I move as an unopposed motion—

If this is not done, the debate on the motion of no-confidence will be limited to 2½ hours under the new Rules.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, in rising to move the motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper I should perhaps commence by remarking that in the recess, when Parliament is not sitting, the Government has two notable advantages over the Opposition. I think the first of those is the one-sided presentation of political news by Radio South Africa, and I think the second is what is becoming something of a habit on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister, namely, the making of political speeches over the radio under circumstances under which the Opposition has no equal opportunity of stating its point of view in respect of the subjects under consideration. In making that statement, I refer particularly to the New Year’s Eve Message of the hon. the Prime Minister at the end of last year which to me resembled something in the nature of the political leaders the hon. the Prime Minister used to write when he was editor of an organ supporting the Nationalist Party. One phrase particularly in that address over the radio attracted my attention; it was the suggestion that undermining the electorate’s support of this Government was an attack upon South Africa. Such a statement would be amusing were it not so sinister, because I believe it is the prerogative of all free people to attempt to change the thinking of the electorate in respect of the government of the day, particularly when we have a Government as bad as the present one. I would say that the policies of the Prime Minister should be no more protected from attack and intimidation from inside than they should be undermined by intimidation from outside, but I think our right to try to change the thinking of the electorate on these matters, just as the Government’s right to defend itself against subversion from outside, are prerogatives of any free people in any democratic country. May I say that as far as we on this side of the House are concerned our stand has always been the same. We will do everything we can to assist to resist intimidation of this Government from outside, but at the same time we stand on our right to seek the elimination of this harmful Government by proper democratic actions from inside. In doing so, we stand on the rock-bottom facts of the political situation of the present time, and not on the mirage of the hon. the Prime Minister’s imagination. I think those rock-bottom facts are, firstly, that separate development has been proved to be a phrase only and that it does not exist anywhere in reality. I think the second one is that our expansion and such prosperity as we enjoy at present result from an economic development based on the integrated co-operation of all races in South Africa. I think the third fact is that an appreciation of the differences and the race cultures must be recognized in the evolution of policies affecting South Africa. I think the fourth fact is the failure of this Government to govern South Africa as a modern state, and its inability to adapt itself to changed situations, the needs and the higher standards required for human conduct in our time. Having stated those facts, our motion in this House is part of our work to bring about a change of Government. It is not an attack upon South Africa. It is brought as evidence of our desire to see South Africa enjoying greater happiness, greater hope and greater genuine racial peace for all races in South Africa.

Of course, if one were to have listened to the speech of the hon. the State President at the opening of Parliament—and we know it is devised by the Government—then the impression would have been created that there are hardly any problems at all, or that those problems are so insignificant that they could easily be dissipated by the alleged supermen in power in the Government at present. Of course, Sir, thinking South Africans know how far from that pastoral ideal the real situation in South Africa is. The fact that we are enjoying a measure of prosperity at present does not mean that any of the problems with which we have had to wrestle for the past 15 years have been adequately solved. In fact, I believe that new problems are arising which this Government has failed to meet. Perhaps I should give a few examples of the failure of this Government to adapt itself to the necessities for change in a modern world which is undergoing something in the nature of a scientific revolution.

I think the first is that despite the manpower bottle-neck which is developing in South Africa at present, there was only passing reference in the State President’s speech to this matter, merely a reference that the Scientific Advisory Council was investigating the training facilities at the universities and technical colleges for scientific and technical training. It seems to me that this was just another example of the complete inability of this Government to adapt itself to the situation which has been developing. I can give many other examples. Let us take the question of manpower a little further. If prosperity is to be measured by the growth in the national economy, then what we have achieved over the past 12 years, save for the last 18 months or so, is nothing very unusual or anything to be very proud of for a young country. In fact, our growth is between 3 per cent and 3½ per cent per annum, taken over that period. That means that the Common Market countries have been growing twice as fast as we were on an average, and Japan three times as fast, and Russia probably 2½ times as fast. It means that old industrialized countries like the U.S.A. and Britain were growing at round about 4 per cent, but they were very worried about it and were hoping to emulate the Common Market countries, but they were still doing better than we in South Africa were doing with our tremendous potential riches.

But you prophesied that we would go bankrupt after becoming a Republic.

