are people sitting here who are not well-disposed to the non-White peoples of South Africa. There the Opposition are going completely off the rails. We must stand together and we must tell the world that we mean well by the non-Whites. We have our quarrels and our differences of opinion, and we shall settle them among ourselves, but when we come before the world, we must tell it: This is the picture of South Africa and you must keep your hands off us.

I wish to conclude by saying that although this Session has confronted us with the realities of our position, this Session has in my opinion also brought a message of hope and confidence and courage and belief to the people of South Africa that we, all of us, will succeed in devising a pattern of living together in this country which will result in the happiness and welfare of all the children of South Africa.

The hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not follow him in the speech which he has just made. But, Sir, I listened with some interest to what he had to say in his concluding remarks about the image of South Africa. I would like to give him just one small thought on which to dwell in that regard. I would just like him to dwell for a short time, when he thinks of the present image of South Africa, on the picture of the hon. gentleman who is the President of the Other Place at the present time but who as a Cabinet Minister had occasion very soon after this Government had come into power to visit Belgium, where he was feted and honoured in the Belgian Parliament because he represented that great country South Africa, and the part which South Africa had played in the war did him honour. What was the image of South Africa then? I ask the hon. member to dwell on it when he thinks of the changed image which he sees so clearly at the present time.

Sir, within the last day or two we have seen an announcement in the Press by Mr. Adlai Stevenson of the U.S.A., in which he indicated quite clearly his opposition to proposals which had come from certain quarters that South Africa should be excluded from the United Nations. He indicated his opposition to that and he pointed out that he hoped that what had happened in another field of human activity, the International Labour Office would not be continued in other fields. Sir, this is a grain of comfort to us but I think what is so remarkable is the fact that so many members of this House have spoken to me with such approval of the remarks of Mr. Stevenson. This grain of comfort has now become a matter of tremendous importance, a matter which some few years ago would have passed unnoticed. Nobody would have worried about Mr. Adlai Stevenson saying that he is opposed to South Africa’s being jockeyed out of the United Nations, but to-day it becomes a matter of great importance. Members are saying, “By Jove, this is a ray of hope, isn’t it? At last we are beginning to get people to understand perhaps what the true position of South Africa is So many hon. members are grasping at this little grain of comfort. That surely shows how far down we have gone when we have to see this little ray of hope as something of such extreme importance at this time of darkness. I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is not here. I wanted to deal with a personal matter in which he was concerned. I understand he has left. Notwithstanding his absence, Sir, I propose to deal with it later on. At the moment I want to deal with a matter in which his Department is concerned and that is associated with the report of Mr. Justice Snyman. It deals with the association between the Municipality of Paarl and the Bantu in the Mbekweni location. The hon. the Minister indicated yesterday in his remarks that he took no responsibility and that his Department took no responsibility for the failure to have the contact between the Municipality of Paarl on the one side and his Department on the other; he said that that failure was not due to him or his Department in any way. I do not propose to quote at length from Mr. Justice Snyman’s report or from any other document unless I am challenged. But I want to say this at once that there was a break down and Mr. Justice Snyman makes the point and that two senior officials in the Bantu Administration Department of the Paarl Municipality were licensed by the Minister. They were licensed by the Minister in terms of legislation that was passed by this House a few years ago to make the contact between his Department and the municipality. Otherwise there was no sense in that legislation. What was the reason for having legislation which made the Minister’s approval necessary for the licensing of this particular individual in this superior position when he became the man in charge of the Bantu Administration Department in the municipality? I want to deal with it in precisely the same way. The key figure, in this case the key figures, were licensed by the Minister. The Minister cannot now turn down and say that if there was a break down in the communications between that municipality and his Department he cannot be blamed. Here was his own official, licensed by him, not with his tacit approval but with his precise approval, granted in the form of a licence. This was double control in the Department, in my opinion. Because the Minister licensed those officials the municipality stood back because the Minister has a finger in the pie. That is a danger which is likely we shall always have to deal with. Apart from that it is the Minister’s contention that the Bantu in the Mbekweni Location were people who had been detribalized. Something has been read into Mr. Justice Snyman’s report which I think has given a wrong impression. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) in reply to a question yesterday said that in connection with the administration of Bantu affairs in cities like Johannesburg and Durban memoranda had been received by Mr. Justice Snyman so that he had been able to take an over-all view of the picture where municipal control of Bantu Affairs had led to a belief that the Bantu in these areas were detribalized Bantu and that such and such effects flowed from that. I have sought in vain through the whole of that report to find where any memoranda had come from Johannesburg and Durban to the Commissioner on that point of Bantu administration. There is no such evidence. There is not a word anywhere to indicate that it is so. This was another figment of the imagination of the hon. member for Heilbron. He has been a most enthusiastic member throughout the whole Session. He rushes into all sorts of things and when he is cornered he cannot prove his facts.

In this connection I think it is pertinent to point out, as my colleague behind me has already pointed out, that the Mbekweni Location was established in 1950. The Bantu have been there, on and off, for some 12 to 13 years. The Snyman report refers to the fact that these people have come from rural areas and settled at Mbekweni. I cannot lay my hands on the particular paragraph at the moment Sir. But he goes on to deal with their situation there and here I want to quote his own words—

There he condemns the basis of the legislation which we are asked to pass through this House by the Minister of Bantu Administration which makes of the Bantu a labour pool, a circulatory labour force, as I call it. The hon. the Deputy Minister says—and I take his word for it—he did not use the words that they were interchangeable labour units. I accept that he did not say so; he denied that. But it is a very good phrase as indicating the basis of the legislation which has been piloted through this House, that they are interchangeable labour units. Mr. Justice Snyman says—

That is not where he leaves it, Sir. He says in paragraph 173—

Nobody has yet dealt with the meaning of that word “acceptance”, “Acceptance” means “agreed to by both”. It means “agreed to by both parties”. It says that unless you have an inter-racial policy in the country which is accepted by both parties, subversive activities will never be successfully combated. These are the things we have to ponder about, Sir, when we have dealt with the precise issues of the massacres at Paarl. That is one aspect of the matter. These matters are just as important as the other. We have to find the root cause so that we can prevent future occurrences of a similar nature. When the hon. the Prime Minister spoke earlier on he first tried to be sarcastic to my hon. friend, the member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson). He then went on to say that he admitted all the threats and dangers to South Africa which had been enunciated by my hon. Leader and the hon. member for Constantia. He then dealt with the Bantu policy of his party he rejected the alternative policy of the United Party. He condemns it out of hand without showing that it has been tried. Nowhere does he show that he is even willing to try it. He is the man who is Dosing the two courses for South Africa to follow: This or that. Listening to the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister two days ago I came to the conclusion that he was allowing South Africa to drift into war. We may yet have to look back over the past years and see how inevitable it was that step by step we went forward until we ended up in a war because the Government refused to take any practical steps to try to check it. Why not try something fresh? They will not try anything fresh in the field of our external relations where it is so urgently needed. Let the hon. member who preceded me cast his mind back to the image of South Africa at the time when a Nationalist Party Minister was feted in the Belgium Houses of Parliament because he represented the South African image. That was what he represented there; they did not know. But because he represented the then image of South Africa he was fêted. That image was because of what we did during the war. Now, Sir, we go forward, perhaps not deliberately, but sliding. There is no internal policy to-day in South Africa. The Prime Minister could not produce it. They are not taking any further practical steps in regard to the Bantustan concept. We had a defiant reply from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration the other day to the question put by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan). If the whole of the argument of the Prime Minister were based on moral grounds in regard to the Transkei then the whole of that moral ground fell away when it was decided not to proceed any further. And the reason? Give it a trial. That is exactly what they are saying in Zululand at the present time. Perhaps it is just as well that the thing is being tried out in the Transkei first, because if it fails there then the irrevocable step has not been taken elsewhere. But that is no policy, Mr. Speaker. That is an admission that the Government, when it started with its Bantustan policy, had no idea of how things were going to work out exactly. They are creating an independent Bantu State in South Africa that will be able to go to UNO, make friends with Basutoland and to use its position right in the midst of South Africa to wreck our economy and our security. In other words, Sir, the Government is simply trying out something. They are waiting for the winds of change to blow. It may blow away the idea that the Transkei can succeed in this form. What if it fails? Mr. Speaker, I say the Government is letting things slip. It is letting things slip internally and externally. They are letting things slip in regard to its policy in respect of the Indians and in respect of the Coloured people.

I repeat: What if the policy of the Government in the Transkei fails? I know the anxiety of the Prime Minister. I have never made any secret of the fact that this would fail and I made no secret of the fact that I knew he would try it. But I know what the Nationalist Party does to its discredited leaders. They throw them on the political ash heap. The Prime Minister has got to make this succeed in the Transkei. But if it fails? South Africa cannot take the chance. Prime Ministers come and Prime Ministers go. South Africa must live; it must go on. Has the Government made plans if the Transkei fails? Or how are we going to force its success.

I came across a statement issued by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in London a few days ago. Mr. Speaker, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development laid down certain conditions which were to be applied in Kenya, and they said this—

“A mass exodus of expatriate civil servants, farmers, industrialists, financiers and other professional people would lead to chaos in Kenya”, warns a report of the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development.

If the policy is “skop die witman uit”, Sir, then let us immediately get our bearings and our eyes on the Transkei and see what is happening there, in the light of what the International Bank says in regard to Kenya. Here are the six cardinal points that they lay down. Let us see how they apply—

Do not let us bluff ourselves, Mr. Speaker. Law and order will be maintained in the Transkei as long as you have got White policemen and a White army. Hon. members who know the Bantu well, know that that is so. And they still have got Proclamation 400 there, and on the admission of the Minister of Bantu Administration, who is responsible for it (because the Minister of Justice says that it is not his affair), it is extended in order to keep law and order by White policemen. That is the first point. Law and order have to be maintained by the officials concerned, according to the International Bank. Then—

I do not want to throw bricks, Sir. We are arranging in our legislation for senior White officials who stay there to help these people over the early stages. Fair enough. I am not going to cavil at that. Do hon. members think that once the White officials are withdrawn you will then have efficiency in the service, in all branches? That of course is another matter. The next point—

That is in the laps of the gods—

To make them viable, Sir. The Transkei has got no viable economy to-day. The Transkei for decades has not been able to feed its own people. For many years I was interested in the mealie business and periodically, every second or third year, and now almost every year, we had to pour mealies (our basic staple food) from the White areas into the Transkei. They cannot feed themselves. Meat of all kinds is at a premium. The people there come out to our White areas because they are looking for jobs to earn money to send back to pay for food for their own people. It is as simple as that.

When last were mealies sent?

Every year.

You know that that is not so.

Taxes have to be levied, taxes have to be changed to expand revenue. We are paying a subsidy of R1,000,000 this year to the Transkei to help to start them off. Will the hon. Minister of Finance when he gets up to reply tell us that he believes that this is the last? What does he foresee in terms of future years in regard to payments to the Transkei to keep it solvent? They will not levy taxes on themselves. They cannot. What have we got to pay them? They cannot pay taxes. Where will they get the money to pay taxes in the Transkei to any appreciable extent in order to boost their economy, as is contemplated here. Perhaps the hon. Minister of Finance could tell us, if they will not tax themselves further and they say to him: We want largesse from you. We want you to give us extra subsidies. We want to be kept solvent, and we want you to pay for it. What is the Minister going to say? It is very much like American aid to some of the countries in Africa. This will be aid for a country in Africa, but instead of going to America initially they will come to the Minister. I hope he will tell us what his policy is? Is this another policy of drift. Is the hon. Minister going to say: Let us wait until the 1964 Estimates before we meet troubles like that. He knows that trouble is coming. Nobody knows it better. What is going to be his policy towards keeping the Transkei solvent by means of aid from the Revenue Fund of the Republic? These are the things that matter. Because if he will not give them that aid they will get it elsewhere. And then where do we go? The Transkei will go where it gets its money from. The man who calls the tune pays the piper, and the man who pays the piper is going to call the tune. Point No. (5)—

For many years Kenya has received British aid for current as well as development expenditure. And then—

This is what the International Bank thinks. “In private hands”. A saw-mill which had already been established by a European entrepreneur, taken over by the Government, and a furniture factory. That seems to be the limit of industrial expansion in the Transkei at the present moment. Do we really hold that up to the world as having made a practical beginning with the industrialization of the Transkei? A country that cannot feed itself, that will look to us continually for largesse. If that is what the International Bank thinks about that particular country, then it is perfectly clear that we have got a very thin time coming in trying to keep it on its feet and the Government can rule out any possibility of going ahead with any of the other Bantustans, with the possible exception of one. What about Zululand? Have hon. members noticed that they are pegging diamond claims there at the foot of the Lebombo Mountains, on the Makatini Flats, in the middle of the big irrigation scheme of the Minister of Water Affairs? I know the area well. I have seen all the multi-coloured pebbles there. What a chance I missed because I had no knowledge of geology. Otherwise I might have been the first man to pick a diamond claim in the middle of Makatini. And oil. Do hon. members opposite realize that if in fact those expectations come true, and vast sums of money are now being poured in there—if those expectations come true, may it not precipitate precisely the very thing that we fear, that we are going to have such a rich country here within our borders …

Shame on you.

The Chief Whip says “skande”! When he is brought face to face with reality, what is he going to do? What is going to be the policy of his Government?

The Transkei belongs to the Bantu.

I am not talking about the Transkei now. If diamonds and oil are found in Zululand, will he hand Zululand to the Zulus? “Ja of nee?” You see, Mr. Speaker, how wonderful it is to be moral, as long as there are not too many diamonds and too much involved. Then of course morality changes its whole aspect, its image. An image clothed in diamonds is a different image to the image of a destitute country like the Transkei that has not got a sixpence to bless itself with. And the hon. Chief Whip will not face it. But this is what I am pleading for: To face the difficult and awkward questions in the same way as we face the easy ones, if there are any easy ones left to-day. What is the Government going to do then. When Chief Cyprian Bhekuzulu, having been urged by the Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner and the Minister at the establishment of the Regional Authority there, comes along and says we want to take over our country?

The Government will do the right thing at the right time.

There is the policy of drift, in those few words. We heard the hon. member over there saying that it is a nation. What sort of nation is this that when you have got to deal with a difficult situation on moral grounds, not in a year’s time, but now, the hon. Chief Whip says “We will do the right thing at the right time”.

The moral deed.

These are the things that are worrying us because we live next door to it and we want to know the answers. We want to know where the Government is going. The Government cannot blame us if we now throughout the country say that the Government has no internal policy in regard to Bantustans or anything else, and its moral ground has been shown to have no value whatsoever. And it has got no external policy.

The Government’s external policy has broken down completely and the hon. the Prime Minister will not make that supreme effort to change his direction, to find a practical way, whatever the difficulties are, whatever his personal difficulties may be, of trying to get together in the same way as General Smuts and other great leaders of South Africa had done in the past on the basis of personal contact. Mr. Speaker, a man like the President of the United States of America can go and leave his country and visit other folks across the sea and make personal contacts and discuss problems with them. Is it still too much to ask of our Prime Minister that he should do precisely the same? Why are we small South Africans lacking in patriotism towards our country if we ask our Prime Minister to save his country even at the expense of some personal difficulties, some of his own personal dignity? Sir, we break up within the next day or two here and what will history have said of South Africa before we meet again in this Chamber, unless the Government on its own showing, aware of all the difficulties, aware of the problems facing South Africa, aware of the dangers, which I do not propose to elaborate, courageously faces these problems. But the Government through the hon. the Prime Minister the other day said to my Leader and to the hon. member for Constantia: I agree with what you have said about all those dangers. The Minister of Defence gave us a sober, solemn address the other day. The Minister of Defence ought to know what he is talking about, and he did not tell the whole story and we do not want him to tell the whole story in public. But we know what is taking place. On that basis can we not appeal to the hon. Prime Minister to do something, to change his direction for South Africa, and give us an opportunity of avoiding slipping into a cold war or a hot war, whatever kind of a war it is. That is what I plead for.

I now want briefly to deal with the appeal to us to get on better terms with the Bantu, and I want to say that until the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is prepared to apologize for the speech that he made at Port Shepstone and at Umzinto, it is no good him coming here in Parliament, asking us to try to get a better relationship between White and Black. On these occasions, and I have here a copy of the official paper Bantu, dated January 1963 and it refers to the Commissioner-General for Zululand. Mr. Nel. He referred to a public meeting which had been held in Natal where a certain speaker had said that the policy of separate development would result in suicide for the Whites. This was when they were inaugurating the Regional Authority at Port Shepstone on 8 November 1962. It says that there were about 600 Bantu present. Mr. Nel, the Commissioner-General concluded—

Are you going to give them their diamonds and their oil, Mr. Chief Whip? The Commissioner-General then was followed by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, and the Minister, according to the same Bantu said this—

He was dealing with the speech which I had made, and he followed on Mr. Commissioner Nel immediately afterwards, and that is made perfectly clear by the newspapers which reported that particular meeting, where they said that while Mr. Nel did not actually specify Mr. Mitchell, he quoted from a copy of his speech and he said “You can read this speech for yourselves in the newspapers”, and he quoted from a newspaper cutting.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.29 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before lunch I was dealine with the use of language by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration in regard to his fellow South Africans, and me in particular, where he stated that we were wolves and vultures, and I dealt with that in the context of a desire to bring about better relations between Whites and non-Whites. Sir, the Minister hides behind the statement that this is a common Bantu term for “communist”, but I know no Bantu dialect which uses such terminology. In the Daily News of 8 November, the Mercury of 9 November and in Bantu of January 1963, the day after the Regional Authority was constituted at Umzinto. the Minister again used these offensive words. I say that he can no longer ask us in this House to consider good relations between Whites and non-Whites when in his enthusiasm to protect the Blacks he is prepared to use words like that against the Whites.

I want to move on because my time is very short and I want to say this. I am pleased that the hon. the Prime Minister is here because where now do we go in regard to this attitude of the Government towards Bantustans? I am referring to the moral ground of it. I wonder whether the Prime Minister realizes that without the fulfillment of the promise, without reaching that ultimate stage in his plans which he and his Ministers have forecast, he reaches merely a point of time where he is virtually following the United Party policy of race federation. He is building up to a certain point the local government of the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians, and if he stops there he has race federation provided he just gives it the moral ground which it will then lack, and that is to give those people representation in this Parliament. The Prime Minister cannot stop there and claim that he is acting on moral grounds. He has pleaded for the moral grounds of representation in the Transkei for women as well as men. They will get the franchise. He must get that moral ground somewhere and he can only get it when he stops at the stage he has now reached in regard to the Bantustans other than the Transkei. He is not going to give that to the Coloureds or the Indians. Why does he not face up to the fact that history has made it impossible for him to carry out his own policy and he is necessarily going to be driven, on moral grounds alone, to accept United Party policy, which is the proper development of the Coloured areas and the development of the areas for the Indians with White money and skill so that they progress pari passu with the other part of the Republic, and representation in this Parliament, which the Coloureds have already got. If the Bantu people have their representatives here, the world will not come to an end. Let him give the Indians representation in this Parliament. Those are all the essentials of our race federation plan, so let the Prime Minister now have the moral courage to accept United Party policy on moral grounds and face the world with some chance of bettering the picture which is being presented overseas.

I always find it a little difficult to follow the logic of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). He has asked the Prime Minister to change his course, to change his approach to the problems, but it was the same member for South Coast who, not so long ago, said that the hon. the Prime Minister was the greatest liberal in the country. How he can reconcile these two statements nobody knows. However, I also have to congratulate the hon. member. Of all the members opposite he was the only one who came within striking distance of a financial aspect. He asked what it would cost the taxpayers of the Republic to develop the Transkei. I want to reply to him immediately. It is not as difficult as he perhaps thinks. I can tell him that it will not cost the taxpayers of the Republic any more than it would have cost them had we developed the Transkei as part of the Republic. It will probably cost less than it will cost to develop the Transkei under the race federation scheme of which we have heard so precious little during the past 2½ days. That is the simple answer. You cannot compare it with the assistance which America gives to the other states. America is under no obligation. She is doing it for a political purpose. We, are, however, not as loose from the Transkei as America is loose from Kenya or Tanganyika. It forms part of the country and whether it becomes independent or not the obligation to develop it will continue to rest on our shoulders. The annual growth of the Bantu population is approximately 250,000. That means work has to be found annually for approximately 120,000 Bantu. Had there been no independence we would still be under the obligation of finding work, annually, for those 120,000 Bantu. If we do give them a subsidy now, it will be in lieu of having to bear the total cost of developing the Transkei. We are not paying all the costs. Whatever subsidy we pay to the Transkei in future it will cost us less than it would have cost us to develop the Transkei as it ought to be developed in the interests of everybody in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, this debate has lasted for 2½ days and I must admit I almost came to the conclusion that the time had arrived for us to evolve new rules and a new system of debate for Opposition members. The only bright spot during the past 2½ days was when I witnessed a debate in another place. I was a spectator at the debate which took place at Newlands. Two teams also debated there, but there, unlike here, the contributions were sparkling; here we have only had a few aimless kicks to the side lines; a number of movements which have led to nought. Then we would not have had these surprising number of repetitions. I think we ought to have new rules preventing anybody from repeating speeches he has already made in the same Session at least. If he repeats his speeches of last year, some excuse can still be found for him but when hon. members advance the same arguments which they have already advanced in four or five previous debates in the same Session, the match simply becomes monotonous and tedious.