That hon. member’s imagination always runs away with him. I am the first to concede that there was a big improvement last year and in the 18 months previously, in so far as we have the figures. But the question we have to ask ourselves now is: Can that rate of improvement be maintained? It seems to me that that is exactly where the Government is letting us down, because it has failed to realize that prosperity is dependent at present upon development and scientific and technical advance. Our ultimate prosperity is going to depend on the speed with which we can come to terms with a world of change in which scientific and technical development are playing a bigger part than ever before in the history of mankind. It is not easy to make people understand how fast that scientific development is taking place at present, but perhaps it will be realized if I say that our children are accepting as ordinary everyday facts to-day what ten years ago would have been regarded as science fiction. Now, it does not seem to me that the Government is appreciating how fast we are developing, nor does it seem to me that it is appreciating the fundamental fact that there are not enough Whites at the moment to meet the demands of skilled and scientific work in South Africa if the present rate of development is to be maintained. The Whites provide only 19 per cent of our population. In most normal countries 4 per cent of the population is involved in skilled, technical, administrative and executive work. Here in South Africa that figure is already standing at 16 per cent of the White population. In other words, we have achieved a great deal, but it is still not enough, because we are a nation of 15,000,000 people, not just of 3,000,000 people. The result is that all those who have studied this subject impartially are coming to the conclusion that we are heading for a constrictive shortage of White labour in South Africa in the near future. It is estimated that by 1968 there will be a shortage of between 30,000 and 34,000 industrial workers. There will be a shortage of teachers and nurses amounting to 11,000, and a shortage of engineers amounting to over 3,000.

Nearly as big as the shortage of U.P. members!

I think the biggest lack in South Africa at the moment is ability on the part of the Government, and those shortages are becoming intensified every week. One is interested, too, in a statement by Dr. de Villiers, Chairman of the Defence. Resources Board, made only last year, in which he said that in the Department of Bantu Administration only 14 out of 27 posts for engineers were filled, and in the Public Works Department 15 out of 39 only, and in the S.A. Railways and Harbours there was a shortage of 118 engineers. Now, a shortage of trained personnel means not only a slowing up in our development, but it means that there will be growing unemployment among the non-Whites who are dependent upon those technically trained Whites to create opportunities of employment for them. I need hardly say that if you have over-employment amongst the Whites and unemployment among the non-Whites, you are creating the ideal situation for race friction in South Africa. So already we find that we are running into a shortage which is not enabling us to meet even the demands of the White community. As the result, from the figures supplied, it would appear that over 36 per cent of the White teachers teaching mathematics in South Africa are not properly qualified to do that job, and this is at a time when mathematics and the sciences are perhaps the most important subjects in the world. I believe that the figure for teachers in physical science is 28 per cent, and the figure for teachers in biology 26 per cent. Almost one-third of our teaching staff are regarded as temporary staff, which is indicative of the fact that they are not regarded as being properly qualified for their work. In other words, South Africa is reaping its corn while it is green. A recent survey shows that 79 per cent of the Bantu youth between 15 and 19 years of age are already at work, and that of the Whites 53 per cent of the youths and 42 per cent of the girls in that age-group are at work. In a country like the U.S.A., by comparison, the figure is 45 per cent of the youths and 30 per cent of the girls. What a difference, Sir, at a time when it is already becoming evident that the demands of industry will mean that 25 per cent of our manpower will be expected to have at least Std. X if they are to fill the jobs which are becoming vacant, and if we are to maintain our present standard of prosperity. Sir, I could go on, but I think I have said enough to indicate that this situation is threatening to become critical. I believe this situation has been allowed to arise because of a neglect of education by the Government find a neglect of immigration by the Government. I believe that as the result of their fear of going ahead with the old immigration policy of the United Party, we find ourselves in South Africa deprived of the skill, the stabilizing influence, of what might have been an additional population of nearly 1,000,000 Whites in the past 15 years. The problem is what should be done at the present time.

Now, I believe first of all the immigration policy embarked upon by this Government, too late and too half-heartedly, must be intensified very materially. But I believe the shortage is already so severe that it is doubtful whether by means of immigration we shall be able to catch up with the lag which has been created by this Government. Therefore be believe that a crash programme is necessary to try to meet the situation. We believe there are five important matters which should be tackled either in the manner which I shall outline, or in a manner similar to what I suggest.