And also the same evasions.

If the same questions are put and the same arguments advanced the same replies must naturally be given; you cannot do otherwise.

But we did not get any replies.

I thought about the plan which the American Senator had. The members whom he represented were also sometimes a little inquisitive and he had to reply to their questions. So he selected 12 questions, numbered them and said to his members: “Just tell me which number you want; just press that button and I shall give you the reply to that question.” I think we can equally say to hon. members opposite at the beginning of the Session: “Just tell us which questions you intend asking; here are the replies.” I am not even so sure that there will be 12 questions. I think there will be fewer than 12. In that case we shall save the time and the money which these debates, which are so drawn-out and so tedious and monotonous, cost us.

May I ask a question?

Which number?

Number 64. What political rights will the Indians enjoy?

That is question No. 8.

That is what is called a double nought. The reply to that has already been given time and again.

What is the reply?

The reply is a double nought.

That is one of the questions which has not even been asked in this monotonous debate, but the hon. member who had a chance of putting it wants to put it now.

It was often asked.

I want to reply to this debate and let me say at once how grateful I am to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel). The hon. member has provided me with a text, a text which fits the entire debate we have had from the Opposition side. He quoted from Shakespeare’s Hamlet and he quoted these words: “perchance to dream”. I recommend that to the Opposition as an excellent motto for them to adopt. Mr. Speaker, the Opposition have been dreaming over the past 15 years about the day when they will again come into power. They are dreaming in vain. That is not the only dream they have. They have dreamed another idle dream and I wonder whether they can tell me whether the arguments they have advanced here have been of any value whatsoever either to South Africa or to the United Party. They hoped that they would at least be of value to the United Party but I think that has been an idle dream. They dream many dreams. For example, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) pleaded with us just simply to abolish forced apartheid and to apply voluntary apartheid and then all our problems in connection with the outside world will be solved. That is another of their idle dreams. Can the hon. member tell me which of the Black states will be satisfied with that? Which of the Black states will stop their campaign against South Africa if we simply replaced forced apartheid, as he calls it, by voluntary apartheid? That is the land of dreams in which hon. members of the Opposition live. They are completely oblivious to the realities of the times in which we are living. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has also set us a standard, a standard of steadfast adherence to principles. He told us that he had never as yet deviated from any principle he had subscribed to in the past. Let us accept that. In that case it means that where he stood as steady as a rock when he hung on to every word uttered by General Smuts, he subsequently replaced General Smuts, because the hon. member found it necessary to leave the United Party of General Smuts. It is not he who has changed; it is the United Party which has changed! At that time he felt he could better live up to his principles with the National Party. He belonged to the National Party for some time. But then the National Party became similar to what General Smuts apparently was earlier on. He came over to the National Party but then the National Party also changed! Everything changes in this world; the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is the only person who does not change. He then sought salvation for his principles with the National Union but they too, apparently, did not remain unchanged for too long. He then returned to the United Party who had in the meantime changed once again so that it conformed to his principles! He has really set us a standard of unchangeable, immovable adherence to principles, a standard which has never yet been set in this House or in this country.

I said at the beginning that the hon. member for South Coast was the only member who came the closest to putting a financial question.

May I ask the Minister a question?

I shall once again take that to be a silent compliment to the sound financial policy of the Government and I thank hon. members for the compliment.

May I ask the Minister a question when it suits him? Will the Minister please reply to a question which we have asked repeatedly, namely, this: Where are the homelands of the Cape Coloured people in the profound philosophy of the Nationalist Party?

That question has also been very carefully answered, as the hon. member would have known had he listened to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) but the hon. member was not here, that is the trouble. I am not again going to reply to all the questions which have already been replied to repeatedly.

I come to what was one of the characteristics of this debate and it is this that not only was nothing said about finances—I can quite understand the hon. member for Yeoville being a little sensitive when it comes to such a shocking admission on their part …

A bit simple too.

Yes, that is probably the holy innocence. I also find in the amendment moved by the hon. Leader of the Opposition that in its last leg the Government is accused of having neglected “to take proper steps to ensure the orderly expansion of agriculture and industries in South Africa They did not even dare to say a word about the expansion of our agriculture and of our industries.

I myself spoke about that.

I do not think there is one subject which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not touch upon. Whenever he speaks he reminds me of one of those “hit and run” motorists. They run into you and before you know what has happened they have gone. If he did talk about that his remarks must have passed completely unnoticed because, as usual, he touched upon so many subjects. We once again had the usual repetitions from him. If the Opposition considered it worthwhile including that as a special leg in their amendment, one would have expected them at least to have found someone within their ranks who would have been prepared to enlarge upon this charge against the Government but apparently not one of them had the courage. Perhaps it was a mistake ever to have included that in the amendment; perhaps that was another case of the “wrong notes”?

It was a question of the “right notes”.

The position is, therefore, that this Budget debate is coming to an end without a single word having been said about agriculture or the industries, or if something was said about it, it must have been such a fleeting reference to it that we did not even notice it. The charge against the Government remained at a few words from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and at the amendment itself.

It is not my intention to reply any further to this fruitless and unnecessary debate. I just want to say this to hon. members on both sides. I think the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark …

Answer my question.

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) must control himself.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark said something in which there is a great deal of truth. He said the points raised by the Opposition did not constitute the root of the difficulties; it was not forced apartheid or anything of that nature; the crux of the matter was the franchise—“one man, one vote”—and I think if we think soberly about these matters we must accept it that any threats which are made against us in future, whether they are made in the economic or military field—we are living in a time of threats—will come from people who want “one man, one vote”. The threats will come from them and their satellites. It is not only they who want it but also people here in South Africa. But I do not think the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark went far enough. I think there is something else behind this demand of “one man, one vote”. If I interpret correctly what is being said in the Black states this demand to have the franchise is only a pretence in order to possess our country. It will not be the first time that the franchise has been used to get possession of a country! I say we must simply accept it that if threats are made the desire behind those threats is not to obtain some minor concessions here and there, but to get South Africa in their possession. It may be that we are seeing the hand of Esau but it is the voice of Jacob. When you think who the people are who are the inspiration behind these attempts against South Africa, who the people are who are exploiting this feeling of nationalism amongst the Blacks, when you think of the techniques of Communism in general, you start recognizing the same pattern here in South Africa. They are behind this agitation of “one man, one vote”; they are behind all this unrest which we have to endure in South Africa. If we accept it that the people behind all these threats which are hurled at us are the people who want our country, I think the time has arrived for friend and foe of South Africa to accept that that is the reason why we regard this as a fight for our existence in South Africa—whether those threats come from without or within South Africa. Let me tell hon. members that those people do not want concessions. No concessions will ever satisfy them. When our friends of the West say to us: “Just make this concession and we shall stand by you” and the Opposition then asks them whether they will be prepared to undertake that that will be the last concession they will expect from us and whether they will be prepared to stand by us if we make this concession, they will find that our friends of the West will not be prepared to give that assurance because they are under pressure from those countries who want our country. Once they have yielded to the pressure which is being exerted on them and those countries are still dissatisfied they will have to continue to say “give”. It is no good thinking what our friends of he West think. The question is, as the hon. member for Queenstown has rightly said, what do the Blacks of Africa think of the position here. They do not regard it in this light that there are nearly 5,000,000 non-Bantu in this country and that this is their only fatherland. They do not realize that we are not in the same position as Nyasaland, Kenya or Northern Rhodesia. No, they do not see the position in that light. They regard South Africa as portion of Africa and they want to dominate here as well. We must reconcile ourselves to the fact that these concessions which are asked are only asked for the moment. Once we have made these concessions and those same countries exert more pressure on the West, the West will again approach us and ask us to make further concessions. The same thing happens in the case of a blackmailer. Once you have paid him you cannot get rid of him. That merely serves to encourage him to return and to ask for more. That is the road which is being paved for the West and I think we will be unrealistic if we think the West will stand by us when we have made these few minor concessions. Put them to the test. Will any of those heads of State make a public announcement and say: “If South Africa does that I shall not ask her to make any further concession in connection with racial matters.” Those demands for concessions will continue until they have “one man, one vote” and hon. members know what that will mean; then we shall no longer have a South Africa; that will be the end of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, threats may frighten people. Their object is to frighten us. This psychological war in which we are involved is intended to break our spirit; to weaken our courage; that is the object of it; that is why these threats are being hurled at us to-day. However, threats often have another effect, namely, to bring these people who are threatened together and to cement their unity. That is the other effect threats have. We have to choose whether we are going to allow ourselves to be frightened by those threats thus paralysing ourselves as far as any effort we may wish to make subsequently is concerned or whether we are not going to give those people who threaten us what they want but are going to use those very threats to cement our unity and to make it stronger. I think we must view and accept those threats in this light. Over the past few months many threats have been hurled at our heads but I do not think those threats will ever lead to war as long as we in South Africa comply with two requirements. The first is that we should be equipped and prepared in the military sphere to meet any aggression, whether it be from within or from without. Not only must we be equipped and strong but it should also be clear to the world and to our enemies that we are prepared for any form of aggression. That is the first requirement. I want to say to the hon. Minister of Defence that as far as finances are concerned I shall not hesitate, if it is necessary to ensure our continued existence—not to fight a war but to prevent a war—to levy even heavier taxes. The other requirement is that we should not be divided in our attitude towards these threats; that we must understand what the object of those threats are; that we must realize that we cannot give in to these threats and to the pressure from outside. We must show the world that there is not the slightest suspicion of our wavering in our determination not to give in. If our enemies, those people who, ultimately, want our country, were to come under the impression for one moment that there are many people in South Africa who will give in to that pressure when they come in to power, they will increase that pressure; it will be even heavier upon us in which case we shall be inviting interference in our affairs by those foreigners who want to exert the pressure. That, however, will not happen if we show a united front, a front without any cracks. If the world outside know, as far as this question which actually amounts to the continued existence of South Africa as a White country is concerned, that there are 5,000,000 hearts here which beat together they will not for one moment think of ever converting these threats into war.

Are you including the Coloureds?

What we need to-day is a determination to keep what we have, a determination which is without blemish; we require unity, a unity without a crack. In that case it will not be a matter of capitulation; it will not be a question of lying down; we shall win and we shall win without a war ever having been necessary.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—79: Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.;. Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee,.P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.;; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, M. J.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, M, C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J, B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. Mr. Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.: Vorster. B. J.; Vosloo, A. Hr.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Noes—43: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. Minister of Finance, I have sat in this House for two and à half days listening to this debate. It has ranged far and wide. This side of the House posed many questions, questions of great importance and moment to South Africa to-day and for the future. What answers have we received to our questions in this debate? The hon. the Minister has indicated that we have had our questions answered time and time again. But what did his reply consist of? It consisted of something which I regard under the circumstances, following a debate in which the subject of South Africa possibly being at war was involved, and which was discussed most seriously, as a frivolous and a childish speech. I think that it is a sign of the times. It is a sign of the failure of this Government to deal with problems, in the same way as this hon. Minister failed to deal with this debate. He answered none of our questions. Instead, what did we get? We got a little lecture on the subject of concessions.

What did I get?

I shall give you something just now, apart from the score at the rugby yesterday. Sir, the hon. Minister had two questions asked him again during the course of his reply: What is to happen to the Indians of South Africa and what is to happen to the Coloureds? And he ran away from them faster than any Wallaby ran yesterday. I shall deal with those a little later. But let me get back to this question of the Minister and his little lecture on concessions. What was the whole object of it? To try to make people believe that if you give one concession more will be demanded of you. May I ask him a question? What is the Bantustan in the Transkei? Is that a first payment? Is that a first payment to satisfy the demands by his side of the House? What payment does he make if these Bantustans fail because he and his Prime Minister will not listen to policies that will work? Where does he go from there, Sir? That was the Minister’s sole contribution to the winding up of this two and a half day debate. He himself has not got the answers. He says further payments will be demanded. I ask them is he and his Government not making the first payment with the Bantustans of the Transkei? Is anybody prepared to answer that question? Not a sound, Mr. Speaker.

In what I am about to say I bear in mind my hon. leader’s amendment which he moved in the second reading and the leg of it which dealt with this Government’s failure to deal with three particular groups of people in our country, the urban Bantu, the Coloured and the Indian. I think the urban Bantu has been adequately dealt with by this side of the House. We have not had an answer. I do not intend to carry on with that because I want to talk especially on the subject of the Coloured and the Indian. If I do not refer, during the course of my remarks when I come to the Indian question, to the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs I sincerely hope, Sir, you will forgive me. Because on his own admission under his Vote he said that he was nothing more or less than the same as a clerk in a travel bureau, directing people to the various Departments where they could address their complaints. He. admitted in no uncertain terms, in so far as dealing with the problem of the Indian population of South Africa was concerned, apart from admitting that his Government had accepted them as a permanent part of the South African population, that he had nothing to tell us and no help and no hope to offer to the Indian population of South Africa. So, Sir, from this point on may I be forgiven if I completely disregard him, he being of no consequence whatsoever in discussing the problem of the Indians in this country.

I want to come to the question of the Coloured people of South Africa. We know that in the 1960 speech, followed by the 1961 speech, the hon. the Prime Minister spoke to the Coloured Council and he said this—he was introducing to them the idea of his four-stream policy—

He then went on to say—

This speech was a speech which I take as a foundation speech of Colouredstans. When I mentioned that before the hon. the Minister pooh-poohed the idea but let us face it: What is the position in regard to the Coloured people? Here the Prime Minister admits that the problem is different because they have no homelands. What does he set about doing? He sets about setting aside a piece of land for them, which I believe is in Namaqualand. I do not know, I believe so. He set aside a piece of land for them and when criticism came forward … [Interjections.] The trouble with this Minister is that he either pouts or interjects; one of the two but he never answers our questions. Let him get up when I finish and try to deal with the problem. Let him give this side an answer to the Coloured and the Indian problem which the Minister of Finance failed to do, What was the hon. the Prime Minister’s problem? His problem was this, and he admits it, that he had no homelands to which he could send these people. So what is he doing now? He is creating them. Not in the nature of homelands but in the nature of towns in areas usually occupied by the Europeans, satellite towns. He is doing exactly the same with the Indians. When the question was raised about the agricultural aspect for the Coloured people on land—I do not know the area; I am just telling the position as I have had it put to me—which could not support agriculture, the hon. the Prime Minister said they would establish an irrigation scheme.

The other thing he said which I think is significant is the fact that Coloured people in other parts of the country would be brought back to these areas. I admit he said it would be voluntary, but here I want to make a particular point because it shows that his idea is to completely contain these people in one Coloured community. Just the other day, when the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) and I questioned the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs and Community Development in the debate on his Vote on certain matters affecting group areas and the like, instead of replying to our questions he went into a tirade, including in that tirade the question of the lack of co-operation he was getting from local authorities in the establishing of these Coloured towns. He was very heated about that. I want to take that particular matter up with him, because I believe embodied in it is one of the crucial points on which this whole policy will fail, I sincerely hope that when the time comes when they have failed with this policy they will recognize it and make way for people who have a policy which stands a chance of succeeding and not pull South Africa to her knees with them, because, I believe, these are the very points on which they can do that. These are the points, not what we say in criticism of the Government, that make the Government unpopular in the outside world. Let us deal with them. Following upon the Prime Minister’s speech in 1961 this hon. Minister appointed a governmental committee to investigate the possibility and the opportunities of establishing these local authorities for the Coloured people and for the Indians. I want to deal with those together. I have here a memorandum which I had prepared for me on the topic of those discussions. The first point that comes out is that on the establishing of these local authorities for Coloureds there was obviously a difference of opinion between the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Coloured Affairs. That was made clear by the Prime Minister in his second speech because he wanted to establish those local authorities with full rights within a period of a year or two. This hon. Minister had to pull him up and had to say “no, let us go a bit slower”. Let these people gain experience; let them get down to the job of learning how to run their own affairs”. What issued from that slowing down process was that instead of the hon. Prime Minister’s idea of establishing them within a year or two, the more mature approach of the Minister of Community Development brought it to a period of about ten years.

During a debate last year on this very subject I posed some questions to the hon. the Minister about the establishment of these local authorities. I have had no answers to those questions. I hope the hon. Minister has taken them into consideration; he said he would. These same questions arise in connection with, perhaps, the lack of enthusiasm with which local authorities have accepted this idea of the hon. the Minister.

Do you not know that three provinces are already busy with that?

The hon. Minister will remember that he admitted in this House that he had planned the establishment of these local authorities on the success of Bantu Administration establishing local Bantu villages and towns. He admitted that in this House; it should be recorded in Hansard. The Minister shakes his head and waves his hands. How can we deal with such an inconsistent person. He either said it or he did not say it. I either hear with my ears or I do not hear with my ears. This hon. member knows that he admitted to me that he would take these things into consideration. I have not had a word from him since. I do not know whether he has in fact taken them into consideration. I am going to put them to him again because I believe it should be done. I hope the hon. Minister will listen and see if he has attended to these points. First of all I raised with him the question of advisory boards and their dangers. I do not intend to go into that in detail again. He should know from his colleague the Minister of Bantu Administration that advisory boards, unless run properly, have definite inherent dangers in them. If he is going to establish them in that manner he is obviously going to run into considerable difficulty. I shall leave out some of the points which I put to him but I want to come back to the economic difficulties that he is going to encounter unless he makes proper provision. I want to quote a part of this memorandum—

That is what the Minister is trying to create because the Prime Minister said it in his address. I do not think he will deny that.

Who submitted that memorandum?

I did not say anybody submitted it. I said it was a memorandum which I had drawn up at my own request.

So you are the authority? While three provinces have accepted my proposals and carrying them out?

I am the authority, if you like. Failing any answer from you I have to act as the authority. You hear my reasons as an authority why there are dangers in implementing your plan and then you give me the answer to them. That is what I am seeking but I cannot get the answer. You are telling me that three provinces have accepted it but have they accepted it in a knowledge of the full facts? You accept my facts and see if those three provinces have not perhaps fallen down and perhaps you as well. Let us look at the economic difficulties—

This was a point I made with the hon. the Minister last time. I have had no reply; I have had no indication that he has taken notice of it although he said he would—

This is going to be developed by a housing programme because the Minister has all the necessary instruments in his hands—the Slums Act, the Group Areas Act, the Housing Commission, etc. So he obviously intends to develop these by way of a housing programme. They will therefore be without the big buildings which produce a large share of the total rate income of most other urban areas. I want the Minister to take note of this. If he has the correct answers to them I shall be pleased to hear them. I am not trying to catch him out—

I should like to know from the Minister what plans he has for raising that. I should like to give him some figures. The latest available figures in Durban show that the average per capita annual income of the European is R562. This is seven times the per capita average of the Indian which is R80 and four-and-a-half times that of the Coloured which is R128. I contend that these differences in the per capita income will obviously be reflected in the value of the properties which these people will be able to afford and maintain in these various townships which the Minister is establishing. On the basis that the Indian and Coloured areas are to be developed by means of a positive housing programme and on the assumption that such development will have to be economic—this is also important because I contend that large scale sub-economic development is quite out of the question—valuations and total rate yields will obviously be substantially lower than the average norm of existing local authorities. It follows from these factors that, if such communities are to be “self-sufficient”—and I take it that that is what the Minister is aiming at—their rates will have to be substantially higher than those of corresponding European communities. The fact too—and I am not sure about this fact—that they will have to be burdened with the repayment of the capital liability incurred in developing that area is one which we have to take into consideration. If the total of that is to be borne by the Housing Commission then of course that position does not pertain. But if it is not, then, of course, it is a factor which one has to take into account. Moreover you have to place alongside of these the lower income level of the average individual of the Indian and Coloured communities and the fact that this house will have to be built, and provided with services, to the maximum of his capacity to pay on the lower rate level of the developing authority. This is assuming that the local authority will take responsibility with the Minister in developing these areas. You see, Sir, if communities of a lower standard than corresponding European areas have to be developed the Minister is just putting a rod in pickle for himself because discontent will arise as these people develop because they have to enjoy a standard which is so considerably different from the Europeans in the area in which they live—

All these are positive factors which must be taken into account. The hon. the Minister has not given me an answer to these or to anybody else. I doubt whether he has given them to the local authorities concerned. If so, those fears would have disappeared and I am quite sure he would have raised far more enthusiasm.

Last year the Minister admitted in this House to me, in reply to a question, that he had largely based these ideas on the Bantu precedent.

I never said anything of the sort.

You said it in this House. I got it from you. I shall try to find it in Hansard and send it to you. He is now running away from that.

I have a special committee investigating this matter; all the provinces are represented on that committee and you know it.

The point I am discussing arises out of the discussions which took place at that departmental committee in 1961. May I ask the Minister if this is the same departmental committee which he is speaking about, the one of 1961? Are we talking about the same thing?

I do not know what you are talking about. I doubt whether anybody knows.

If you do not know what was discussed at the departmental committee which you appointed, then I am very sorry for the Coloured and Indian communities in South Africa because this memorandum from which I have been quoting is a summary of the discussions which that governmental committee had and I think you know it. Then we have the fact that this Minister admitted to me in this House last year that he had based his decision to establish these advisory boards on the precedent of the Bantu townships.

That is not correct; I never said anything of the sort.

Last year you said it was correct. I am going to make the point just the same. There are a few things that the hon. Minister must take into consideration and they add to my argument about the ability of these people to pay for these developments which the Government is forcing upon them. You see, Sir, in the development of areas such as Kwa Mashu, one-third of the cost of the entire scheme was met by grants from the Native Services Levy Fund, and no payments of interest or repayments of capital have to be made on them. Moreover the actual cost of the houses at Kwa Mashu has been reduced by the utilization of Native building workers at rates of pay below the rates prescribed for the other racial groups. That reduced the building cost by 25 per cent. And finally it should be remembered that Bantu transport services are subsidized substantially from the Native Services Levy Fund. These savings will not occur in similar schemes for Indians or Coloureds, or of course if some new scheme is brought in for Natives. The other thing which is criticized by local authorities, and this hon. Minister knows it, is the breaking down of areas which have been built up to make them more economical and so that the bulk of the higher income people can provide funds to cover the cost in respect of the lower income groups. They are going to be broken down by this process of excising from those areas, areas for the Coloured and for the Indian people.

The other point, that I do not want to labour too much, but I do want to mention it, is the question of the availability of qualified personnel to run these places, to take up the posts in these satellite local authorities—if you like to call them like that. They are going to need many people specially qualified in various fields, such as engineering, survey, architecture, electrical work, legal work, accounting and medicine and municipal experience. Where is the hon. Minister going to get sufficient people of this nature at this particular time? I think that was one of the factors that induced him to lengthen the period to ten years when the hon. the Prime Minister wanted it to be a much shorter period. I hope he is bearing that in mind.

Where do you get that information from?

If you read the two speeches, that is quite apparent. If the hon. Minister does not take my word for it, I will try and find it now. And to overcome this question of costs, let me say that the hon. the Prime Minister dealt with it in this way—he said “that the direct and indirect taxes that were paid by the Coloureds could be calculated so that a global sum could be paid over for the financing of the services under Coloured control. The Coloured Control Board would then decide what could best be done with the money and would be responsible to their own people”.—What utter nonsense!

The Prime Minister was not discussing local authorities at that stage.

What was he talking about?

Read his speech.

I have read his speech more than once. He was talking about separate areas. This is what the hon. Prime Minister said—

And I was ready to establish such towns, and it was only after I was informed by the Cape Province that they would undertake that themselves, that I held my hand.

Let us get this correct. The hon. the Prime Minister in 1961 in his policy statement—it was a policy statement by the hon. Prime Minister and not by this hon. Minister—said this—

This statement, it will be noticed, did not envisage a transitionary period. The hon. Prime Minister spoke of “a year”, but when the hon. Minister’s departmental committee came along their line was this—

Those are two totally different statements. The hon. the Prime Minister admitted in his second speech that he was in a hurry and he spoke of one year, but now it is going to take ten years. The hon. Minister knows that that was the import of the Prime Minister’s speech. You see, Sir, this hon. Minister has not replied to these questions. I do not know to what extent he has taken it into consideration, but if because the hon. the Prime Minister wants to dress the shop-window, to try and avoid the payment of blackmail of which the hon. Minister of Finance speaks, then he must take these factors into consideration. The whole future of the Coloured people cannot hang on some scheme that has not been thoroughly investigated before you start to implement it. Somewhere in his address—I cannot find it at the moment—the hon. Prime Minister said that this was a wonderful thing and it would show the outside world that we have a unique solution for a unique problem. The solution was obviously unique, the problem has been with us for many years, and I am sure that we can find a far better solution than that.

I do not want to detain the House too long, but I now want to dwell for a moment on the question of the Indian people, and I am not sorry, as I said before, that the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs is not here, because I do not think it would help us at all. The one contribution he has made, and I do not think the Government is going to deny this, is that it is now accepted that the Indian people are here as a permanent part of the population of South Africa. But one thing I do ask for them to do immediately and that is to put this section of our community in a position where they can live and trade in peace and harmony for the future. Because at the moment that is one thing that they certainly cannot do. My hon. Leader in his second-reading speech on this Bill said of the Indians “group areas” are applied in such a manner that it threatens his traditional way of earning a living. I think that is very, very, true. I just want to quote the spirit in which this is done. I read a Press-cutting to the hon. Minister the other day about group areas in Bethal.

I gave the facts.

Quite. I do not want to read that again, but what I do want to read is the footnote to the article “Group Areas Shock in Bethal”, the footnote put in by the newspaper, and I do this to try an exemplify the spirit in which the Indian question is being approached by officials, and possibly by the Minister. I want to read this footnote on the question at Bethal, because the Indians were holding a day of prayer. They did not know what was going to happen to them. They have been there for 18 years and they are being moved out of the places where they have earned their living all that time. The hon. Minister replied to that. But I did not give him the footnote, and I want to give that now to exemplify the spirit in which I believe the Indian is being treated. I hold no particular brief for the Indian, but I bring this up because I believe that as part of our community they are entitled to live in peace and harmony and to earn their living as any other section of the community. This is what the footnote says and I think it speaks for itself—

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) brought into this debate at the second reading some quotations about Hamlet “to be or not to be”, and I think they might well be applied in a different way to the question of the Indians here. In the country, anyway, their problem is being solved by this Government on the Hamlet principle—to establish a small Hamlet outside a White town; you put them there without any thought as to what is going to happen to those people. In Durban, I quoted to the Minister the other day, it had reached discussion in the local authority body: The proposition of building a huge town for the Indians to the north of Durban. He denied it. Yet it had in fact attained those proportions that it was being discussed by the city council. Obviously this process of sorting out by group areas proceeds. Those people will be moved somewhere on their own. The hon. Minister must not deny it. He has done it in Pretoria, he is doing it in Johannesburg, and he is doing it all over the country, he is doing it in Bethal and he is doing it in Ventersdorp and every other town where there are Indians.

Do you not know what we are doing in Durban?

It does not matter where you move them and what you do with them, you are moving them. I want to ask this Minister particularly to bear in mind that the Indian community cannot exist by itself. That is quite impossible. The Indian community cannot live off the Indian community. It is so interwoven with the rest of the economy of South Africa, that it is dependent upon them perhaps more than any other group in our country.

Do you want me to leave them in the dirt and filth in which they are living?

The hon. Minister is taking refuge behind dirt and filth as he calls it, instead of dealing with this question objectively. I am not telling the Minister that he must not house people in proper conditions. If that is what he wants to do, he will have no difficulty and he will have all the assistance in the world from this side of the House, and he knows it. He must not take refuge behind silly remarks about wanting to leave them in the dirt and filth rather than to move them. That is quite nonsensical. What I am asking this hon. Minister is to pay proper attention to these people, to take the fear out of their lives, to allow them to trade, whether they trade with the Europeans, or the Bantu or amongst themselves. Let them lead a life which will at least give them a fair standard of living.

If you would tell them to co-operate instead of making a speech like this …

Is there any occasion in respect of which the hon. Minister can say that I did not co-operate with his Department in trying to help solve these problems on a proper basis? But that does not mean that I have to swallow hook, line and sinker the policy which is being applied not only to the Indians, but also to the Coloured people. [Time limit.]

I think we can all say that if this is the type of speech which the United Party are going to make at this late stage of the Session, then the message to the Chief Whip is: “We are now going home.”

Ridiculous!

The hon. member for Durban (Umlazi) (Mr. Lewis) has made a speech which he should have made far more appropriately when the Votes of the Minister of Community Development were under discussion. They had plenty of time and we were prepared to continue discussing those Votes. But the United Party Whips asked that the debate should be stopped. When the Minister was able to answer all their questions, they did not want the discussion to be continued. Now that they know that this stage of the Session has been reached and that this is not a debate in which the Minister can rise periodically to explain matters, they want to continue that discussion.

I do not want to dwell on that aspect. The hon. member started with a few random shots which I thought would lead up to something. He argued that we say that if concessions were to be made, it would inevitably lead to the White man being ploughed under in this country. He then tried to submit that that would not be so, along the same lines as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). And then he also told us that what we were doing in the Transkei represented a concession. Why do we want to make this concession but not the other? This is an argument which hon. members opposite often use. Allow me to tell the hon. member for Umlazi that what we are doing in the Transkei, is the logical, inevitable development of the apartheid policy of this Government, not as formulated by Dr. Verwoerd, but as formulated by General Hertzog. And if he does not believe me, as I assume he does not, then he can read about it in a book by an English-speaking Natalian, C. M. Tatz. The book is entitled “Shadow and Substance in South Africa” and in it by tracing developments from 1902, the Native Affairs Commission was appointed at that time, via the Beaumont Report, via Botha’s policy, via Hertzog’s policy, until where we are to-day, he proves conclusively that the policy being applied to-day is merely the logical development of the policy envisaged at that time. It represents an adjustment to the historical development of our policy and an adjustment to the demands of to-day. But what the United Party and the hon. member for Umlazi mean by concessions is something different: Concessions not to the demands of the West, not even to the demands of the Afro-Asians, but principally and eventually to what the communists demand of South Africa. Let us be quite clear. If communist Russia did not demand what is being demanded in Africa, would the West have made those demands? Would America have demanded of Britain that she should treat the Whites of Kenya as she is doing? Would America have demanded of France that she should treat the Whites of Algeria as she has done? Can the hon. member for Umlazi tell me that? He cannot because in his heart he knows that the concessions which are being demanded to-day in the name of the United Nations, which are being made of us in the name of world opinion, in the name of liberalism, only mean one thing, and that is concessions to the demands of the communists. He will not deny it.

We are told that the United Party’s policy will buy us world peace. It is said that the policy of the National Party is the reason why we are faced with so much hostility towards South Africa in world politics to-day. Let us also be clear as regards the United Party’s policy. Two years ago we held an election in this country at which the United Party went to the people with this “new” policy of theirs, the policy of race federation, and tried to sell that policy. The United Party received a drubbing such as it had never experienced before. Let us therefore accept that the people of South Africa are not prepared to accept the United Party’s policy. Does the hon. member accept that?

We shall discuss the matter presently.

I do not think it is even necessary for him to say “yes” or “no”. It is a fact that is crystal clear. The Whites of South Africa have rejected this policy. Now the United Party wants to sell this policy to the people of South Africa not for reasons of principle; no, it now says to the people of South Africa: You must accept this policy which you have rejected because it is acceptable to the outside world. In addition we must remember that it is not only the White voters who reject it. Every Bantu in South Africa, from Luthuli and the so-called moderate Mandela onwards, have rejected the United Party’s policy. Every Bantu. Consequently the United Party now say to both the Whites and the Bantu peoples: It does not matter to us what policy you want. You must now accept this policy because it is acceptable to the outside world. To me this is the most interesting characteristic of the United Party. Throughout our history and recently at the referendum again, we find this patriotic split personality of the United Party revealed. They would rather succumb to the demands of so-called world opinion, but they are not prepared to pay attention to the demands of South Africa. They are not prepared to pay attention to what is required for the Whites, the Blacks and the Coloureds to live together here in South Africa. That does not matter to the United Party. It is the outside world which determines for them which policy they want to force down the throats of the White man and of the Bantu in South Africa. That is the crux of their attitude. And seeing that that is the attitude of the United Party, I assume that the United Party stands and falls by the fact that their policy is acceptable to the outside world. Because that is the claim which has repeatedly been made here. It is pointless the United Party telling me that their policy is acceptable to the West, to what they call the civilized nations, and that they do not care what the Afro-Asian nations think about it. Because, as I have said, the yardstick which the West applies to Africa, the yardstick applied by America and Britain, is that of the Afro-Asians, is that of the communists, and it will not avail the United Party anything to tell me that these are not the people they want to satisfy. I therefore say that if the policy of the United Party is not acceptable to the Afro-Asians and the communists, they do not have the right to make that claim, and if they do in fact make that claim, then I assume that the United Party are prepared to adapt their policy to those demands and to make the concessions to which the hon. member for Umlazi has referred, so that they can satisfy the Afro-Asians. Otherwise they do not have the right to make that claim. I have said on a previous occasion that to me it is clear from all the signs that in their hearts the United Party have already decided to surrender the rights of the White man in this country, to give in eventually to the demands of the Afro-Asians. That is a strong statement to make. But I make it, because the United Party makes one main claim in connection with its race federation plan, one basic claim, and that is “White leadership for the foreseeable future”. Now the hon. member for Yeoville knows that when they put forward their Senate plan in 1958, they made this claim: “We guarantee White leadership for the first time.” They have now abandoned that and “for the first time” has been replaced by “for the foreseeable future”. What does it mean when a party adopts as its basic premise, as its basic claim in respect of its policy, that it guarantees White leadership only as far as one can see into the future? In my opinion that means only one thing …

In your opinion.

Yes, I shall explain it. Unlike the hon. member for Yeoville, I am not making “sweeping statements”. It means only one thing, namely that the United Party is conditioning its supporters. It is quite clear from the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at De Aar last year that they are conditioning their supporters to accept that when it becomes necessary the United Party will surrender to Black domination. I have said before during this Session that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said at De Aar that his policy would result in the Bantu being given a say in the executive and administrative functions of the Government. Those were his words. I have said that this means that Bantu will be included in the Cabinet. The leader of the Opposition gave me the impression that he suspected me of attributing words to him which he had not used. If there has been a misunderstanding, I should very much like to have it removed because the words I have used are recorded in the United Party’s newspaper the Weekblad. I shall read what he said to him because I do not want any suspicion that I am attributing words to him which he has not used. He was discussing representation in the central Parliament, and then he said—

That is how it appears in the United Party’s Weekblad for 11 May 1962.

Luthuli as Prime Minister under their policy.

If matters have already gone as far as the United Party are prepared to go in their minds what does it mean? I want us to have complete clarity as to where we stand with the United Party as far as their practical proposals are concerned. I am now not only referring to what they have in mind. Where do we stand as regards their practical proposals in respect of this representation of the Bantu? What is the meaning of these words of the Leader of the Opposition? And if the position is as I say, namely that the United Party have already decided to include Bantu in the Cabinet, then as far as the United Party is concerned, even though it is not in power, there is already no difference between that party and the United Federal Party of Rhodesia. It means that the moment the United Party comes into power, it will not start where we stopped dismantling the policy of integration and then work back. It will resume half way between where we were in 1948 under the old integration pattern and where the Progressive Party wants to start with its policy of no discrimination on the ground of colour.

If the hon. member thinks I am contradicting myself, I shall be glad if he will show me where I am doing so. I say that if the United Party want to give the Bantu representation in this Parliament and to include him in the Cabinet, it merely means that whereas this Government has brought about complete political separation between White and Bantu, they will not start to work back from the point where we removed the Native Representatives from this House, but they will resume half-way along the road of the Progressive Party. That is the difficulty in which the United Party has placed itself with its policy of making concessions because if this is the process they want to initiate, then they are in an inexorable dilemma from which they cannot escape and which must result in Black domination after the “foreseeable future”

Let us examine this for a few moments. In the situation in which we find ourselves in the world, we have a struggle which started between Communism and capitalism. But from as long ago as the 1920s it was no longer a struggle merely between Communism and capitalism, but between Communism and imperialism (which was later called colonialism). I have said this before, but so that I and the hon. member for Yeoville will understand one another correctly, I want to read an extract from a book written by four American authorities. namely “Protracted Conflict”. This is what they have to say about where these developments which are taking place in Africa today originated—

But to bring this a little nearer to our own *situation, I want to read to the hon. member for Yeoville what the communist Edward Roux has written in his book “S. P. Bunting”. He said—

That was the reason for the 1920 strike.

That was a contributory factor, but will the hon. member for Yeoville honestly tell me whether he thinks that this process which was initiated has come to a halt, or does he agree that it is still going on to-day? He agrees. Then we already understand one another much better. I believe the hon. member will also agree that what is happening in Africa to-day and what has happened at Addis Ababa, what happened in February at the Moshi Conference in Tanganyika, at the Accra Conference in 1957 and at the Bandung Conference in 1955, is merely a continuation of the strategy of the Baku Congress. This freedom which has been gained for the African states by the communist strategy is merely giving the communists a beach-head for the spread of their imperialism in Africa, and it is these states which are now waging the struggle against South Africa on behalf of the communists. The hon. member for North-East Rand put it very clearly the other night. He said that the African states which had been freed from the control of the colonial powers had a bitter hatred for those colonial powers. But this hatred is not only for the old colonial powers. In this process which the communists have initiated, they have actively propagated a positive animosity not only towards Europe but the entire West, and when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) tells the White people of South Africa that we to-day are shaming the West, I want to say that we White people in South Africa regard ourselves as being as good bearers of Western civilization as any nation in the world. We know as well as anyone else what Western civilization requires of us. and we know better than anyone else in Africa or in the world what this Western civilization requires of us, and we know better than anyone else in Africa or in the world what this civilization requires of us as a nation in Africa. I think it is a scandal when a member of the United Party such as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout rises here and makes the statement which he has made to-day against the Whites of South Africa. He knows full well that what is threatened to-day in South Africa is not this Government and its policy, but the White man. When he says that the White man of South Africa has become a shame upon the Western leaders of the world, he is committing a heinous crime against this country. The hon. member has said that as things are going now, we are heading for a head-on collision with the Western leaders. There sits the hon. member for Sea Point. He is a Capetonian. He will know that three years ago Patrick Duncan who was also a Capetonian said exactly the same thing. He said: “The Government is heading for a head-on collision.” What did Patrick Duncan say at the beginning of this year in Basutoland? He wrote an article in an American journal in which he asked that America should take military action against South Africa. I now ask the hon. member for Sea Point whether he does not see the similarity? Is he confident that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will not follow the same road as Duncan? [Interjections.] I say the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is following the road of Patrick Duncan.

No decent White man would do that.

I shall leave it at that and we can discuss the matter again in a few years. It is clear to me from the speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that in his mind he has already taken sides against the Whites of South Africa in this cold war against the communists in which we are engaged. I am sorry he is not here. [Interjections.] I did not tell him I was going to attack him, but he participated in the debate and he knows that the debate is not yet over. What I should like to ask him is this: If the final result is a head-on collision as he has prophesied, where will he stand? The hon. member for Yeoville can answer that question for us just as easily. Where does the United Party stand in this matter? When it tells South Africa all the time that it has a policy which will satisfy the world and when it claims almost every day that the A.N.C. is not communistic …

I have never said that.

What did the Leader of the Opposition say the other evening during the Justice debate? He made this claim, but I shall tell the hon. member that the A.N.C. is an instrument of the communists. Does he agree?

I know nothing about the A.N.C.

That confirms the submission I want to make. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Minister of Justice the other evening whether the A.N.C. was communistic or whether it was African nationalistic. The Leader of the Opposition did this in the face of abundant facts which are available to him and which show him exactly what Judge Snyman has repeated, namely that the A.N.C. is communistically led. The judgment in the treason trial already made that clear two years ago.

No, it did not.