Firstly, it seems to me that there must be increased salaries for technical staff in our Civil Service, our technical services and our universities, so that we may put an end to this drain on our skilled manpower in South Africa. I believe the figure for our M.Sc. students is that something like one in three are lost to South Africa; I believe, secondly, there must be better salaries and conditions for school-teachers, so that we can attract back into the profession many of those who have left it for other occupations. I believe, thirdly, there must be a relaxation in respect of what overseas qualifications we recognize in order to alleviate crippling shortages. That relaxation should, however, take place only in consultation with the professional and technical organizations concerned, but a definite move should be made in that direction, to enable us to use the skills of the sort of immigrants the hon. the Minister is able to get. I believe, fourthly, we can do a great deal by encouraging the employment of older people in South Africa, many of whom are finding it so difficult to get work at present. I wonder whether the Government should not set an example by laying down that where Government contracts are given out, other things being equal, preference should be given to those firms employing a fair percentage of people over 45 years of age. I believe, fifthly, that there should be provision made for assistance to every child who shows ability to be educated to the maximum of that ability, regardless of its parents’ capacity to pay for that education. Then there is a sixth point, and here I know I shall clash with hon. members opposite. I believe that we have to put an end to job reservation and replace it with the rate for the job. It seems to me it is impossible to ignore the wastefulness of arbitrary job reservation. Everyone who has studied this matter has come to the same conclusion. It is creating an artificial shortage of skilled labour. I quote here from Mr. Watson, chairman of the Johannesburg Consolidated Investment Company—

There was another report in the Star of a conference held in November last year—

It seems to me that in this matter the Government is making exactly the same mistake that it made in respect of immigration. It has had to eat its words in respect of immigration, too late; the facts were too strong for it. I believe it will have to eat its words in respect of job reservation as well. Already job reservation is doing irreparable harm here in South Africa. It is retarding development and it is causing inflation.

That is absolute nonsense! You have apparently not made a study of it.

The Minister of Transport always rushes in, yet it is an extraordinary thing that there has hardly been a single gathering of business men of any importance in South Africa in the last year which has not blamed the limitation of the use to which we have put our human resources as the main obstacle to South Africa’s future development. [Interjection.] It is no use the Minister trying to quote figures about one industry. He ought to know that job reservation is causing a shortage of potentially skilled labour and that there is the danger that it is creating inflation in South Africa already. If he wants an example, let him go to the building trade. What is happening in the building trade to-day? Here we find ourselves in the position that last year there were plans for many more millions than in the previous year. We find that the average age of a bricklayer in the Transvaal is 44 years. The average age in Durban I believe is 43 years, and yet every year there are fewer apprentices going into that trade. How is the Government going to meet it? Already building costs have risen during the last few years by close on 36 per cent. Does the Minister know that? Let me read what Mr. George Strachan, President of the Witwatersrand Builders’ Association, said. He warned the Government in November last year—

That is exactly what is going to happen. Now, it is not enough to have a piece of legislation on the statute book which is morally indefensible, but when it means something in the nature of economic suicide as well it seems to me that in considering a matter of this kind, because colour is involved, the Government loses its entire sense of judgment and its ability to judge these things fairly.

But fortunately there are signs that not everyone thinks like the hon. the Minister. The Prime Minister himself appears to have been giving this matter some consideration, because he said recently that where effect is given to such a policy it has to be applied in a manner which does not endanger the livelihood of trained White workers and also does not lead to mixed employment, because this would lead to racial friction and disturb the industrial peace. That was when proposals were made to him that this clause should be administered in a different way and that its administration should be relaxed to some extent. I wish I could convince the hon. the Prime Minister that no employer in South Africa wishes to create race friction or to disturb the industrial peace, and that we can safely leave it to the organizations of employers and employees, or to the agencies of the Department of Labour, to ensure that those frictions do not arise and that that industrial unrest is not created. I think we are agreed with the hon. the Prime Minister that we do not want to endanger the livelihood of White workers, and that goes not only for trained White workers but for untrained White workers as well. But in addition it goes for the Coloured and the Indian, and it goes also for those Bantu who have become accustomed to a higher standard of living and cannot take competition from people from the tribal areas who are not accustomed to those high standards at all. That is why we have suggested that job reservation be replaced by the proper application of the principle of the rate for the job.

Are you in favour of the abolition of the colour bar, too?