If the hon. member for Yeoville does not know what was said, I shall tell him. Here is the abridged version of the court’s decision. It says—

[Interjections.] Telling me they were found innocent makes no difference. They were charged with high treason and attempting to overthrow the State by means of violence. The court found that this charge had not been proved and they were then discharged. But the court definitely found that the A.N.C. was seeking to establish a communist state. Seeing that he has said that he does not know that the A.N.C. is communistic, I now ask the hon. member for Yeoville what evidence he then wants to show that the A.N.C. is communistic? Here he has a decision of the Supreme Court. Two days ago he received the findings of Judge Snyman. What other evidence does he want that the A.N.C. is communistically led? And despite this voluminous evidence as to what the A.N.C. is in essence, the Leader of the Opposition suggests that we in South Africa are not combating Communism, but so-called African nationalism, and the hon. member for Yeoville has again made that suggestion. That is the impression which they want to create outside, and I can see only one reason for this. It is the old appeal which they made to us when they said that we should consult the moderates such as Luthuli. Or allow me to say that in the face of all this evidence I see only two possible explanations for this behaviour Of the United Party. The one is that they want to cast suspicion on the actions of the Government and want to create the impression, as the English-language newspapers are doing, that we are not taking action against the A.N.C. because we want to take action against Communism but because we want to use Communism as an excuse for political oppression. That is the one impression they want to create. The other explanation is that they want to create a climate and this is being done deliberately by the English-language newspapers when one thinks of the article which appeared in the Cape Times the other day. They deliberately want to create a climate in which it can be said that the A.N.C. has nothing to do with the communists. All traces must now be covered up and the road must be cleared for the United Party so that they can say: We are prepared to negotiate with these people because they are the representatives of “African nationalism” in South Africa. If that is not the explanation, why is the United Party persisting with this fiction which is not only harmful to South Africa, but which is resulting in a complete lack of realism as to the essence of the struggle in which we are engaged? Why is this being done? May I just say that what is called African nationalism to-day and which the Leader of the Opposition so meekly accepts as such, is merely another name for the liberation movement to which I referred earlier and which the communists started. This is merely another name to give a veneer of respectability to communistic activity in Africa. After all we know the people who to-day have so much to say about African nationalism. Do they have respect for nationalism? Have these English-language newspapers in South Africa ever had any respect for our nationalism, or have they despised it? But they are the people who have so much to say in praise of African nationalism. Sir, that is not nationalism. African nationalism is an extension of communist imperialism which is aimed at destroying the White man in South Africa as in the rest of Africa, and that is why the English-language newspapers are always using this name. These movements make great play to-day with the name Africa in order to buy respectability for themselves in the eyes of the world. All one hears about is “African nationalism” and “Africa for the Africans”. But let us remember as a White nation, both Afrikaans and English speaking, that we took the name of Africa for ourselves when we chose this name 300 years ago and became an Afrikaner nation and when we linked our fate and our future to this country; and we did so when the name “Africa” was not fashionable in world politics. When one remembers this, one knows that by that intuitive action of this nation in choosing this name it gave expression to the indestructibility of our future in this country. When in this situation with which we are faced today we find the United Party saying that we must give in to the demands of the world as I have described them and which are aimed at our destruction, do they think that we as a White nation will travel along that road? No, we shall not do so. Our future is not to be found along the road of abdication.

I have actually risen just to put one question to the Minister of Finance and it will not take me more than two or three minutes; in the meantime I want to deal with certain submissions which the hon. member for Innesdale (Mr. J. A. Marais) has put to us with such ability. You will allow me, Sir, to pay tribute to the hon. member. It is seldom that one has the privilege in this House to hear a member who can debate so capably. He is an example to most hon. members opposite. It is just a pity that the hon. Chief Whip does not want to recognize that the hon. member is so capable and does not give him a proper opportunity to make his speeches. But perhaps the Chief Whip will in future treat the hon. member for Innesdale with the necessary respect. The hon. member for Innesdale is a very capable debater, but he must be careful with his facts. He has, for example, contended that the U.S.A. has exercised pressure on Britain to get out of Kenya and on France to get out of Algeria.

It is a fact. Do you not know it?

When the hon. member makes such submissions, why does he not substantiate them? Because none of us on this side of the House knows about it. There is no such thing.

Is the hon. member aware of the fact that when President Kennedy was a member of the American Senate he wrote articles and made speeches urging that what has now been done in Algeria should be done?

My hon. young friend must be a little careful. He is acting in good faith, but I want to give him the assurance that no American President has ever said such a thing and that President Kennedy has never said such a thing. I know what the hon. member is referring to. He is referring to a certain Senator Kennedy who later became President of the United States, but the administration of the United States was not at that time in his charge.

Then even what the Leader of the Opposition says means nothing?

But that Senator to whom reference has been made was not the Leader of the Opposition. [Interjections.] I deny most emphatically that it has ever become known that any administration of the U.S.A. has exercised such pressure on England or France.

What about Suez?

But one must be very careful not to make exaggerated statements. I have myself been guilty of this sometimes, and I can, therefore, warn my hon. friend. The hon. member has said that the policy of the Afro-Asian States is being forced on England and America to-day. Does he really believe that the yardstick applied to the policy of the U.S.A. is the desire of the Afro-Asian States?

Yes, definitely as far as its African policy is concerned.

Is that not most ungrateful? Is that not scandalously ungrateful, bearing in mind what has happened recently abroad? At the International Labour Organization Conference the Afro-Asian States announced that they were going to work for the expulsion of South Africa from the United Nations, and the United States representative said that he would use his influence in this regard. He had hardly spoken a word when we heard that Mr. Adlai Stevenson, the United States representative at the United Nations, had issued a statement to the effect that they would not take as their yardstick the demands of the Afro-Asian States and that they would oppose those States. How irresponsible can we be? Has Mr. Stevenson bowed before the pressure of the Afro-Asian States? We must realize that there is a difference between a speech at Innesdale and one in this Parliament; and, as capable as the hon. member is, he must please check his facts and not create an incorrect impression as regards the few States of importance in the world which still stand by us. To say that a powerful country like America decides upon its foreign policy merely to suit other States, and does not have an independent attitude of its own, is ridiculous, and is a humiliation which Mr. Stevenson definitely does not deserve.

There is another matter which the hon. member has raised on a higher level. He has said that our policy is the same as that of Rhodesia, of the United Federal Party. I do not want to become involved in a dispute with other States, but I think you will permit me just to say this. The policy which has been tried out in the Federation by the party in power there is practically the same policy as that advocated by the Progressive Party. It is a policy of partnership and of a qualified franchise based on the belief that if one gives people representation in certain legislative organs one solves all one’s problems. But do hon. members deny that it is the United Party which is fighting the Progressive Party in South Africa? I have already indicated the mistake made by that party. My friend has devoted a considerable portion of his speech to criticizing us in respect of the differences between us and the Progressive Party, and after devoting 10 minutes of his speech to this attack on us he says that our policy is the same as that of the Progressive Party and of the United Federal Party in Rhodesia. He says the main mistake of the United Party is that we say that the Native must play a role at the administrative and executive governmental levels in South Africa. Does he remember that? But that is precisely the difference between us and the Progressive Party and the governing party in Rhodesia. They give the Natives the franchise and Members of Parliament, but they forget that one cannot satisfy people unless they have a share at the administrative and executive level.

Tell us what you mean by that.

After all the years I have known the hon. member for Vereeniging he has at last asked a sensible question and I shall answer it at once. We mean what General Smuts meant when the hon. member for Vereeniging applauded him so enthusiastically and so humbly in 1940. General Smuts at that time issued a statement to the people of South Africa saying that the Native Representative Council had failed because they could only discuss their grievances and could not do anything to remedy their grievances. General Smuts then announced that he was going to give the Native Representative Council administrative and executive powers over those matters which affected the Natives of South Africa intimately. See how the hon. member for Vereeniging is shaking his head. I think he is wishing he never left the United Party! Mr. Speaker, these are facts and the United Party’s policy of race federation to-day is based on that statement by General Smuts; it is based on his statement that in matters which intimately affect the Natives they must have the opportunity to accept responsibility for administrative and executive control themselves. That is the crux, that is the warp and the weft of the United Party’s policy of race federation.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Is he aware of the fact that the son of the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) is a Member of Parliament in Rhodesia and the hon. member is very proud of him?

If you will permit me. Sir, I shall give the hon. member a twofold reply. We are all proud of the son of the hon. member for Green Point because in Rhodesia he is opposing the short-sighted policy which the Progressive Party shares with the National Party, namely that if one gives people representation by means of a qualified Voters’ Roll or in a separate area one solves one’s problems. We are not only proud of the son of the hon. member for Green Point, but we are even more proud of any young man who leaves South Africa and does well elsewhere in the world. What a pity it is that we cannot be proud of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark and his achievements in America.

Order! The hon. member for Vereeniging would like to put a question to the hon. member.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I could not hear you.

The hon. member for Vereeniging wants to put a question to the hon. member.

I should like to put a question to the hon. member for Yeoville. I want to ask him to give me an honest and frank reply to this question. It is a very simple question. Under their policy is it possible—this is very important—for Bantu to sit in this House?

The hon. member asks me whether it is possible that Bantu will be able to sit in Parliament. Mr. Speaker, I am becoming very concerned about the hon. member for Vereeniging.

No, answer the question.

I shall give a direct reply to the question, but I shall do so in my own way. I did not prescribe to the hon. member how he should word his question. I am becoming concerned about the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark and the hon. member for Vereeniging who only know of one question. I hope that my hon. Leader will allow me to recommend to him that for the sake of the two members who are so afraid of the non-Whites of South Africa, we should decide to convert this House, if we come into power, into a community council for the Whites; then there will be non-Whites in this House, and the hon. members for Vereeniging and Vanderbijlpark will be perfectly content in this House. But they will have to accept that there will be another Chamber in South Africa in which all the races will be represented but in which they would be most unhappy and completely ill at ease.

When will you answer my question?

I have already answered it.

Is that the answer!

May I also ask a question?

Mr. Speaker, do you not think that the hon. Deputy Minister is really being a little unreasonable? But the hon. the Deputy Minister can put his question.

I should first like to thank the hon. member for this opportunity to put a question. He has said that this House can be converted into a community council on which, as he has said, only Whites can serve. I now want to ask the hon. member how this will be possible because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said quite specifically—and I want to know whether this is correct—that in the federal bodies which will be created, the Whites and the Coloureds together will be regarded as one unit and will therefore sit in the same body?

Yes, he has said so.

I am very glad the Deputy Minister has asked this question because I do not want any misunderstanding. This is the type of question one welcomes. I shall answer the question and immediately remove a misunderstanding. We believe that in the Parliament of South Africa, in the national federation which we intend establishing, the Coloureds will be on the side of the Whites; we shall accept them as a Western community, and the hon. the Deputy Minister is quite correct. Here I have perhaps overstated my case. The Cape Coloureds if they can gain election, will be allowed to sit with us in the same Parliament.

What about the Transvaal Coloureds?

I want to say at once that the hon. the Deputy Minister has gained a great victory! I grant him that. And I am very grateful to him because I now come to the hon. the Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, I accept that the Minister of Finance knows mote about statistics than most of us sitting here because his responsibility as Minister of Finance is to obtain statistics—population statistics, income group statistics, financial statistics. He must be an expert. Nevertheless a Minister of Finance, with all the expert knowledge he has and with all the expert advice he has given, can make a slip of the tongue, and perhaps that is what the hon. the Minister of Finance did earlier to-day when he said that we must stand together in this country. Here I agree with him; we must stand together on a morally defensible basis, but he went further and said that we must stand together as a nation of 5,000,000 people. Does he remember that?

I did not say that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to know what he did say. This is a very important matter. It is the only reason why I have entered the debate. The hon. the Minister of Finance spoke about 5,000,000 people …

Who are non-Bantu.

I am grateful to the hon. the Minister. When there were interjections from this side of the House casting doubt on the figure of 5,000,000, the hon. the Minister repeated the figure—5,000,000 non-Bantu. That is quite correct; we understand one another perfectly. There is only one difficulty. I understand what the hon. the Minister means, but do the public; do hon. members opposite who ask so many questions and who are so flippant, understand what he means? The hon. the Minister of Finance says that all 5,000,000 of us who are non-Bantu must gird our loins to challenge the world. But, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister said this in reply to questions which the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) and I put to him; we had asked him what the position of the Indian and the Coloured in South Africa was. He did not reply directly, but shortly thereafter he said we must stand together, the 5,000,000 of us who are non-Bantu.

While the hon. member is on this subject, will he tell me what the race federation scheme of the United Party is?

I want to offer to explain our race federation policy to the hon. the Minister in this House or at a joint-meeting, if he likes, or in writing. I have never found it necessary to run away from this policy. But at the moment I am dealing with the hon. the Minister of Finance who has made a significant statement and who repeated that statement after questions had been put to him and he had, therefore had an opportunity to think what he was saying. Does this mean that the National, Party is beginning to see the light? I hope so.

Not your light.

The hon. the Minister says they are not seeing the whole light.

No, I said not “your” light.

If they are not seeing our light, they are not seeing the whole light.

You see a dim light.

The hon. the Minister of Finance must not try to run away by making jokes. The hon. the Minister of Finance has said twice to-day that we must face the world, that we must gird our loins—5,000,000 of us who are non-Bantu. The hon. the Minister must please tell us what he meant, because I am full of courage, I am full of hope, I am full of expectation …

And full of nonsense.

… that the light will eventually get through to the National Party. Does it mean that the hon. the Minister accepts that if things go wrong in South Africa we must regard the Coloureds as part of the Western group in South Africa which must help us to defend our standards against the world? Does he mean that? Then I want to ask why the hon. the Minister was responsible for the Separate Representation of Coloureds Bill which curtailed the rights of the Coloureds; why then was he the father of the Population Registration Act which condemned the Coloureds to being a separate group subject to restrictions and disadvantages in the South African community? What right does the National Party have to criticize the United Party when we say it is short-sighted to deny that the Cape Coloureds must stand with the White man as the bearer of Western civilization in this country? What right does the National Party have to oppose us when we stand by the statement of the late General Hertzog that the Cape Coloureds were an appendage of the Whites in this country, people who lived in the same houses and had the same customs, worshipped the same God and spoke the same language?

Now you are becoming dramatic.

Why has the hon. the Minister referred in such a roundabout fashion, in such an indirect way, to these 5,000,000 people who are not Bantu in South Africa? Of course, I go further, Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Minister says that he is not seeing our light, but he is beginning to see part of our light. But it is not enough to say that 5,000,000 of us will stand against the world. We must act in such a way that 16,000,000 of us can stand against the world. But thank heaven for the 5,000,000. What the hon. the Minister of Finance has said here is in conflict with every argument, with every opinion, which has ever come from other members of the Cabinet.

Why; now you are talking nonsense.

Prove the submission you have just made.

I have made one or two. In which one is the hon. the Minister most interested?

The one you have just made.

The submission I make, and I want to make again, is that the hon. the Minister of Finance has given an indirect reply to direct questions which have been put to him. Is that the one I must substantiate? I shall do so with pleasure. That is the last submission I made. We asked the hon. the Minister of Finance—and he was courteous enough to allow us to put the question—what was the place in our community of the Indians and the Coloureds. The hon. the Minister did not give a direct answer. He gave us an indirect answer. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories asked him what the place of the Indians was in our community and I asked him what the place of the Coloureds was, where the separate country of the Coloureds was to be. His reply was: We, the 5,000,000 South African patriots who are non-Bantu, must stand together against the threats of the world. I say this was an indirect answer to my question or it is meaningless. Mr. Speaker, we are coming closer to one another. This is very important; it is the greatest concession made by the National Party to the attitude of the United Party which I have heard in this House for 15 years, but why is the hon. the Minister of Finance being evasive? Why does he not say it openly? I want us to understand one another. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. Eventually the Minister of Finance said that there were 5,000,000 people in our country who had to defend our civilization and our way of life, our standards and our values, against attacks from outside. That is the whole basis of the United Party’s attitude and we say that it could be far more than 5,000,000, but thank heaven the Minister of Finance has at least eventually arrived at 5,000,000.

Are you disappointed?

Yes, but I would rather be disappointed than have a misunderstanding and at the moment there is apparently a misunderstanding. Apparently the Minister of Finance spoke without thinking what he was saying; I do not believe it; I have more confidence in the Minister of Finance than he himself. If the Minister of Finance tells me that there are 5,000,000 people in this country who are non-Bantu and we must fight together for the preservation of our values and our standards in this country, then I believe he knows what he is talking about. But I do not want this duality, this two-facedness of the National Party, to be taken any further. That is to say, they go to the country and they say: “Yes, but Dr. Verwoerd says the Coloureds are separate; they must form their own state within a state,” and then when there are questions about that elsewhere, they say: “No, have you not heard what the Minister of Finance has said? He has said that we are 5,000,000 people in this country who are non-Bantu and who must stand together.”

Where do the two conflict?

Mr. Speaker, that is all I hope, and I now want to express this hope: I have deliberately been a little provocative in this regard because I do not want the Minister of Finance to do what he always does in these financial debates. And that is to tell a few jokes in his reply and not to answer the real questions. During his reply to the second-reading debate he did not answer the real questions: What is the place of the Coloureds and what is the place of the Indians in our separate developing communities? But now he has given us an opportunity to pin him down. I say he is pinned down and he cannot evade this question.

He is a “dolos”.

No, I would never call the hon. the Minister of Finance that. Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude with these words. I believe that the hon. the Minister of Finance will have the courage to face the consequences of his most important statement. Some people tell me—I do not believe it—that the Minister of Finance is a man who skates around the facts. I do not believe it. I hope he will tell us frankly what he meant. He could only have meant one thing, namely that there are 5,000,000 people in this country who are non-Bantu and who must defend South Africa’s standard of civilization. Is that what the Minister of Finance meant? If that is not what he meant, then I ask him to deny it. I have every confidence that that is what he meant because I believe he has the intelligence to perceive the validity of that fact. Is he also prepared to face the consequences of that? That is all I ask and I shall be grateful for an answer.

I do not wish to be so unkind as to call the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) what one of the hon. members on this side of the House called another hon. member on that side of the House, namely, a political clown, but I think he qualifies for the description of “political acrobat”.

What exactly are you?

The hon. member has shown here this afternoon that apparently the holiday spirit has already gripped him because he tried to evade all the problems which he posed here by doing acrobatic political tricks. It may be amusing sometimes, but I would like to say to him, in pursuance of his remark to my hon. bench-mate, that he is not addressing a meeting in his constituency, that the House of Assembly is not a platform in Yeoville.

I should like to refer to one point the hon. member made here. He quoted Mr. Adlai Stevenson here this afternoon, and referred to his very wise attitude with reference to what happened at the International Labour Organization. He quoted Mr. Stevenson’s statement to show that America was still favourably disposed towards us. But the hon. member overlooked the fact that one hon. member after another on his side of the House tried to prove yesterday that South Africa no longer had any friends in the Western world. Here we have evidence to show how wrong they are. What is said against South Africa from certain propaganda platforms is no proof that South Africa has no friends in the world. It is no proof that there is no longer any wisdom in Government circles in other countries of the world. But I come to the real point I wish to make, and that is the impression which has been created in the country by this concluding debate of the Session, namely, that the official Opposition no longer have any hope of ever getting into power; that they can only hope for the thing which the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) called by its name here last year when he referred to “shocks from outside”. Mr. Speaker, I say this because of three statements that have been made here; in the first place, the statement of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that members of the public must stop taking an interest in football; that they must stop going to watch football games on Wednesday afternoons, although I assume that a few members opposite also went to see the rugby match yesterday afternoon; they must stop playing golf and they must stop being interested in making money and they must begin to show an interest in politics. That statement proves to me that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is worried about the fact that his supporters are beginning to leave him. He has at last become aware of the fact that the people outside who are still so-called supporters of his party are from day to day gaining more and more confidence in the policy of the Government. A second reason why I mention this is the statement by the Leader of the Opposition that the danger to South Africa as far as the African states are concerned, lies in the fact that they may do us harm through our Western friends; that they may actually persuade our Western friends to make things difficult for us. Can one get a clearer admission of the fact that it is the intention to make use of the pressure of Western friends, acting under pressure from the African states, to overthrow this Government? But I should like to make this statement in particular, that they have lost all hope of bringing about a change of government in their favour through the electorate, and that they are hoping for something from outside, as appeared from the statement of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) when he said that if the Government could offer nothing but war—he used that terrible word here for the first time; nobody on this side had referred to war …

What about the statement by the Minister of Defence about “horses in blood up to their bits”?