Would the Minister just give me an opportunity? We have suggested that no one would want to employ non-White labour in the place of White labour and pay them wages at a level on which White workers cannot compete. Secondly, we suggest that not only White workers must be so protected, but also Coloureds and Indians and those Bantu who have achieved higher standards of living. We suggest that in determining the rate for any job, proper consideration must be given to the actual wages paid in that occupation, and not only to the rate of payment laid down in industrial agreements and wage determinations, because we know that the wage paid on the whole is higher than the wage laid down in the agreements or the determination. We suggest that in removing job reservation from any form of employment, the whole matter should be done only after proper consultation and co-operation with the employers and the workers concerned. In that way we believe that we will protect the livelihood of the White worker, and that he will not be endangered, and that we will do South Africa a good turn economically and that we will improve our image in the world as well. But it is necessary to act now. We cannot delay for a moment, because the backlog is getting bigger and bigger and there is no chance whatever of its being made up even by the immigration policy being applied at present.

Now, I have given one example, but I believe the next failure of the Government is going to be in the field of economic planning. It is not that the Government does not get the right advice. I believe it does get the right advice, but for idealogical reasons the Government is not prepared to act on that advice. Already we have had Dr. van Eck, the chairman of the Industrial Development Corporation, calling on the Government to encourage the decentralization of industry with adequate incentives to all approved areas, and not just the areas set aside for border industries. Sir, what is the position? The platteland to-day is losing more and more White inhabitants and the number of Black inhabitants of the rural areas is growing faster and faster. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs has told us that we can expect to lose farmers from the land at the rate of 2,400 per annum from 1963 to 1968, in addition to the 28,000 who have already been lost while this Government was in power. In other words, all the indications are that in so far as this Government is concerned in the platteland we have apartheid in reverse. The platteland is getting blacker and blacker, and I can well imagine how the inhabitants of those areas, neglected by this Government, would welcome incentives to establish industries on the same basis as in the border areas. But I do not suppose the Government will give ear to this plea, just as I do not suppose they will give ear to my suggestions for a crash programme to deal with the labour shortage. Tragically, the times in which we live are times in which urgent adjustment is necessary, but unfortunately this Government is too timid to make those urgent adjustments, and when they do try to adjust their adjustments are nearly always ineffectual and unco-ordinated. I have given one example of their inability to adjust. May I now give another?

We have seen an upsurge in our economy in the last year or 18 months, of which the Minister of Finance is very proud indeed, although he is already talking about taking his feet off the accelerator before the effects of that upsurge have reached the agricultural community. But that upsurge in our economy is not due to the success of Government policy; it is due to the failure of Government policy in respect of the non-White population, because in the last 10 years the Bantu population of our urban areas has increased by over a million. Is that Government policy? Is that what they have been working for? No, they were working for the opposite, but because they did not succeed there were additional employees in our urban factories and industries, and they have contributed to that economic upsurge from which the whole population is benefiting at present. Not only has their policy failed because of the logic of economic facts, but it has failed for another reason. It has failed because their policy has not been accepted by the non-White population of South Africa. The mere fact that there are 1,000,000 more of them who came from the reserves to the urban areas indicates that they are moving in a different direction from that desired by the Government. But if you want proof that they do not accept Government policy, look at the results of the recent election in the Transkei for the Legislative Assembly. There the one man who came out and stood for multi-racialism, despite the fact that it was contrary to the constitution which this Government has given them, has the overwhelming support of the ordinary man and woman in the Transkei. I wonder how many more would not have voted for him were it not for the fact that they believed it was against the constitution and because they believed that they would never be able to apply it as the result of interference by this Government. And I believe that goes particularly for the chiefs. No wonder the Deputy Minister for Bantu Administration told us at the end of last session that the Government is not contemplating the establishment of further Bantu-stans for the present. Sir, it fascinates me that this Government is unable to appreciate that the main course which it is set to follow, to prevent the flow of Black men to the cities, is in itself an act of economic integration. It believes it is going to prevent the flow of Black men into our urban areas by establishing industries on the borders of existing reserves and the future Bantustans. To that end great inducements are offered to industrialists to establish themselves there, not in Cape Town or in Johannesburg or in Bloemfontein or even in Pretoria itself, but in places like King William’s Town, Rustenburg, Rosslyn in the Transvaal, Elangeni in Natal and other places of that kind. Sir, the factories being established in those areas are still White-owned, they are still White-controlled, they are still dependent on Native labour in the same way as the factories in our existing industrial areas. The Government seems to think there is some magical virtue in the only difference that exists between the two lines of development. What is that difference? The only difference is that in the existing industrial areas the Bantu workers live in their own industrial townships; on the borders of the reserves they will live inside the reserves or inside the adjacent Bantustans, but it will still be economic integration, White skill, White initiative and White capital co-operating with Black labour. The only difference, I think, is that it will be more dangerous on the borders of the reserves because if Government policy is carried out then those workers will be citizens of a foreign state. But there is no less integration. The integration is there all the same.

That is very childish.

But, Sir, there is one Deputy Minister on that side of the House who seems to perceive the facts of the situation, who seems to perceive that increased industrialization, wherever it may be, with the consequent prosperity is ultimately fatal to the Government’s dream of apartheid, and that is the hon. the Deputy the Minister of Labour who in a speech last year said—

I shall not deal with one arm of the pincer; I will deal with the other—

Sir, I commend the hon. the Deputy Minister; he is right. Apartheid and prosperity cannot go hand in hand and the hon. gentleman has seen it. He has observed it only dimly but it is the first sign of improvement we have seen on that side of the House for some considerable time. But, Sir, the tragedy is that this Government seems to fail to appreciate that in a mature society the progress and prosperity in South Africa depend upon the common effort of all our peoples and not just one section. It is because this Government is so impotent to bring about grand apartheid and maintain prosperity that it seems to me it has been concentrating upon what is known as little apartheid in an attempt to deceive its people and sometimes itself that it is really carrying out policies of a kind which were not carried out in the past. Now, Sir, what do you mean by “klein apartheid”? I think it means those traditions and those laws which have to do with race relations which are not necessary for the survival of Western civilization or the maintenance of our traditional way of life in South Africa. Petty apartheid in spirit runs contrary to the recommendations of virtually every student of race relations in South Africa. We had statements from Mr. Justice Snyman when he reported on the Paarl riots, indicating what harm can be done when proper regard is not had to the dignity of the human being; we have had it in many other reports and, Sir, with its continuous hurting of the dignity of human beings it is out of place in our day, and any Government which applies it is nothing more nor less than an anachronism. Sir, it is in this shadow land between grandiose apartheid and petty apartheid that we find the operation of what is known as the pass laws. We all know that a measure of control is necessary; we are agreed on that, but we are in a situation to-day where the Government finds it impossible to mitigate those laws. It appealed to the police some years ago not to act so severely in regard to the pass laws, but in 1962 there were 44,000 more convictions than at the time when that appeal was made. Sir, while we realize that some limitation is necessary, we believe a great deal could be done by a reintroduction of the system of exemptions which was practised under the United Party for the responsible class of Bantu who shows that he has respect for the law and tries to be a law-abiding citizen. I believe that had that been done there would have been many more responsible Bantu on the side of the Government in the fight for law and order and the fight against sedition than is the position at the present time. Sir, this Government does not seem to realize that our security cannot depend upon repressive laws alone. No matter how hard our police are made to work to enforce negative measures we will never have security unless we have the goodwill and co-operation of all races in South Africa. Sir, this goes particularly for the Cape Coloured people. The Cape Coloured people because there is no homeland for them, because no grand apartheid can be applied to them, are the victims day after day of the pinpricks of petty apartheid, and they are now apparently going to be offered by the Minister of Community Development even less than is being offered to the Bantu in respect of control of their own people.