Everyone knows the difference between a war mentality and a spirit of self-defence. I think the hon. member for Yeoville ought to know that. But the hon. member for Constantia said here that if the Government could offer the country nothing else but to prepare for war, it should make room for another Government or it should make concessions. What right has the hon. member for Constantia to come and say that in this House? The hon. member for Constantia has an opportunity to make that statement in Wynberg where they are soon to have an election. Let him go and test the position in Wynberg and on other occasions that may arise; let him test the sentiments of the people. The nation will determine in fact whether the policy of the Government or the Government’s attitude of preparation, of self-defence, of protection of what is our own, is correct.

Who is your candidate at Wynberg?

The hon. member will not sidetrack me with his acrobatic tricks. He will have an opportunity in Wynberg, as he has had an opportunity at every by-election in the past, to ask the electorate whether this Government is on the right road to protect South Africa’s security or not. The hon. member for Constantia has no right to say that the Government should either make way for another government or make concessions.

Is the Nationalist Party putting up a candidate at Wynberg?

The hon. member must not ask such a stupid question. He must avail himself of the opportunity, whether it be in Wynberg or elsewhere, to test the feelings of the people as to the policy of the Government. He must not come along here and say that the Government must either make way for another government or make concessions.

The candidates in Wynberg belong to the same party. It is a sham fight.

I should like to make this submission here to-day, that if South Africa at this moment is experiencing pressure from outside, pressure emanating from certain Africa States, and perhaps pressure emanating from certain Western States in consequence of the attitude of the Africa States, then I say that our Western friends also are being subjected to the same pressure. I say that because the attitude of those Western friends of ours on the political platform is quite different from their attitude when they negotiate directly with us. If they adopt an attitude on an international political platform which is not friendly towards South Africa, then it is as a result of the pressure which is being exerted upon them by the Africa States (a pressure which they must take into account) and by the Communist bloc. A great fuss has been made here because of the fact that the voting at UNO goes against South Africa and that we have allegedly lost our friends in the outside world as a result of the policy of this Government. I should like to mention one example to show how the Western countries too are reacting in these times of pressure. At the beginning of this year there was a report that Yugo-Slavia had moved a formal resolution in the United Nations Special Committee on Colonialism that a deputation of five members should be sent to Britain to persuade the British Government to repeal the Southern Rhodesian Constitution. That is not the important thing about the report, but what is important in this report is the fact that the Australian delegate at UNO on that occasion took a stand against Southern Rhodesia and against Britain, and attacked them on the Constitution which is still in existence in Southern Rhodesia at the present time. Hon. members opposite say that we should make concessions; they say that it is this Government’s policy of so-called compulsory apartheid which has brought us into disfavour in the outside world. I am sorry that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who made that statement, is not present at the moment. The hon. member had the audacity to say that the late Dr. D. F. Malan in his last years was concerned about the proportions which “compulsory apartheid” had assumed. I say that was a shocking statement, because two years after this Government came into power and started with the legislation which he now describes as “compulsory apartheid legislation” that hon. member saw fit to join this side of the House. At that time this compulsory apartheid did not bother him. I want to say this to hon. members on that side of the House who have tried to show that it is this Government’s compulsory apartheid which is creating difficulties for us in the world, that it is this policy which has resulted in our Western friends taking a stand against us on propaganda platforms. In Southern Rhodesia there is a Constitution which provides for Black representatives. There are Black representatives sitting in that Parliament. That does not satisfy the Africa States, nor does it satisfy UNO as a whole; it does not even satisfy Australia, which is one of the Commonwealth nations. If that is the situation, then I have every right to ask hon. members opposite this: Is the attitude which is adopted towards us on the international propaganda platform by our Western friends not simply attributable to the pressure which is being exerted upon them to-day? I go further and say in spite of all the attacks made upon us the record of South Africa is that we have never perpetrated aggression in any form whatsoever, nor do we contemplate committing aggression. When I talk about aggression I do not necessarily mean that we have invaded a neighbouring State, but I say that we have not made ourselves guilty of having given outcasts from other States an opportunity to take refuge here and to learn how to go and commit sabotage in their own countries. Compare that with what is being done in the State of Israel, which is now training fugitives from Angola and elsewhere to go and participate in sabotage there. South Africa has a clean record in that regard. South Africa has never made itself guilty of aggression in any shape or form. She has never contemplated aggression. We can, therefore, defend our cause before the world with a clear conscience. It is for that reason, too, that we cannot agree with the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) when he says that the greatest mistake which South Africa made, and which is allegedly responsible for the difficulties we are experiencing, was to withdraw from the Commonwealth. To-day we feel that we are completely free outside the Commonwealth, and we feel that we are on a strong moral basis, because we entertain no thoughts of aggression. What I find interesting is the fact that whereas a year or two ago we heard that the policy of the United Party was to lead us back into the Commonwealth, there is no further talk to-day of rejoining the Commonwealth. Apart from a passing reference to it by the hon. member for Hillbrow, nobody has tried to advocate it as a policy to attract votes. Because the Commonwealth, as it exists to-day, no longer guarantees peace within the territories of member countries; it does not even guarantee harmony, and that is why I say to hon. members opposite who are pleading for agreements with countries, that mere agreements mean nothing in the times in which we are living at present. Membership of the Commonwealth of Nations cannot guarantee peace within the Commonwealth at the present time; it cannot guarantee harmony within the borders of the Commonwealth. In fact, all the signs are there that the Commonwealth will disintegrate.

What is of much greater significance to us to-day is the actual evidence of the friendly relations of other countries with South Africa. That is why I am thankful that it is the policy of this Government, in spite of what is said from certain propaganda platforms, not to take notice of it and to go on seeking the friendship of friendly countries. I have no doubt at all that there are numerous Western countries to-day which are kindly disposed to us. The feelings of one nation towards another are not demonstrated by what is said at a certain stage from a certain platform by a certain political leader or by people who seek publicity; it is determined by the relations between the peoples of those respective countries; it is determined by the trade relations between those two countries; it is determined also by the cultural relations between those countries. I should like to say that such sound and good relations do exist to-day between South Africa and almost all Western countries. Is there any hon. member opposite who would suggest to-day that there is anything but friendly relations between South Africa and France; that there is anything but friendly relations between South Africa and West Germany; South Africa and Italy; South Africa and the Netherlands; South Africa and other Western countries? It so happens that at the present time we have to endure a wave of attempts to exert pressure upon us, attempts also on the part of Western countries with whom we are on friendly terms, and in these circumstances I wholeheartedly accept the challenge made by this Government and the guidance given by this Government, namely that we as a nation must get together and stand together and see this difficult time through; let us at all times indicate to our friends and also to our enemies outside South Africa that we do not propose to surrender or to submit.

It is indeed tragic that during the course of this debate the whole tenor of the speeches on the Government side, including the Minister who introduced the motion, has been one of defence; it has been one which has not faced up to the realities of the situation and to the challenge that has been thrown out by the Leader of the Opposition and other members on this side of the House in the very serious circumstances in which our country finds itself to-day. It is not this side of the House that has pressed this issue of how serious things are in South Africa, but it has rather come from responsible members of the Government that not only are we facing a serious situation in this country but that we are likely to face even more serious conditions than some of us may possibly imagine. Yet, in the face of the responsible addresses that have been made by members on this side, the Government has failed to rise to the challenge to give any encouragement to the people of this country in these difficult times in which we are living. In his earlier reply to the second reading the hon. Minister referred to various members on his side of the House who had dealt with certain points. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Van der Walt) for instance based the whole value of South Africa to the Western world on the inevitable fact of war. He said that in the case of a war South Africa would be in the most strategic position, that she was financially sound, that she had the most important sea lanes that were so important to the Western nations. He said because of that South Africa was of immense value. The hon. Minister for Bantu Administration said that South Africans themselves must now play their part to create goodwill amongst the races; the White people themselves must take the lead in improving economic conditions. They must help to build up a better understanding in this country. But in no instance did we get any positive lead. One ray of brightness came when the hon. Minister of Finance stated that not only would the 5,000,000 non-Bantu fight together, but he even went so far as to say that in the event of an attack 5,000,000 hearts would beat as one. What we want to know from the hon. Minister is this: What did he mean when he said that 5,000.000 hearts would beat as one? Does he mean that we will fight together, these 5,000,000, as one South African people or will we fight in two separate camps, but fighting with the same objective? That is the question which one must put to the hon. Minister of Finance and to which he must reply. He talks about 5,000,000 hearts beating like one; what about the other 11,500,000 hearts which constitute the other people in this country to whom he has not referred? With whom will their hearts beat? Surely the hon. Minister must continue the analogy and tell us frankly what he meant when he talked about 5,000,000 hearts beating as one. That was a very clear enunciation by the Minister with regard to what may happen in South Africa. Far from this side of the House suggesting, as the last speaker did, that a war will take place, this side of the House does not want war to take place. This side of the House knows where it stands should our country for any reason be attacked or placed in jeopardy because this side of the House has had experience of dealing with the affairs of South Africa. We have already been faced with a war issue. We are not strangers to expressing patriotism to South Africa and loyalty to South Africa. All we ask is that there should not be any doubt on any side of the House when a call is made on our loyalty and patriotism.

I want to deal with the fact that the Government is not prepared to face up to the very questions which have been put continuously or to give any lead to this country. Even commerce and industry, continuously through the years, have indicated to the Government that some positive steps must be taken in order to bring about a change in their outlook. The Government shrinks back into the four walls of its philosophy and refuses to meet what is becoming urgent questions of the day. South Africa’s affairs are not only moving rapidly but they are galloping to a certain climax. Surely, Sir, the Government must take cognizance of these matters; the Government must indicate to the people how it feels about those matters and not contain itself solely within the four walls of a philosophy which already is almost out-dated in the context of present South African affairs.

One of the members on the Government side said that the real issue we were facing in South Africa was the question of Communism. It has always been the policy of the Western Nations to meet the impact of Communism by improving the standard of living of people; by giving them better opportunities; by uplifting them; by giving them a better education; giving them an opportunity to appreciate the values of what we know as Western civilization. Are we doing that in South Africa to-day, Sir? Is the Government taking the necessary positive steps to bring about an improvement in the standard of living of the people and to meet the onslaught of Communism by the methods which have been used for many years by Western Nations? It is all very well for hon. members opposite to accuse the Western Nations of sinking considerable sums of money into the African states. But they are not doing that in order to build them up; they are pouring money in there in order to give them an opportunity to uplift themselves and not to be swallowed by communist ideologies. We cannot prevent ideologies from spreading through the world but we can prevent their acceptance by various peoples of the world if we believe in our way of life and if we are determined to oppose and to fight the onrush of Communism. What is the Government doing in that regard? What has the Government told us of any positive nature to indicate that it is taking steps in this direction in order to meet that situation? We heard the hon. Minister of Defence say that we need co-operation and a better understanding of the other nations on the Continent of Africa. When he was asked how that was to be achieved he said we would only achieve it if we maintained the goodwill of the peoples whom we were establishing under this new system of self-government in their homelands and that through their goodwill we would be able to obtain the co-operation of the other African states. If those are the premises on which he wishes to build the future of our co-operation with the African states and our leadership on the African Continent why are we not taking any steps as far as the Bantu in South Africa itself are concerned? Why do we not take any steps to bring about a better understanding with them and to create in them a better understanding of the co-existence which can take place between the White and the Black peoples of the Republic, instead of bringing in constantly more oppressive legislation in order to bring almost every form of their daily life into a strait-jacket? If we could do something positive we would build up goodwill amongst them at this stage and so prepare them as the public relations officers for whom we are now looking, according to the Minister of Defence.

The people of South Africa are not finding any satisfaction or comfort in what the Government is doing to-day. They are not finding any comfort in this legislation that we are passing. One of the members indicated that we are being restricted in our thinking but that we were certainly not being restricted in our drinking. As far as the people of South Africa are concerned they are not finding any comfort in the oppressive type of legislation that is going onto our Statute Book to-day. Nor are they finding any comfort in the large defence measures that are being taken in South Africa today. The fact that Governments win an election may have many other reasons. For years this Government has been spreading a sense of fear among the people of South Africa. They have estranged our relations with the non-Whites and with other countries of the world. They have lost the opportunity of leadership on the African Continent and they now find themselves in a position that they must take steps in order to enshrine what they themselves have created. The people of South Africa who cannot take part in the Government at this stage find themselves goaded by a sense of fear in accepting these types of measures that have been brought before the country. But the public is apprehensive. When the time comes I am afraid this Government is going to find itself on the other side of the fence. They must realize that their rule is not by the will of the majority of the electorate in South Africa. What is the final result of Government policy? The result of Government policy is, briefly, fear and apprehension amongst the White people of this country; resentment and frustration and irritation on the part of the Bantu people, a sense of hopelessness amongst the Indian and Coloured peoples of South Africa. None of these people find themselves content and happy in the administration of the affairs of the Republic of South Africa to-day and the responsibility lies on the Government. We feel that the Government has not accepted the challenge or given any possible lead to the country in these difficult times.

When the Minister of Finance criticizes this side of the House for not having dealt with any financial matters in the course of the debate, he must remember that we have spent some 125 hours on dealing with all the financial matters which the hon. Minister wanted us to deal with. He was able to put his point of view in his Budget Speech; he was able to hear the point of view of this side of the House in a four-day debate. Those matters have been thoroughly discussed in this House. The hon. the Minister knows that in a debate of this nature where money has to be voted it is an obligation on the part of this side of the House to inquire into the policy of the Government because it is on the lines of that policy that that money is to be spent. It is for the Government to answer why they are spending that money. What is the possible value to South Africa of all the money that is being spent? It is not fair to say that we should have confined ourselves to debating the question of the expenditure of the money or the financial policy of the Government when we have spent most of the Session doing that already. The hon. Minister did not reply to the political issues that were raised. He fobbed it off with the excuse that he himself was only required to deal with financial measures. But there rests a greater responsibility on a Minister of Finance. His responsibility is not merely to present a financial policy to the House but to justify the spending of the vast sums of money which we are asked to vote. In fact, Sir, at one stage he almost attempted to do so. He said that if money was required for the defence of this country he would not hesitate to take every penny out of the pockets of the taxpayers to defend the country. We do not object to that; nobody will mind spending money, if necessary, to defend their lives and their homes and the boundaries of their country. But that is not the positive way in which to deal with policy. The positive way is to meet the challenge and not to deprecate what is said on this side of the House.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit) criticized the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting that people should stop playing football etc., and play their part in the affairs of South Africa. We on this side of the House and the country agree with the Leader of the Opposition. That is what is required to-day. We have reached a stage where we cannot take our South African way of life in a leisurely manner anymore. There is something to defend in our country; there is something to be cured in our country; there is something to be put right in our country. His appeal was to the people of South Africa to take note of the position in which this Government has landed us. His appeal is that the people of South Africa must wake up to what is taking place and play their part. I have no doubt that when the breaking point is reached that appeal by the Leader of the Opposition will strike home amongst many, many people in this country and will bring about a change of Government which is so essential if we once again want to have a bright picture of South Africa instead of the darkening days which the Minister of Finance and everybody else on that side have been prophesying in a gloomy way right throughout this Session.

As far as I am concerned, the Opposition have argued during this debate that they can reduce the whole problem facing South Africa to a simple concept. It is clear from this whole debate that there are only a few things which the Government must do, and then all South Africa’s problems will be solved. I have made a note of the four points which have been specifically made and which represent the magic wand which will immediately change the whole face of South Africa and of the world, if only we would do these four little things. They are as follows: The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) has said that job reservation should be abolished. He has said that this will show the outside world that we do not discriminate against a man by reason of his colour. The Leader of the Opposition and others have said that Bantu wages should be increased so that they can make a better living, so that human rights as such can be recognized and so that the Bantu can have a family life. In the third place, the non-Whites should be given freehold rights in the White areas so that they can feel they are part of the community and must consequently accept love and responsibility for their land. In the fourth place, the non-White races must be given limited representation in this House. If we would do these things, the whole world would change its attitude; the whole picture would change and South Africa would once again be the darling it formerly was. So simple is the whole position according to the Opposition. I do not even want to discuss the fact that these concessions would mean the destruction of the White man. I do not want to discuss that; I just want to outline the position. The Opposition are making a very big mistake if they want to reduce the whole problem of South Africa and of the world to these four simple little points. That after all is a complete misconception. Can hon. members be so childishly naive as to believe that the moment these few concessions are made the West, the African states and everyone else would suddenly say: “Now you in South Africa are in step with the rest of the world; now we shall do nothing more and you can proceed.” In the first place, the moment these concessions are made it will immediately encourage them to exercise continuously increased pressure with the idea that “with enough pressure we shall eventually get our way, namely, a Black government in South Africa, because here we already have the first concessions”. The Opposition have put the position in such a simple light during this debate. No, Mr. Speaker, this problem is not as simple as that. On the contrary, the dominant factor in the national politics of this country is the decline of the White races of the world in national and international politics. That is the dominant factor and the position of the White man in South Africa is only part of that greater world problem. If we go back 500/600 years in the history of the world, we find that the White man was penned in Western Europe with no possibilities of expansion because at that time he could not travel the sea routes and because he had no shelter. But due to his initiative, his energy, his intelligence and his power of reason the White man did not allow himself to be overawed by this problem. He did something about it. His own inventions, such as the compass, etc., enabled him to travel the world. He had the whole world at his feet; he moved from one continent to the other. He planted his flag everywhere and extended his control over the entire earth. Five hundred years later we found the White man controlling nine-tenths of the surface of the earth. His flag flew over nine-tenths of the world. He was the master. His word was law. From 1400 to 1900 the strength of the White man in the world developed more rapidly than in the preceding thousands of years. But since that time the White man has retrogressed. Everywhere the Black man has risen; the Coloured or whoever was the inhabitant of the state concerned rebelled against the authority of the White man. He gradually rejected that authority and demanded ever-increasing rights for himself. We have had a gradual process whereby the White man is returning to Western Europe where he was 500 years ago. This process has been repeated in every country one can think of; I do not even want to name them; hon. members know them themselves; I am thinking, for example, of Indonesia, the African states, etc. The question is this: Is South Africa going to follow the same road? Is the White man going to abdicate here and get out as he has done in all the other colonies? Or is the White man of South Africa going to stand by the policy by which the White man of Australia and the White man of America stand when they say, “America for the Americans” meaning the White Americans; and Australia for the Australians, meaning the White Australians. But when they speak of “Africa for the Africans” then they suddenly only mean the Black man; then the White man does not exist in Africa. The question which has been put to us and which we as politicians must answer in this country is: Is South Africa going to follow the road of the colonies or is South Africa going to follow the road of countries such as Australia or America? Are we going to remain a White country? The attitude of the West in this regard is quite clear; our so-called friends and allies whom the Opposition would like to call upon to assist us, are quite clear on this point. I have here a statement which has been made by James Griffiths, a former British Minister, who puts it in this way—

I have here a much shorter quotation from Chester Bowles, the man who to-day plays quite an important role in determining American foreign policy. He puts it in this way—

In other words, the White men of Europe, our Western allies, our Western friends, have already adopted the attitude that the White man has abdicated throughout the world. The White man is prepared to return to the few areas which he occupied originally and is prepared to sacrifice everything if only he can return from the fray with honour and sometimes with dishonour as well. There is no longer any attempt to hold what they have. The White man of the world is on the retreat out of fear for the rising Black man.

Just look at the Transkei!

The White man is retreating everywhere in the world, and the question is when will they come to their senses. The Black states of Africa and the world adopt the attitude that the more demands are made, the more concessions will be made. They are making more and more demands and the question I ask myself is: When will the White races of the world put down their foot and say: “This far and no further, we shall not allow ourselves to be humiliated any further”. We as Whites in South Africa and this side of the House have put down our foot and say that we have certain rules and certain policies and come what may, we shall stand by these principles. The rest of the world is making concessions to an ever-increasing extent, and I can only hope and I want to believe that self-respect will eventually force these nations to realize that the Black man is taking them to the precipice and that they are being dragged along and that everything which they have built up over the centuries is being destroyed. That is the attitude of the White man.

But what is the attitude of the Black man in Africa and elsewhere? I read from a speech made by Dr. Nkrumah at the opening of the Pan-African Conference—

The entire congress was based on this one premise and it is set out in the following points—

Political power. I just want to read one more extract to make this same attitude quite clear. Once again it is Dr. Nkrumah—

And I now quote a statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Ghana

They exert tremendous pressure in order to obtain the franchise, and to them the franchise is the magic key to full freedom and independence in Africa. If they can achieve independence by these means, it will not be necessary for them to use violence. That is why this pressure is continually being exerted upon us and the United Party will never succeed in halting the tide.