But, Sir, let us return to the pass laws. While you have the position that every day at least a thousand people are convicted, that hundreds of thousands are convicted every year for contravention of laws to which no moral turpitude attaches, I think you are inflicting an impossible task upon your Police Force. And, Sir, I want to say this about our Police Force. By and large they are a fine body of men who have done a magnificent job in recent months in meeting the difficulties with which we have had to cope, and I think when occasional malpractices are brought before the court it must be remembered that those cases are investigated and the charge is very often laid by members of the force themselves against their own fellow-policemen. But the police have been clothed in recent months with very wide powers indeed and it seems to me that because they are clothed with those wide powers there is a need for proper direction and leadership as never before, and regrettably in past months there has been a number of incidents which lead me to believe that direction and leadership have been lacking. [Interjection.] My hon. friend, the member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker), is partially waking up again! The first example which I want to discuss, particularly with that hon. member, is the situation which arose after the Rivonia raid which was hailed by the police as a breakthrough in the battle against subversion. They got into their hands two detainees, Goldreich and Wolpe, whom they regarded as possibly their Nos. 1 and 2 detainees in South Africa. Just imagine it, Sir! Having detained them they guarded them so insecurely that those detainees were able to escape with the connivance of one single 18-year-old policeman. Sir, what do you imagine would be the fate of any commanding officer in any army in the world who having captured opponents of that importance guarded them so insecurely? I believe the hon. member of Cradock would have done better! I do not think I need take it any further, but it does seem to me that there is evidence of something being wrong when a situation of that kind can develop.

Then there is a second example that I want to raise, a most unpleasant one but one which must be tackled because it has a background and a history, however sordid and unpleasant that background may be. The history is simple: In May 1959 the public was revolted when it appeared in certain court proceedings that the State was using policemen who as traps in prostitution cases actually had intercourse with the accused persons in order to establish their cases.

Disgraceful.

I raised this matter myself in the House with the then Minister of Justice and was given the assurance that nothing of that kind would ever happen again and that the strictest inquiry would be held. A few months after that, however, there was evidence which revealed that in similar cases the State was using civilian personnel in the same way and for the same purpose. The Minister of Justice at that time reacted very sharply indeed. There was a suggestion from the police that there had been a misunderstanding about the Minister’s former directive but it was stated that in future traps, whether constables or civilian personnel, would not be used in cases of this kind. The Commissioner of Police at the time made a strong statement in which he made it absolutely clear that the use of traps in all sexual cases would be discontinued and he mentioned statutory immorality cases by name. Last year, I believe I am correct in saying, a question was put on the Order Paper asking the present Minister of Justice whether that directive was still observed and whether that rule still applied, and I believe the hon. the Minister’s reply was that with minor variations it was still being strictly applied. Despite all these assurances, I think we were all shocked and revolted when in the dying days of last year we read a report of a judgment by Mr. Justice Hill, in the Supreme Court in Pretoria, that not only had a White woman been used as a trap in an immorality case but that she had been used to trap a young Indian who according to the Judge would not have committed the act if the trap and complainant had not enticed him. Not unnaturally the Judge reacted very strongly. He quashed the conviction and sentence and he said that this was the first time in his 10 years on the Bench that a woman’s body had been made use of to trap a man under the Immorality Act and he hoped it was the last occasion.

Sir, so much for the judicial action. I have to paint the background even if it does shock certain hon. members in that corner. What we as an Opposition are entitled to know is this: How does it come about in a disciplined force in which express instructions have been given by the previous Minister, supported by a statement by the Commissioner of Police, that this state of affairs could ever be allowed to arise?

As usual you have your facts all wrong.

If I have them wrong the Judge had them wrong. Sir, the Minister has made no statement on this matter as yet; I say that in fairness to him. The Commissioner of Police, when approached by the Press, presumably speaking for the Minister, denied that the police were in the habit of using White women as traps for non-Whites and suggested that the woman had probably been used as a trap for a White man; he did not say for what offence. In fairness it must be said also that the Commissioner said he had no knowledge of the particular case, but I think we here in Parliament are entitled to an explanation from the State as to the reasons for a repetition, in an aggravated form, of a state of affairs in regard to which we were given assurances in the past and which must be abhorrent to every decent person in South Africa. I have been reading the debates in this House in 1959, and I expressed myself very strongly on the subject and the then Minister of Justice reacted very strongly. I would go so far as to say that if there is one thing that characterizes a civilized people then it is respect for their womenfolk, but here we have a case in respect of which the other Judge sitting in the case, Mr. Justice Marais, said that the crime would not have been committed if the police had not taken the initiative in the matter. I want to say for my part that if the facts as outlined in these judgments are correct, then I think the action by the State is an insult to every woman in South Africa, and I think we are entitled to ask, if they are correct, what is the value of assurances from that side of the House—two assurances by the former Minister of Justice and an assurance by this hon. Minister last year—if they are not capable of being carried out by what should be the most disciplined body of men in South Africa.

Are you sure your facts are correct?