What is the choice facing South Africa, and with this I want to conclude. We can do one of three things. In the first place the White man like the Whites elsewhere in the world, can abdicate and say: “We surrender to your demands, take over, and let South Africa be subjugated in a bloodless war.” There is a second possibility. We can do what the United Party want to do. We can make minor concessions here and there, we can grant a limited franchise here, and small concessions there. The result will be that we may have an easier time, but our children and our grandchildren will be doomed to Black domination and there will be no hope for them. The third alternative is that we, as the Government is doing, should stand by the policy of “live and let live”, but everyone in his own area. We grant the Black man what we demand for ourselves, and we can live together as good neighbours in this fatherland.

The demands of the West are not so small. I can see in my mind’s eye a repetition of what happened at the end of the nineteenth century. Towards the end of the nineteenth century a conference was held in Bloemfontein. On the one side there sat a grey-haired statesman, the President of the South African Republic. On the other hand there was Great Britain’s representative, and the mediator was President Steyn. They were trying to prevent war between the South African Republic and the British Empire. The British representative exercised pressure to gain concessions relating to the franchise for the “uitlanders”. He made one demand after the other, and the State President gradually began to give in. He was prepared to concede that they would be able to gain the franchise after a shorter period. He was eventually prepared to give them the vote as soon as practically possible. He was prepared to make all these concessions but the British representative was still not satisfied. Then that grey-haired statesman said with tears in his eyes: “It is not rights for your people or concessions that you want; it is my country you want.” These demands which are now being made of us and which the Opposition are also encouraging, are not concessions to the Black man or concessions to humanity, or concessions to the United Nations; it is our country they want. History is repeating itself in this regard. I just want to express my confidence and my conviction that the future history of this Republic will not be the history of that Republic. In the case of that Republic the British Empire which was so powerful took over and destroyed the Boer Republic. In this Republic the White man will stand and will continue to stand even if eventually he is the only one still standing, until the eyes of the other White countries are opened and they see that they have been allowing the Black states to mislead them, until they eventually realize that they also have dignity, that the White man also has a human dignity and that everything need not be sacrificed to please the so-called Black states.

I don’t propose to go back over the whole of the argument the hon. member has been using again. I think we had quite a good coverage in the second-reading debate on this Bill. I would merely say that I do not think the hon. member needs worry about the policy of this side of the House in regard to the maintenance of White civilization here and the protection of the White people. This side of the House is not only out to protect the White people, but we believe that our policy is the only policy that can do so. We believe that it is necessary not only for the protection of the White people, but for all the responsible sections of all groups of the people. With chaos, with bloodshed in South Africa, all groups suffer. You can’t protect the White people and have no protection for the non-Europeans, Coloureds, Asiatics or Bantu. We have either peace in South Africa and law and order is maintained. And if law and order is not maintained, then the Bantu and the Coloureds and the Asiatics suffer just as much as the White people. I think the hon. member may rest assured that he is preaching to the converted if he asks us to support the principle of the maintenance of White civilization and the maintenance of law and order in South Africa.

I want to come to the hon. Minister of Coloured Affairs in regard to two matters. Firstly I want to deal with his two outbursts, recently here in Parliament. I was away on both occasions, when he made public criticism of the Administrator and members of the Executive Committee in Natal in regard to their non-co-operation with them in connection with certain local authorities which in terms of the statute he wishes to establish in the four provinces, and in respect of which it pleased him to say that three of the provinces were co-operating and Natal was not co-operating. I am not going into that particular question of co-operation or no co-operation at the moment. The hon. Minister has had an official reply now from the Administrator and the Executive Committee. But what I am concerned with is the Minister’s outburst. I have tried to go back to find when there has ever been a precedent set for such an outburst, and I have been unable to find one. I have been unable to trace a single occasion in Parliament when a Minister has gone for an Administrator and Executive Committee as the hon. Minister of Coloured Affairs went for the Administrator and members of the Executive in Natal.

Perhaps they deserved it.

I believe that the hon. member for Mossel Bay will not understand propriety in these things. He won’t understand how things are done in a diplomatic and a proper and dignified manner as between a Minister and an Administrator. He won’t understand that. But I want to say to the hon. Minister that I don’t believe that this was the right way for him to deal with this matter either. He has now placed himself in the position that the Administrator and the Executive have had to come back with the statement which has been published and to say to him that he is wrong in his facts.

Did you see my reply?

The Administrator personally discussed certain matters with the Minister in regard to certain difficulties.

Did you see my reply?

Yes, that is all right, too. I am dealing with the outburst. It does not matter whether the Minister was right or wrong in my submission. What I am concerned with is that the Minister thinks that Parliament is a place in which you openly attack an administrator and members of an executive. What is to be the position if the Administrator of Natal and the Provincial Council think that the Provincial Council is a proper forum to attack the Minister?

They are welcome.

No, that is where the Minister makes a mistake. I suggest that he gets a fresh view of the standards which are appropriate for the conduct of public business between the Minister in the honourable position which he occupies and the Administrator in the honourable position in which he occupies. The hon. Administrator is not a member of my party. He was a political opponent. I have a big dossier on the Administrator. If it was appropriate, I have got plenty to attack the hon. Administrator with from the time before he became Administrator. I have a whole dossier with quotations from his speeches, of his publications and so forth. I think it is most inappropriate. He is the Administrator of Natal from the day he is appointed. He is no longer a political personality.

I never attacked the Administrator.

As soon as you attack the Administration you attack the Administrator, who is the head of that Administration. When once he criticizes the Executive he is criticizing the Administrator, who is chairman of the Executive. And if he was only criticizing the Executive it would still be equally wrong.

You were not here and you don’t know the facts and the background.

I know the background, because I have not only taken the trouble to ascertain precisely what happened from members who were here, but I have had a look at the Hansard report and I have seen all the documents in the case, and I think it was most improper, and I suggest to the hon. Minister that he should not pursue that manner when dealing with affairs between him and his Department and the Provincial Administration of Natal or any other province.

I replied to attacks from your side.

The hon. Minister is not going to get me to pursue this matter further. I simply end on this note: It was most improper, most undignified, and, as was said in his official reply, it was not worthy of the Minister to behave in such an undignified and improper manner.

“Ek sal hulle opdons tot hulle hul plig doen.”

Now I want to come to another matter in dealing with the Department of the hon. Minister. There is at the present time taking place through his Department preliminary steps for the setting aside of group areas in various places along the South Coast of Natal, and I would like to put it to the hon. Minister that the method of dealing with that area, that is from Durban to the Cape border at Port Edward, would be for a complete survey and then for the matter to be dealt with and planned as a whole. If I can just draw a mental picture for a moment: There is the coastline, the row of White properties, originally farms set out by the Shepstone policy, and immediately behind that a parallel area, a long strip of land which are Bantu reserves, scheduled Native areas for the Bantu—the coast-line, the White strip, the strip of Bantu area, with one or two White farms going through the Black areas to cut them up into segments, the grid-iron policy, and in three places the Black areas, the scheduled areas coming right down to the beach and including the beach, the Umnini Location, and so forth. Those three areas come down there, but in between it is all White area. In a large number of cases there are anti-Asiatic servitudes on the properties concerned. Those anti-Asiatic servitudes are of no avail in terms of our legislation to-day. They can’t stand, they can’t hold water, they are useless for the purpose for which they were designed. The point I want to make is this that in dealing with a municipality here or a municipality further down the coast, that to my mind is a short-sighted policy because the overall picture of that coast, including the three access points which the Bantu have got to the coast fails to achieve its purpose, unless you see the whole picture, you see the whole plan.

Which places do you have in mind?

Your department officals are at Park Rynie. They have been dealing as you mentioned before in regard to Isipingo, going back for a longer period. Whether there are other areas south of Park Rynie, I don’t know. But the reason why I mention it now is that the Isipingo trouble is partly based on the inter-relationship with the next succeeding municipality. Park Rynie is already causing trouble. The hon. Minister’s officials there after having had to give everybody a chance of being heard and so forth, held a preliminary meeting about a fortnight ago, and another meeting is due very shortly. But it is now at this early stage that I raise the matter. Sir, in regard to that coastline we have got to realize, whether we like it or not, that the Almighty has blessed us with a coastline which is relative. Our population can grow into millions and millions but we will never get another inch of coastline. So your population wanting to go to the coast must go to that area. When you cross the border and you come to the Transkei, then a different set of considerations and a different set of laws applies. So for the South Coast of Natal, for that 130 miles approximately, you have got an area in which certain races have got to find room, and I suggest that a way to do it is to see the whole picture. The municipal authorities down the coast have already asked the Natal Regional Planning Commission to plan that area as they did in the case of the Tugela, but unfortunately the commission can’t go there next, it has to go to another area—I think they are dealing with the whole of the Pinetown-Cato Ridge-Pietermaritzburg complex. I think that is where they are going now to cover the whole of that whole area, Hammarsdale, and so forth. It behoves us therefore to try and see the position clearly. From Durban to Port Edward will be one town in the foreseeable future. Not a hundred years hence, but in the foreseeable future. Town after town has been laid out covering virtually the whole of that area, except the Bantu areas, and private townships have been planned all along as private townships under the ordinance, and development is taking place on a huge scale. Now there is the question of water supplies. The Regional Water Corporation can deal with that. There is the question of roads. There are municipal roads, not the national road; electricity; local transport; sewerage, one of the biggest problems of the lot. All these matters should be planned on a broad scale, seeing the whole of the picture. Every municipality cannot have its own sewerage disposal plant, particularly when they want to discharge sewerage into the sea. There is the outfall of all sorts, and there must be some kind of a guard to protect, some kind of legislation guarding and protecting the people against that kind of thing. And when a municipality wants to have a sea outfall for sewerage and general rubbish from the municipality, they naturally seek a point as close as possible to their neighbours as they can; it is inevitable, it is human nature. That has to be guarded against. But in the layout for the various racial groups, I think the same principle should apply. Let us see the overall picture. Let us see where the Bantu can have their share, where the Coloured people can have their share, the Indian people can have theirs and the White people theirs. You see, Mr. Speaker, it is rather a curious thing that even when I was a boy you could go the livelong day along the whole of the coast from Durban to Port Edward and you would never see one of the Bantu people, not one. The first Native that I ever knew who ate fish, was when I was a big boy already. He was the one Native who went down to the seawater. They would not touch it. They never bathed in the sea, they did not eat fish. What we have seen there has taken place the last half century. The thing has changed completely, and in the Umnini Location you have got big huts built there, you have got a big seaside place where the Natives go to bathe in their hundreds and in their thousands in certain occasions. The same is happening with the Indians. Provision must be made, but it must be done on a proper-planned basis, and not in a piece-meal basis, to find what is going to be the most suitable way of dealing with these various problems in regard to this town, or this municipality. It is going to be one municipality throughout in practice.

Regional planning?

Yes, we want a regional plan. We want to see the whole thing. Somebody has got to make concessions, somebody has got to make sacrifices. There will be complaints. What I am concerned with is that so far as possible we should get co-operation and unanimity. I don’t want it rushed through. I am willing to offer my co-operation to the Minister. It is my constituency, and I have more towns in my constituency, which is a rural constituency, than any other hon. member in this House. But with all those towns, I am willing to co-operate with the Minister in this matter, so that we shall get a plan which is acceptable there and under which all development can be co-ordinated.

I agree with you.

In that case I am going to leave it at that if the Minister is prepared to accept that. I ask him please do not go on with this piece-meal planning.

We are only investigating.

At Park Rynie the issue is already involved. I have had a letter to-day indicating how serious the matter can be at Park Rynie. I do not want to deal with that now, but if it is not to be proceeded with at this stage, I am quite willing to drop it

I want to start by admitting my guilt to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). I asked him a foolish question. When he was in the middle of an argument relating to quite a different matter, I asked him a question about the race federation scheme of the United Party. I did not expect an answer, but I hoped I would get the same answer to my foolish question that I had given earlier in reply to his irrelevant question and that of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). While I was dealing with the point that there had not been any financial criticism, the hon. member for Transkeian Territories rose and asked whether he could put a question to me, namely: “What is our policy towards the Indians?” I told him that it had already been explained. A little later, while I was also discussing another subject, the hon. member for Yeoville asked me: “In this deep philosophy of the National Party, where do the Coloureds fit in?”

Where is the homeland of the Coloureds? Tell us?

I gave him exactly the same answer that he gave me in reply to my foolish question to him. He walked so beautifully into the trap which. I had set for him. Because if one wants to distract attention when a man is developing an argument it is the easiest thing in the world to say that one wants to ask him a question, and one then asks him a question about something quite different. Those are the tactics which the hon. member has now used. What I had said apparently got under his skin a little; he then tried to provide a little diversion and he launched Operation Diversion. As regards his other question, I must say that I also regard it in the same light. He had to provide a little diversion from what had been said here, and he then came forward with this wonderful discovery that I had apparently been converted to the wrong policies of the United Party. Allow me to say to him at once in the words of a well-known Dutch writer: “Verdenk my geenzins van zoo ’n buitensporige nederigheid.” (Do not suspect me of such excessive humility.) What I was doing was to discuss the pressure being exerted on us. I referred to what the hon. member for Queenstown had said and I said it was pointless asking what our friends in the West thought of our position here. The question is: How do the Blacks in Africa see our position here in South Africa? I then said that they did not regard it in the light that there are almost 5,000.000 non-Bantu in the country and that this is their only fatherland. That is what I said, because the Black states of Africa are the ones who are making the threats and they do not see the position in this light at all. They say: Everyone who is not a Bantu must get out. Then much later, two pages later in the Hansard report, I spoke of the necessity for us to show the world, and especially our enemies, that there was no crack in our unity as far as defending ourselves against those who want to take over our country was concerned. I said that these were not people who wanted to come here to compel us to accept some concession or other. They are people who want our country and the attacks of these people who want our country are not only aimed at us, but are aimed equally at the Coloureds. And I then said this: If the outside world knows that on this point, which in effect involves the continued existence of South Africa as a White country, there are 5,000,000 hearts that beat as one, they will not think for one moment of ever converting these threats into war. Now the hon. member is trying to infer from that statement that I have expressed myself as being in favour of accepting them at the same level of civilization and in the White army. I have spoken of our defence against the Black states, against this freedom army they want to send to South Africa. And I still say to-day: The Coloured has as much right to stand by us in opposing this common enemy, this army of liberation, without it meaning that there will be any social intermingling or any departure from any policy which we laid down in the past. But it is just as much in their interest as it is in ours that this army of liberation of Black Africa should not arrive here. I just signed this morning, while we were sitting here, a special warrant covering the costs of the buildings which are to be erected to accommodate the Coloured Corps which the Minister of Defence is building up here in the Western Cape. As regards our defence against that enemy they are certainly linked to us, because their continued existence in South Africa is just as much at stake as that of the Whites is. But now the hon. member sees what he thinks is an opportunity to score a point. He is trying to find a sort of lightning conductor. I do not think he is a conductor (afleier) nor do I want to say that he is a misleader (misleier). I think he wants to divert us a little from the point I have made, and he is nothing more and nothing less than a diversionary element (wegleier). But I think I can also rightly say that his whole manoeuvre has failed. But to me there is nevertheless something significant about this. That he has given us a little amusement is innocent enough, but the fact that he wanted to read so much into what I have said, and which he could not have read into it at all if he had taken the context in which I was speaking into account, is significant to me because it shows me one thing quite clearly, namely that the United Party at this third reading of the Appropriation Bill is so lacking in political arguments that it has to use such undesirable tactics as these and wants to grasp at this point as though it represents their salvation. I told the hon. member that a disappointment awaited him, namely that I had not yet seen it in his light and even if I had, I did not intend following to the misleading light of the United Party, because they are so inconsistent. They say they want to regard the Coloured, together with the White man, as a Westerner but what steps are they taking to separate the Coloured from the Bantu? As regards our overall policy for the Western Cape to-day, are they assisting us to separate the Coloureds from the Bantu? When we take steps such as establishing the population register, what attitude do they adopt? That is the only way in which we can separate the Bantu from the Coloured but they oppose it. The very people who are now supposedly so eager to protect the Coloured and to bring him into our ranks, are not even prepared to separate him from the Bantu.

I just want to say that as regards defence, I have spoken of these almost 5,000,000 non-Bantu, but I think it is of just as much importance for the other 11,500,000 Bantu that these Black States should not reach South Africa. The signs are there. These people realize that this Uhuru is not the only thing that counts. They want their political rights and we are prepared to give them those rights, but we have said that they can have them in that part of South Africa which is traditionally theirs, which successive governments have kept for them for more than 100 years.

What area do the Coloureds have?

That part of South Africa where the Bantu came to first has been kept intact for them. Previous governments perhaps did not think in terms of eventually independent states, but they did have the premonition that if they did not do so, they would be on dangerous ground. That is why the people who have governed us in all four provinces over the last 100 years have kept those areas intact for the Bantu, and if they had not done so our whole policy of separate development would have been impossible because there would then not have been certain parts of South Africa where we could say that the Bantu would be able to enjoy his full political rights. Those people were perhaps more sensible than hon. members opposite and they realized that with this tremendous weight of numbers, this was our only bulwark in South Africa. As regards the Coloureds, it has been said repeatedly that they have no homelands in the sense that the Bantu have homelands, but that we also want to let them develop in accordance with their character and so that they can enjoy their full rights as far as possible here. That is nothing new. If the hon. member had only given me the number of the question, I could perhaps have shown him where the Prime Minister and the Minister of Coloured Affairs had explained the position.

Well, we have now come to the end. I want to thank the hon. member for Yeoville for the fact that he did at least say something which gave me an opportunity to reply. I had not intended replying, but the hon. member has now done me this favour.

When will you answer me?

A whole series of questions have been put during the second and third reading stages. Hon. members seem to forget that these second and third reading stages of the Appropriation Bill follow on the 125 hours of Committee of Supply. The idea is that the questions which have now been asked in the dying moments of the session should be asked during those 125 hours. The Budget debate itself should only deal with certain matters of principle, if they have anything like that. It does not seem as though they have but it is not intended for questions relating to the administration and policy of individual Ministers. I have now listened for 40 minutes to the hon. member for Umlazi. Those are all matters which he should have discussed under the Vote of the Minister concerned. I do not think it is the intention that we should do so during the Budget debates, but this merely shows once again the complete political bankruptcy of the United Party. If ever there is to be a time when they should be placed under political judicial management or else should go into political liquidation, it seems to me that time is now very near at hand.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

This is one of the clauses which I informed hon. members in my second-reading speech I did not intend proceeding with. I shall not move that the clause be omitted but merely vote against it when you put it, Sir.

Clause put and negatived.

On Clause 17,

This clause makes it a competent alternative verdict for a court where an accused is arraigned on a charge of theft to find him guilty of the statutory offence created by Section 37 of the General Laws Amendment Act of 1955, and the offence is one of acquiring from any person stolen property without a reasonable belief that it was not stolen property. I should like to say that the courts have found that this offence can be committed by persons who are quite honest in their belief that the goods which they bought were in fact not stolen goods. The cases which have arisen have concerned mostly Natives who have bought articles of clothing from other Bantu on the streets thinking that the man was entitled to sell these articles. The courts unfortunately have held that the test is not whether the person concerned reasonably believed they were not stolen, but whether the Judge would have thought so. That this is all very well, except for one thing, that the courts of South Africa have not been agreed as to the punishment which is to be meted out for this alternative offence, and the courts in Natal have held that if you are convicted of this offence a whipping is compulsory. In the Transvaal, which is the first province to differ from Natal, the full Bench said that not only was a whipping not compulsory but it was not competent for a first offender. This unfortunate situation has arisen and it is still so. I asked the Minister last year whether he would state a case for the Appellate Division so that we could get some clarity on the matter in our courts, and the Minister replied that the Judge-President in Natal had given an undertaking that next time such a matter came before the courts he would refer it to a full Bench of three Judges. Now, so far as I am aware, no such case has come up in Natal, and I ask the Minister, in view of what is to be provided here, whether he will not reconsider his position and state a case for the Appellate Division to decide, because it is very unlikely that a convicted person will appeal to the Natal Provincial Division of the Appellate Division seeing that such people have very little money. He is not even usually legally represented, and even if he is, it is very unlikely that any attorney would advise him to appeal with two full-Bench decisions against him in Natal. In those circumstances I hope the Minister will either reconsider putting this provision into our law at this stage, so long as the law is that in Natal you must be whipped for this offence but not in the other provinces, or alternatively, the Minister should give his undertaking that he will put the law right in this regard, particularly in Natal by stating a case for the decision of the Appellate Division.

The hope and the expectation was that one of these cases would go to the Appellate Division so that we could have uniformity in our decisions. In view of the fact that this has not happened and bearing in mind the facts the hon. member has now again submitted to me, I shall take up the matter with the Department and see whether we cannot do so by means of a test case and whether we can put the matter beyond all doubt next year.

I do not want to deal with the substance of this clause, but I want to put it to the Minister that in this clause as in a number of others words are used that a certain section in the principal Act is amended by the use of the words “of the expression”. It is the wording I am concerned with, because it is not an expression. I suggest that the Minister get his people not to maltreat the English language like this. This is bad grammar.

What words must be used?

“To substitute the following words.” If the hon. Minister would look at Section 15, he would see that certain words are substituted by other words, and that is what is happening here. What we are substituting are certain words and not an expression.

I will bring it to the notice of the law advisers.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 25,

This is another clause with which I am not prepared to proceed.

Clause put and negatived.

On Clause 26,

I do not want to proceed with this clause either, and I shall also vote against Clause 29.

Clause put and negatived.

Clause 29 put and negatived.

On Clause 37,

This clause now provides that whereas in the history of our criminal law one has never been able to join another charge with the charge of murder in the same indictment, this provision is now to be done away with. I wonder whether the Minister could give us some guidance as to why the Department considers this to be necessary now.

As I explained at the Second Reading, our criminal law already contained this provision before the passing of the 1935 Act when we introduced the question of extenuating circumstances in cases of murder. Prior to 1935 the death penalty was mandatory in cases of murder and for the rest it was in the hands of the Executive Council whether the sentence was carried out or not. In 1935 this amendment was made. Since that time the further provision has been introduced into our law that when robbery with aggravating circumstances is committed, the death sentence can also be imposed. The hon. member is of course also aware of the fact that the death sentence can also be imposed in cases of rape and high treason. This was not compulsory, but optional. Now the death penalty in that regard is also optional. In other words, this provision has now fallen away. It often happens in practice that a person who is charged with murder has a whole series of other offences to his name as well. One then first has to wait to see whether he is acquitted or whether a penalty other than the death sentence is imposed upon him. If he is acquitted or a plea of culpable homicide is accepted, the same evidence has to be heard again and if this happens on circuit it means that the accused has to be detained for several months until the circuit court sits there again. To eliminate all these things this provision is now being inserted in the interests of the accused.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 39,

This is just a question of wording. I think it is rather unfortunate that we are using a different form of words here. I wonder whether the Minister would consider the matter, because I think that as the term is so well known it might be retained.

I will do that.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 42,

This clause brings about an amendment to Section 343 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which in turn was amended by Section 99 of the Children’s Act of 1960. As the Minister will know, because he was the responsible Minister at the time, and he piloted the Children’s Act through the House, we brought to his notice the period of detention at the various reform schools and also the period of protection which was then afforded to persons who had been committed to these reform schools. In terms of the amendment in the 1960 Act, a person who was under the age of 16 could be detained at that reform school until he attained the age of 18, and a juvenile offender who was over 16 but under 18 could be detained up to the age of 21 years, and if he was over 18, until he attained the age of 23 years. In addition to that, the period of protection is another considerable period, and the person over the age of 18 can still remain under the protection of the management of the reform school until he attains the age of 25 years. This amendment appears to be a delegation of the power of the Minister to extend that period of protection or detention, because in sub-section (3) of the principal Act it is definitely stated that the Minister may, if he deems it necessary, order that the person be detained at the reform school for a further period of detention. In terms of this clause before us, the Minister now wishes to insert, after the word “assigned”, the words “or any person acting under his authority”. Our concern is that if it is assigned to some subordinate official it could lead to abuse. The Minister knows that to obtain the release of a juvenile from a reform school takes a considerable amount of persuasion and indeed only in exceptional circumstances has the Minister extended those periods of detention. So it seems that this is a very wide delegation of power, because it merely states “to any person acting under his authority”. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us an assurance as to who he has in mind in regard to the delegation of power, because it is a very serious matter if the period of detention is further extended. I hope the Minister can assure us that it will not merely be a delegation of authority to the principal of the reform school, but to some senior official of the Department.

The idea is to delegate this power to the Secretary or to the Deputy Secretary of the Department.

Would the Minister consider putting those words into the Bill?

We also deviated from it in other cases, because we found that the designations of officials were changed from time to time as the result of the regarding and renaming of posts by the Public Service Commission.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 53,

Will the Minister tell us why he extends the period of 72 hours to seven days?

The position was that many people complained to us and asked to have this extension because if the contravention took place on a Friday or a Saturday, it was very difficult for them to pay the fine, and on that ground we did it.

Clause put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Omission of Clause 6, 25, 26 and 29 put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

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

Evening Sitting

I move—

This Bill is the traditional omnibus Bill which is introduced at the end of every session. Hon. members are aware that the minor requirements of the various Departments are incorporated in this Bill. It is traditional, too that no second reading speech is made on the Bill, but that discussions, if any, on it may take place in the Committee Stage. I say it is traditional that this Bill is introduced at the end of the Session. It is traditional also that no provisions are included in this Bill which are contentious unless it is unavoidable. Hon. members may think that Clause 13 of the Bill is a contentious provision. If hon. members feel very strongly about this provision, I shall not break the tradition by going on with it nevertheless. So I am quite prepared to drop it.

This clause deals with conspiracies. Hon. members are aware that it is very difficult to draft such a charge sheet without being involved in lengthy law suits, particularly if one is dealing with clever and meticulous barristers. It is not only this Government which has had problems with this matter. Hon. members will recall that exactly the same problems arose after the strike of 1946 when the previous Government wished to prosecute Harmel and other communists on charges of conspiracy. I think I am correct in saying that after two years were spent on drafting the indictment, the matter was dropped. So this is not a new problem, but already an old one.

However, as I have said already, I do not wish to come forward with contentious matters at the end of the Session. When we reach the clause in question in the Committee Stage, and if hon. members, as they intimated to me this morning, are strongly opposed to it, I shall be prepared to drop it.

As the hon. the Minister has said, this is a Bill which is introduced annually and which contains various provisions. I am glad it was possible for the Minister to make a copy of the Bill available to us before it was printed. I want to express the hope that in future this can be done a little sooner. In any case, the fact that we were given the Bill in advance has made it possible for us to study its provisions carefully.

As far as I can see, it contains only one contentious provision. It is a provision about which there can be a difference of opinion. It is in any case clear that hon. members on this side and perhaps certain hon. members opposite as well have strong objections to this provision, namely, Clause 13. We consequently expect that the hon. the Minister will withdraw this provision as he has in fact indicated he is prepared to do.

As regards the remaining clauses of the Bill, we have, as I have already said, had the opportunity to study them and I can say that we shall not oppose any of them. I want to convey my personal thanks to the Minister for Clause 25 which makes it possible for an organization to change its name without great expense. The organization which has asked for such a provision to be placed on the Statute Book is the Boy Scouts. The full name of this movement is “Boy Scouts Association of the Union of South Africa”. It is therefore clear that a change is essential because there is no longer a Union. This movement wants to show that it is a South African organization and therefore wants to adopt the name “Boy Scouts of South Africa”, a much shorter and better name. I am glad that the hon. the Minister is making it possible for this organization to change its name without incurring heavy expense. It is undesirable that an organization which is doing wonderful work and which represents the youth of the country should have a name which refers to a no longer existing constitutional position. It is therefore desirable that a change should be made. To make this possible the Minister has agreed to include this provision in the Bill. On behalf of the organization concerned I want to thank him for doing so.

As far as the other provisions of the Bill are concerned, there may be discussion on certain of them at the Committee Stage. I therefore do not want to discuss the Bill any further at this stage. Under the circumstances and in the light of the fact that the Minister has indicated his willingness to withdraw Clause 13, we on this side of the House will not oppose the second reading.

The hon. the Minister said it was a traditional procedure to introduce this omnibus Bill at the end of a session. I am not disputing that. There are traditions which are, of course, in the best order of things and there are traditions which are not. It seems to me that consideration might very well be given to the question whether there should not be some change of procedure in this connection. It possibly worked very well when the volume of legislation presented to Parliament each year was not as heavy as it has been in recent years. Knowing, as I do, something of the pre-legislative side of drawing up legislation of this nature, it seems to me that legislation of this nature might very well be introduced at the end of a session to be dealt with early during the succeeding session. In the ordinary course of things it is difficult to keep the Order Paper sufficiently supplied at the beginning of a session. To me this is the type of legislation where the Minister could give consideration to effecting a change of procedure. It covers a large number of items of legislation affecting a variety of interests. We would in the nature of things get better legislation if the various interests concerned can have the opportunity of making representations before instead of after the legislation has been passed.

I put this forward because I think the present procedure might well be changed. The urgency of these matters is not such that they must be approved this Session. Many of them can be left over for another 7 months. In many instances, the law is being tidied up and necessarily so. I sincerely suggest to the Minister that consideration should be given to the question of breaking with tradition to the extent that this legislation, although introduced this Session, should be proceeded with in the following session.

I thank hon. members for the good reception this Bill has been accorded as well as for the support thereof save for Clause 13 to which I have already referred. As regards the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South), I have said already that it is traditional that this Bill is usually introduced at the end of a session. I also adopted that procedure. The reason for it is obvious. I have already said that usually only non-contentious provisions are included in the Bill, and that it provides for certain minor requirements of Departments and other interested parties. A good example of this is Clause 25. The hon. member for Germiston (District) has already referred to that. This Clause solves a very big problem in regard to the Boy Scouts and other youth movements. Had it not been for this Bill, it might not have been possible to come forward with such a provision. I should like to give credit to the hon. member for Germiston (District) for this clause, because it has been included in the Bill at his request. Had this clause not been included in the Bill, or if this Bill could not have been introduced as usual at the end of the session, it could have involved the Boy Scouts and other youth movements in considerable expense.

So I do not even want to make a vestige of an admission that it is not sound tradition for this Bill to be introduced at the end of the session. I think a good purpose is served thereby. Apart from that, our predecessors have, on the basis of the experience gained, decided that this was the best procedure and until such time as I may be convinced that it is not a good procedure, I propose to confine myself to it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

On Clause 5,

Mr. Speaker, there are one or two points I should like to raise in connection with this clause but as the Minister concerned with the South African Tourist Corporation is not present, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Justice whether I should nevertheless raise them.

I shall reply to them.

I should like to know why the number of board members is being in-increased to seven. I can understand the need for the increase from two to three proposed in paragraph (b) of this clause because the Tourist Corporation will now fall under the Minister of Tourism and, consequently, he should have a representative of that Department on the executive. It is not clear to me, however, what the circumstances are surrounding the proposed increase in the number of board members. This board is appointed by the State President and is to consist of persons who are not officials of the State. Originally there were nine members on the board. This number was subsequently reduced to five and then again increased to six. Now it is being proposed to increase the membership further, i.e., to seven.

The reason for this increase is that this is now a new Department and consequently a representative of that Department has to be appointed on the Board of Control of the Corporation. To make provision for this additional departmental representative, it is necessary to increase the membership of the board from six to seven.

I can understand that argument being applied to paragraph (b) of the clause. The present provision states that—

These two Departments are the Department of Transport and the South African Railways Administration.

The representative of the Railways Administration is being retained because that Administration still has an interest in the matter.

Yes, I know. Paragraph (a) of this clause deals specifically with the constitution of the board itself. The board is, as I have already said, appointed by the State President not from State officials but from public persons who have a knowledge of tourism. To my knowledge there is no member of the board who is a State official. These are provided for in paragraph (b) of the clause, but certainly not in (a). This is my difficulty.

The hon. member will realize that there has to be liaison between the Department and the Tourist Corporation and the best way in which this liaison can be effected is by placing a representative of the Department on the board of the Corporation.

But that is done under paragraph (b).

But there has to be liaison also in so far as the board is concerned. Now that there is an independent Department of Tourism the only way in which a representative of that Department can be brought on to the board is by increasing its membership.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 13 put and negatived.

On Clause 15,

I am very interested to learn why the hon. the Minister now proposes to give the Appellate Division now for the first time the power to increase sentences.

It was so prior to 1948.

Then I should like to know why it is proposed to give this power to the Appellate Division again, i.e., the power to increase sentences in appeals from the Supreme Court in criminal matters. Why does the Minister consider it necessary to give this power to the Appellate Division at this stage?

As I told the hon. member by way of an interjection, that was the position until the Criminal Procedure Amendment Act was passed in 1948. That Act then put a stop to it. Since then many persons have felt that it was a mistake. The matter has been discussed from time to time and the law revision committee then unanimously requested that the position should be restored to what it was prior to 1948. I may just mention that recently I again discussed the matter with a Judge who formerly was a Judge of the Appellate Division. He assured me that it was their wish that this be done. In addition the law revision committee unanimously recommended that it be done, as I have already said.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 17,

We have gone into this matter and it would appear that there is no objection to the amendment proposed here. I think this is one of those matters which would have to be tested in the light of experience. Accordingly I can only express the hope that if it is found that a change is desirable the Minister concerned would not hesitate to come back to the House next year.

That is the intention. The Minister concerned has told me so.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 23,

Could the hon. the Minister tell us what the object of this Bill is? The wording of the clause is very complicated. On the face of it it seems to deal with something that has already expired.

The reason for this clause is that there is a difference of opinion on the question as to whether the banning of the P.A.C. can be challenged or not in a court of law—in other words, whether it may be argued that the P.A.C. has not been declared unlawful in actual fact. The object of this clause is to make doubly sure that there can be no doubt about it. The point has never yet been taken in a court of law, but there is the fear that a court may have a doubt, on a strict interpretation of the existing provision, as to whether the organization has actually been declared unlawful. This clause now puts the matter beyond all doubt.

Clause put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Omission of Clause 13 put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Mr.

Speaker, I move—

I am a little bit disturbed about one provision in this Bill and that is Clause 15 which again gives the Appellate Division the power to increase sentences in criminal appeals, particularly in capital offences. I should like the hon. the Minister to satisfy me that the Appellate Division cannot now decide to hang a man who has not been hanged by the lower court!

I must say that this point did not occur to me when I raised the matter during the Committee Stage. However, I am sure the hon. member for Durban (Central) does not mean quite what he says! Nevertheless, it is a point which the Minister ought to consider. If a lower court finds a man guilty of. for instance, rape or murder with extenuating circumstances, housebreaking and robbery with aggravating circumstances, and although it has the power to impose the death sentence does not do so, would the Appellate Division have the power to impose the death sentences when it considered on appeal? If so, I do not think this is quite the way in which death sentences should be imposed because say for instance a man is sentence to 15 years by the lower court for rape or robbery and he appeals. Now, that appeal can only come on three or four months later. Then the Appellate Division can decide to impose the death sentence. This is not satisfactory. Has the Minister had time to direct his attention to this?

As regards this matter, I have a very good ally—someone with whom I do not always agree: nor he with me. This person is the ex-Chief Justice Centlivres. In the case of Rex v. Naicker in 1950 (page 727 of the South African Law Reports) he took very strong exception to the Appellate Division being deprived of this jurisdiction. As regards this particular provision of the Bill, I share the point of view of the ex-Chief Justice Centlivres. I did not have an opportunity of going into the matter carefully, but as I see it, the Appellate Division now already has the power to increase the sentence in any matter. Of course, it can only do this when such a case comes before it on appeal. As regards extenuating circumstances, and when the matter has been heard by a jury, it is obvious that the Appellate Division cannot do anything, and therefore will have to refer the matter back. The Appeal Court cannot express an opinion as to whether or not there are extenuating circumstances, because that is a matter for the jury to decide. The Appeal Court has no option but to accept it as it is. In such circumstances the Appeal Court therefore cannot increase the sentence. When the matter has been heard by a Judge and assessors, and there has been a finding of extenuating circumstances, that would be a finding of fact also which the Appeal Court, supposing it had the power to do so, could not lightly ignore. As hon. members who are still in practice know the courts, I do not think it can be said that there is even a possibility that when a lower court has found extenuating circumstances and therefore does not sentence the accused to death, the Appeal Court, even if it had the power to do so, and even if it were to appear to it that the death sentence is the proper sentence, will really go so far as to impose the death sentence.

However, I have already said that I have not had an opportunity of going into the matter carefully. Theoretically, however, it seems to me that the Appeal Court, save in the cases I have mentioned, does in fact have that power.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I think we all agree that the provisions of this clause have long been necessary. In the past officers and noncommissioned officers of the Permanent Force had to retire at as an early an age as 45 or 46. The maximum age for officers and other ranks was 55 years. It is quite wrong to allow people to retire on pension at that age in these modern times. I do not think any of us will say that a man is finished at the age of 55. On the contrary, such a person still has a great potential for further service. We therefore welcome the provisions of this clause, especially those contained in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of the proposed new Section 35. We also support sub-section (4). This gives the Minister of Defence the right to retain an officer or any other rank until he has reached the age of 60 years. It often happens that the Defence Force requires the services of such a person, and if the Minister considers that such a person can still do good work, he can retain the services of that person. We agree with this provision.

We also support sub-section (5) which gives the Minister the right to retire on pension any officer who has attained the age of 45 years. This is necessary because it can happen that officers who have attained that age are no longer as useful as they might be. The Minister will then have the right to get rid of such persons. Personally I am very well acquainted with this sub-section because it was in terms of this sub-section that I was kicked out! And just look how the State and I have benefited!

However, we do have certain criticisms regarding sub-section (2) (c) (i) which provides that officers and other ranks who were born during the years 1908 and 1909 may retire on pension on attaining the age of 57. This relates to senior officers, non-commissioned officers and adjutant officers. We feel that the age of 57 should be changed to 58. It can be argued that the Minister can retain his services, but we feel that if an officer has reached the age of 55 or 57 and he knows he has another three years to serve, he can arrange his affairs accordingly. He can then arrange his affairs so that he retires at 58. There is another good reason why I think we should take the age into account and that is the fact that prior to 1938 this was the age at which senior officers retired, namely 58 years. This unfortunately conflicted with the Pensions Act of 1936 and that is why it was reduced to 55 as long ago as 1950. If this Committee will approve of that age being changed to 58, these people will only be getting back what they had in the past. I therefore want to move the following amendment standing in my name—

I hope the hon. the Minister will give this amendment his favourable consideration. The amendment simply provides that those persons who were born in 1908 and 1909 will be able to remain in the service until the age of 58. There can be only a very small number of people who will be affected. The people who were born in 1908 will under normal circumstances already have to retire this year in terms of the old Act. There cannot be many of them. I hope the Minister will see his way clear to accept this amendment.

I am sorry I am unable to put the hon. member’s amendment because it involves increased expenditure requiring the recommendation of the State President.

In reply to the hon. member I just want to say that this decision was announced quite some time ago already. I saw the hon. member personally in this regard and I gave him the information. The hon. member knows how I created the opportunity for him to have an interview with the hon. the Minister of Defence in connection with this matter. This is one of the matters on which another Department decides and which is then handed over to my Department for administration. On 28 September the Minister of Defence issued a Press statement as follows—

This statement was repeated in a later statement dated 6 November 1962. The position is as follows. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member says that the improvements which are being effected in order to give the members of the Defence Force the opportunity to remain in the service for a longer period are welcomed in all quarters and that the decision to raise the retiring age is generally accepted. There are two ways in which we can do so. The one is to raise the age limit by the full number of years.

Order! I have ruled the amendment out of order and I hope the hon. the Minister is not going to enlarge on it.

Mr. Chairman, I hope I shall be in order if I just refer to the proviso contained in Clause 10 which provides specifically that the State President will have the right to raise that age limit to 60. I am therefore sorry that I cannot accept the amendment.

Clause put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

This Bill gives effect to the recommendations contained in the report of the Select Committee on Pensions. As hon. members know, this House and the Senate have already approved of these recommendations.

All we have to say on this Bill is that we approve of it and we support it without reservation.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

We have reached the end of this Session and at the next session of this House we shall work under the new rules. I may say that many changes have been made in the rules. Of the 290 Standing Orders which we have at present the Select Committee amended approximately 170. We had certain objects in mind and I think that to a very large extent we achieved those objects. In the first place it was our object to eliminate all dead wood and to accept rules which have become our practice as our practice and to omit the relevant rules. Many of these rules were introduced in 1910 in effect as an instruction to Parliament as to how it should do its work. When such a rule becomes the practice it is no longer required. Besides eliminating the dead wood from our rules we have also achieved certain other things. We have made Parliament a more efficient machine. It will be more efficient because we shall have more streamlined rules under which we shall work. It will be more efficient because the length of certain debates will be limited; the length of time which members may speak will be limited; the number of speeches which members may make under certain circumstances will be limited; and there are other rules which will contribute to a curtailment of proceedings. One of the most important is that if a debate on the second reading has lasted for 12 hours, the Minister in charge can determine for how much longer the debate will continue; provided that it is for longer than another hour. This is a very big concession which the Opposition have made. I can say with gratification that this second attempt on my part to modernize our rules has met with great success. The first attempt was not successful. With the co-operation which we received from the Opposition on this occasion we have succeeded and I want to thank them for this. On the other hand we have also succeeded in protecting the rights of the Opposition under these new rules in a way which they have not enjoyed in the past. In this regard I am thinking of two important provisions. The one is the half-hour debate, that is to say, if the approval of Mr. Speaker is obtained on any day before the House adjourns, a debate can be held on the motion for the adjournment on any subject of which prior notice has been given. Provision has also been made for three debates during the session of two and a half hours each on any matter approved of by Mr. Speaker and which is of public importance. These and other provisions give protection to the Opposition which they did not enjoy before.

In this way, Mr. Speaker, by a process of give and take on both sides we have succeeded in giving our Parliament a procedure which I think will contribute greatly towards the smoother working of this House in future.

As chairman of that Committee I just want to express my thanks once again to the members on both sides of the House who served on that Committee for the outstanding work which they have done and for what they have achieved which I think represents a milestone in the procedural history of this House.

During his second-reading speech the hon. the Minister said that many members might have been shocked at the title of the Bill. It may be a shock to the Minister if I said we were going to oppose the Bill. Let me assure him we are not going to do so. By courtesy we had a preview of this Bill. It deals in the main with the modernization of and textural alterations to the 1911 Act. It is one of those Bills, fortunately I think, that has been little amended. That happens too frequently to Bills that we put on the Statute Book but this is one of the fortunate ones that has escaped that attention. Some of the archaic language has been removed. The need to clarify certain things has presented itself and I think that has been done. That is the main purpose of the Bill.

The Minister in charge also took the opportunity of mentioning a matter and that was the revision of the Rules that appertain to Parliament. What he said was quite correct. What I want to say is that all the changes to the Rules were agreed to unanimously by both parties in this House. And the report which was subsequently submitted to this House was adopted unanimously by this House. I think that shows the right spirit. Most radical and necessary changes have been made to the Rules. But I do not believe that Rules make this House work. It is a means of guiding the House but unless there is consultation and give and take through what is known as the normal channels, i.e. the Whips of the parties, then Parliament will not work because the spirit is not there to work Parliament. I believe that has to exist in order to work this Institution. We have to have some regard to its spirit and the conventions of Parliament. I believe that that is happening: I think that will increase the co-operation on the mechanical side of Parliament, for its better working and for better debates in Parliament. I look forward to the coming session when the new Rules will come into operation and when the Opposition will have the opportunity of expressing themselves perhaps more adequately the same way as the Government will have an opportunity of getting their business through the House. I think there is that balance in the Rules that have now been adopted by the House.

I do not want to make a long speech or go into detail as one could on this subject. I agree with what that hon. the Minister has said. We on this side of the House support the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

On Clause 18,

The hon. the Minister has told us that in this measure we are endeavouring to do away with archaisms. I thought that in the light of that I might draw his attention to an archaism which appears to be surviving. I am not sure that it should. Hon. members will notice that the marginal note is “summonsing of witnesses”. In line 35 you find the word “summonsed” and in line 43 you find “a person summonsed”. On reference to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary I find that “summons” is indeed a verb. The date is given as 1658 and it is stated to be now rare. They refer one to the verb “summon”, meanings 1 to 5. Under this word “summons” meanings 1 to 5, they state, under the second meaning, “to cite by authority to attend at a place named, especially to appear before a court or Judge to answer a charge or to give evidence, to issue a summons against”. I only rise to ask the hon. the Minister if he would just get his Department to look into the question of the correct spelling. I do not want to be dogmatic myself, but I think it is a rare spelling that is being retained in this Bill and, if the Minister wishes to keep it. then let it be preserved. On the other hand, if we wish to bring this up to date too, it may be wise to go into the matter. Having seen a draft of the Bill I think there was on the point some doubt in the minds of the draftsmen, because in the original text it was “summoned” but I notice that an “s” has now been inserted. I think there are passages in the Bill where the verb “summoned” is used. In other words, there are passages where the more usual spelling is used, and then there are places, like in Clause 18, where you get the rare spelling.

I shall bring this to the attention of the Government law advisers. The hon. member said that according to the Shorter Dictionary this was a rare form of the verb. We know that the legal mind often has a very rare approach to every-day subjects. I can assure him that had the lay members of this House drafted this Bill and not legal men we would have used the every-day spelling of that word and not the archaic form. We do not live in the rarified atmosphere in which the hon. member and his colleague at the Bar live. Because of the rarified atmosphere in which they live they have rather lost contact with modern developments. However I shall do my best to see if I can bring them down to earth and try to modernize them a little also although that is more the work of my colleague on my right.

I shall be very brief indeed. I should like to support the remarks of the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson). It is not only the lawyers that tend to become rarified and archaic because I have noticed in this House that there is a reference to the hon. the Prime Minister as the Rt. hon. the Prime Minister which he, of course, is not, not being a member of the British Privy Council. He is the hon. the Prime Minister. That is a fault which some of us in this House sometimes make. It is an archaism which, according to the hon. the Minister, is something to be regretted. I am not competent to deal with the Afrikaans version of that phrase which, I believe, is “sy hoogedele” which is also sometimes used. I do however suggest that the reference to the hon. the Prime Minister as the Rt. hon. as opposed to the hon. the Prime Minister is not correct.

Clause put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

Earlier in the Session I circulated amongst members a weighty document in connection with the United Nations conference on the Law of the Sea Official Record, Volume II and a summary of records of meetings and annexures. Knowing hon. members of this House I am perfectly certain that most of them, or all those who are interested in this Bill, have made a very thorough study of this document. This Bill has already been to Another Place where it was accepted with acclamation. I am quite sure that hon. members who are interested in this Bill would have read in the newspapers the debates which took place there. I dealt very fully with the matter in the Other Place and I do not think, with the knowledge hon. members have of the contents of this Bill, that it is necessary for me to deal as fully with it here as I did in the Other Place.

Sir, the waters round your coast are divided into two varieties namely your territorial waters or your interior or national waters. Your interior or national waters are the bays, gulfs, straits and rivers. They also contain what is known as historical waters, historical bays, such as Table Bay for instance, False Bay, Saldanha Bay which became part of the interior or national waters as accepted by all countries of the world. The other waters are territorial waters. You have the same right over your territorial waters as you have over your land. The distance to which these waters extend from the coast has varied from time to time. At one time it was suggested that they should be as far as the horizon and at another time, in the 16th century, it was two days’ navigation. But subsequently it was accepted that, as one of the legal people of that time put it, “the dominion of the land ends where the power of arms end”, that is, as far as you could shoot with a cannon from the coast. In those days a cannon could shoot with a certain amount of accuracy for a distance of one league or three nautical miles. So it became accepted that three nautical miles was the limit of your territorial waters and that all waters outside the three-mile limit were free to everybody and that nobody had any jurisdiction whatsoever over them.

Certain States have claimed that their territorial waters should exceed three miles. Norway insisted upon four miles; Greece adopted a six-mile limit in 1936. Since then Turkey, Chile, Canada, Great Britain and Iceland have all either passed legislation to extend their territorial waters or have given notice that they intend to do so. In 1930 the old United Nations held a conference where they tried to come to some international agreement as to what the extent of any country’s territorial waters should be. They failed. In 1960 a conference was held at Geneva in which an attempt was made and it was decided that a two-third majority would be necessary to make this applicable to all the countries that were members of the United Nations. They failed by one vote to get the two-thirds majority. What they said there was that they should adopt what was known as the six-twelve miles. Your territorial waters should extend for six miles over which you have absolute power and that for the next six nautical miles a State should be entitled “to establish a fishing zone contiguous to its territorial waters extending to a maximum of 12 miles from the base line in which it is to have the same rights in respect of fishing and the exploitation of living resources of the sea as it has in its own territorial waters”. In other words, a country would have had jurisdiction over the first six miles (to-day it is the three-mile limit) and it would have had fishing rights over the next six miles which no other country would have had the right to enter without permission of the country concerned. As I say, that was defeated by one vote. Since then a number of countries have adopted the six-twelve miles. The countries which have adopted that, as far as I know, are Spain, Portugal and Turkey. Canada has given notice that she will, Greece has already done so, Great Britain has given notice that she will and Iceland has already adopted it.

Another agreement was arrived at at this conference with regard to what is known as the Continental Shelf. The Continental Shelf is that part of your Continent which extends beyond your coast down to a depth of 200 metres. It gives to any country the right to exploit the Continental Shelf for the purpose of any minerals that may be there and also for any animal life which is attached to the bottom or which can only move while it is contiguous to the bottom. In other words, such things as oysters and various other shellfish. A two-third majority was not necessary for this but it has to be agreed to by the countries who attended that conference. In this Bill we agree to adopt the provisions laid down by that conference with regard to the Continental Shelf. These measures have become necessary for us on account of two things. The first is with regard to our very rich fishing grounds along our West Coast where other countries have been taking a greater and greater interest in the fishing along the West Coast, especially Russia, Japan and Spain, and we find it necessary to protect our rights as far as we think we should have the right to protect them and we feel that we have the right to protect them by adopting the convention of the six-twelve miles. As far as the Continental Shelf is concerned, as we all know they are beginning to get diamonds under the seas here and we wish to establish our right to be able to extract diamonds or precious metals from the Continental Shelf where it is possible to do so. That is why we have adopted the convention as far as the Continental Shelf is concerned.

The question arises, and it was put to me in the Other Place, how to apply sanctions to anybody who does not evade the laws of South Africa outside the three-mile limit which is in fact the only internationally agreed limit that we have at present. Well, Sir, you have to do here with two types of customs. In the first place if you have a country that has already for its waters proclaimed the six-twelve-mile-basis, then we can apply to them the same rule which they would apply to our ships if we went into their waters. So there we will have no difficulties. I might say that ever as far as the Russians are concerned along the West Coast they have acted along our West Coast as if we have already applied the six-twelve-mile limit. As far as countries are concerned who have not applied the six-twelve-mile limit to themselves and still adhere to the three-mile limit, it is a matter for negotiation. I hope in our case what will happen is not what happened in the beginning in respect of Iceland and Great Britain, but what subsequently happened, and that is that Iceland proclaimed the six-twelve-mile limit and arrested certain ships for trawling inside that and Britain at one time even sent a gunboat to protect her interests there; the two governments sensibly got together, and now they have come to an agreement in terms of which Britain acknowledges Iceland’s rights to the six-twelve-mile limit. It seems to me that nearly every country in the world to-day acknowledges the right of any other country to adopt the six-twelve-mile limit. The people who want the six-twelve-mile limit and those who want to adhere to the three-mile limit can be divided in two classes. The people who fish in other people’s territories, close to other people’s coasts, like the three-mile limit. Those who fish along their own coast like the six-twelve-mile limit. That is where the difficulty has arisen in the past. But as I say, more and more countries have started to adopt the six-twelve-mile limit. Canada, Great Britain, Turkey, Greece, have all given notice during 1963 that they intend to do so. I think it is to our advantage and in our interest that we should state quite categorically that we claim our rights to territorial waters up to six miles and we claim the right to protect the fishing for South Africa up to 12 miles and that we establish our right to take from the Continental Shelf what we are entitled to do by the International Convention. That is the reason for this Bill.

On our side of the House I think we are pleased to come to the last piece of legislation on the Order Paper as a measure which both sides of the House can be unanimous in accepting this Bill presented to us. The hon. Minister painted a very good picture of the necessity for the Bill and of the problems arising from it, as well as the general world picture developing in this regard. I think that when one takes into account the wealth, not only the mineral wealth, but also the fishing wealth which is located around our coasts, one can well agree with the principle that as a nation we should be looking to our interests and see that we safeguard these very fine assets. There is no question that already the existing wealth of the sea in respect of fish has attracted world attention. We have Russia, Japan and Spain, each of whom has fairly considerable fishing fleets operating off our coasts, and we have our own rapidly developing industry. Unless one moves in fairly early to draw the line of demarcation, we will find ourselves running into difficulties later. Of course one of the problems in regard to this particular type of legislation is the fact that you cannot draw a line to demarcate your limit. Unfortunately the sea does not lend itself to painting white lines or anchoring buoys. It is a line which is fairly elastic and it has to be left to some extent to the imagination of the fishermen and the people who control it. I read a piece in the Argus on Saturday night giving the views of some of the visiting skippers of the big foreign trawlers operating here, the big suction trawlers, and I was very taken by the remark of one of the captains when discussing a particular type of fish that is caught off the West Coast. This type of fish moves in towards the coast during a certain season of the year, coming well inside our territorial waters, or more so, the extended limit. At other times it moves out again and stays in deep waters. This chap told the reporter who was interviewing him that of course he would never dream of coming over the territorial fishing line to follow the fish. If the fish went inside the territorial line, he would then wait outside until the fish came out again. Well, I have not met any fishermen like that. That sounds to me like one of the best fishing stories I have heard for a long time. The old saying is “Fish are where you find them”. As the hon. Minister has said, this particular type of legislation has certain explosive elements in it, because fish are where you find them. If there is no control over the area, the vessels concerned are likely to stray over the line, accidentally; no skipper ever goes over the line intentionally. It is quite a matter of accident.

The same applies if you have the three-mile limit.

Certainly, except now we are moving the line out into deeper waters where the bigger fish are being found. Of course we have this added complication that fortunately for us, or unfortunately in another case, along the West coast we have also this promise or prospect of the glittering wealth of diamonds which is being so heavily predicted, all along the sea-bed. Undoubtedly there is very considerable evidence of the presence of diamonds there, and that again is likely to cause a little, shall we say, over-enthusiasm on the part of the people who want to get to grips with them. So although we are all agreed with these proposals, we must go into it with our eyes open. I think one may sum up the experience of the older nations who have had to deal with this type of control by saying that as far as the people in actual control on the site are concerned, it calls for somebody with a very good nautical knowledge and ability to correctly define whereabouts the fishing limit is, by the use of their instruments; it calls for all the knowledge and all the tact of a diplomat to hold the balance evenly between the “haves” and the “have-nots”, and it calls also for quite a lot of firmness in being able to impress on the chap who is not so willing to be impressed, that he has to submit to the control. I would suggest that that side might be very carefully examined by whichever authority is going to exercise this control. Because to pass the Bill will not in fact mean a thing unless we are in a position to exercise a reasonable measure of the control it provides for. It is another one of the measures in respect of which I think we must apply the principle of give and take.

The hon. Minister in introducing the Bill stated that there were two varieties of waters. I am not so sure that the hon. Minister was right. He is at present, but I am not so certain that there is not a third variety involved. The waters along the West Coast diamond area apparently destined to become “mineral waters”, and just like mineral waters, they are likely to fizz a bit if they are really worthwhile.

One question I wanted to ask is this: With the concessions that have already been given in regard to the diamond industry, the undersea diamond industry along the coast, can the Minister give us any information as to what the seaward limits of those concessions are? We understand that there was a connection between the seaward limit and what was then territorial limit or the Continental Shelf as far as our own country was concerned. With the new definition there is a possibility that our national seaward boundary will be moved further off the coast. Will that additional area now automatically devolve on the concessionaries in that particular area, or is there some fixed limit to the diamond concessions, and has an additional agreement to be reached as far as the extension is concerned? It is important from the financial point of view, because if these deposits do develop—and apparently there are those prospects—it will all be development on State land. The undersea land of the seabed is State land, and therefore there will quite likely be a respectable financial rake-off in respect of the State itself. It may well develop, if this industry prospers, that quite an appreciable revenue to the State will accrue, and that revenue would be increased by having the bigger area to work.

The Bill also provides for one other feature, and there I am sure I am speaking for the whole House, when I say that we wish every success to those who are exploiting that concession. That is the search for oil in the seabed under our coastal waters. There are certain oil concessions mooted and under discussion, and they also will fall under the control enacted by this Bill. There again I would suggest that some examination be made of the terms of these concessions so that the State’s rights, the national rights can be protected in that respect and also that any increase of the territory covered by the concession resulting from the extension of rights to exploit the Continental Shelf, will be taken into account. The boundary of the Continental Shelf, as I think the hon. Minister correctly stated, varies to some extent with the depth of water above the bed of the sea at a certain stage of the tide.

Two-hundred metres at low tides.

Yes, that may well mean that on the shallow type of coast the Continental Shelf may extend well beyond where we are establishing our new territorial boundaries.

Oh yes.

I think these are important matters which require consideration. With these remarks, we on this side of the House are quite prepared to give this Bill our blessing in all its stages. It is a measure to the benefit of the Republic as a whole.

I should like to have a little information. Some time ago the newspapers reported that Brazil had forbidden the French to fish near her coasts, and the distance according to the newspapers was approximately 200 miles. France refused to withdraw and Brazil insisted that she do so. The French then sent warships to protect her interests, and eventually the French withdrew as a result of a mutual agreement. What it means is that the French have now recognized the rights of the Brazilians up to 200 miles from the coast. That being so, I just want to point out that there is some concern in our country regarding the activities of the Russian fleet along the West coast of Africa. I do not think there is anyone who can say with certainty to-night what the Russians are really doing. It is assumed that they are fishing, but I do not think it can be said with certainty that that is their only object or their only activity. It is not necessary for me to say that when the Russians appear, there is trouble a year or two later. I am merely rising to put this matter and to ask the hon. the Minister whether France’s recognition that the territorial waters of Brazil extend to 200 miles from her coast will now be internationally recognized. To what extent will this apply in our case as far as keeping the Russians from our coasts is concerned? If the hon. the Minister can give us any information, I shall be glad.

I do not know about Brazil, but I know that Chile has a 200-mile limit, but that does not mean that her territorial waters extend for 200 miles. It only means that she has claimed the sole right to catch fish within a limit of 200 miles. The right of any ship to sail where it likes outside one’s territorial waters, and in terms of this Bill our territorial waters will extend for six miles, is generally recognized. Any ship is free to go where it likes outside the six miles. But what we are saying here is that between the six-mile and the 12-mile limits such a ship may not catch fish, but it can sail there. If the hon. member is afraid of the Russians, then we cannot stop them if they keep outside the six-mile limit, and no one would recognize it if we were to extend our territorial waters to 100 miles or 150 miles. No country in the world would recognize it. It is merely a question of fishing outside the six-mile limit, not of having control over the sea. Consequently if the Russians come here for purposes other than fishing, they can still come. We have adopted this six-twelve mile limit because we have a moral right to do so and because to an ever-increasing extent this is the recognized limit of one’s territorial waters. I am afraid that if the hon. member is concerned about the Russians they can come and do beyond the six-mile limit everything they could originally do beyond the three-mile limit. If it is any comfort to the hon. member, that is at least twice as far from the coast as is the position to-day.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) asked me whether this Bill affects in any way the concessions which have been given for the prospecting for diamonds on the West Coast. As far as my knowledge goes, it has nothing to do with that whatsoever, but it does make it possible for us to give concessions, if we so wish, as far as the Continental Shelf goes, because by ratifying the agreement that was entered into at Geneva, we take to ourselves the right to mine, to collect animals on the seabed, or to exploit it in any other way which we may wish, also as far as oil is concerned. The Americans have adopted that in the Gulf, because there they have adopted it for the exploitation of oil and they are exploiting oil from the Continental Shelf in the Gulf very far away from the coast indeed. It will enable us to grant concessions, if we so wish and if it is to the advantage of South Africa, because we can control those concessions, whereas we cannot control them at present. Everything over the three-mile limit is free for everybody at present and anybody can come and exploit our diamonds and oil there, if it were possible for them to do so. Now by ratifying this convention, we will be able to exploit it and we only will be able to exploit it and to give concessions and also to collect the taxes which we might from time to time apply.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

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

I move—

I have one question in respect of the reply the hon. Minister just gave in regard to mineral rights in territorial waters and the Continental Shelf. In some of the Press reports published in regard to the concessions given in respect of diamonds, it was stated that the area of the concession is defined on its seaward limits, the limits of the territorial waters of the Republic, and as we move out our territorial waters now from three to six miles, the point I raised was not so much as to whether this Bill applies to it, but whether in view of the fact that this Bill now extends the limits of the territorial waters, what the position will be from the legal point of view, and whether the outward boundary of the concession will automatically follow the limit of the territorial waters.

I will bring that to the attention of the Minister of Mines.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.