I have taken them from the judgments. The Judges may have been wrong of course. Perhaps they do not know as much about it as the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop).

Now I come to a third example where I think direction and control is lacking, and that is the statement which was made by a senior officer, if not the senior officer, of the Security Branch, Colonel van den Berg, on 26 August last year concerning the situation building up from the security angle in respect of Bechuanaland. He is reported as follows—

According to the British note in reply it would appear that he stated—

There is no doubt that there was comment; it was not just a statement of fact but, Sir, what defeats me is that here is what must be an extremely delicate matter, an extremely delicate matter which must have a big effect upon the relations between the Republic and the Protectorates and a big effect on the relations between the Republic and Great Britain herself, and at a time when we know from statements made in this House that negotiations between the Republic and Great Britain are still in progress concerning reciprocal treatment of each other’s nationals, we have a statement like this from an officer in the Police Force. What we cannot understand is how it should come about that an intelligent police officer should feel free to make a statement of that kind under the present administration. I think we want to know. Was the statement made with the Minister’s knowledge and consent? Did he condone it? Has he issued any instructions as to future statements of that kind or has the matter just been left for each to go his own sweet way as he thinks fit regardless of the effect upon inter-governmental relations between the Republic and Great Britain herself? Small wonder that Great Britain’s reaction was very sharp.

Then I come to my fourth example of administration under the direction of this hon. Minister, and that concerns the case, a month or so ago, where it appears that 300 Indians were arrested in and around a Johannesburg cinema, taken in police vans to the police station, charged with illegally attending a performance in a cinema on Sunday, and in many cases allowed to pay admissions of guilt. It now appears that police permission had been duly obtained to hold the performance.

A charity performance too.

You know, Sir, this would be a comic opera performance in any part of the world, and yet it has happened in the administration of justice in South Africa under the present Minister. I believe I am correct in saying that the Department is now busy repaying the fines of those who paid admissions of guilt. How does a situation of that kind arise, if there is proper direction and control? And this is not all! The hon. the Minister always seems to be in hot water. There is another case; there is the case of a detainee here in Cape Town, Albie Sachs, on whose behalf the court was petitioned in respect of his rights as a detainee. The court declared that the detainee was entitled to reasonable periods of daily exercise and to be supplied and to be permitted to receive a reasonable supply of reading matter and writing material. What is important is that the application was opposed by the State, and when judgment was given it was announced from the office of the Deputy State Attorney in Cape Town that the State was going to appeal. Whether that appeal has been proceeded with or not I do not know, but that is the announcement that was made in the Press. But, Sir, during the hearing counsel for the State, representing the officer of the security branch who was respondent nomine officio, submitted that a detainee undergoing detention in terms of Section 17 of the General Law Amendment Act was in fact undergoing imprisonment and had no rights and that privileges to be afforded in the goal were at the discretion of the detaining officer, subject to one limitation, that the detainee must be delivered up unimpaired in his mental and physical health at the end of his period of detention. The odd thing is that at the end of the case, despite the fact that it was announced to the Press that an appeal had been lodged, there was a statement from the Commissioner of Police that those privileges had always been accorded to detainees, and to-day we have a statement from the hon. the Minister that these detainees are treated like awaiting-trial prisoners, subject to variations because of security reasons. Sir, where are we? [Interjections.] Who is right—that noisy member in the corner? Is he right, is the Minister right, is the Judge right, where are we? What a muddle we are in! What we want to know is what the attitude of the State is in regard to these matters. We have been told to-day that the regulations which are applied are those which are being applied to awaiting-trial prisoners. Why did the police officers concerned not know that? Why was that not the State case?

I want to deal now with the position of 90-day detainees in general. I want to say that this clause, this piece of legislation, has received a tremendous amount of publicity overseas; that very few things have been criticized so severely overseas as this legislation; that very few things have done so much to harm our good name overseas as this particular piece of legislation. The latest example of the sort of propaganda that is being made is in a brochure given out by the A.N.C. in London, entitled “Brute Force”, making the most virulent accusations against this Government as to its treatment of prisoners and as to its treatment of detainees in particular.

Sir, it is very important that any suspicions created by a pamphlet of that kind should be destroyed as soon as possible in the interests of the good name of South Africa, and it is very important that our representatives overseas should be in proper possession of all the facts in connection with these matters. What has happened? We have had a senior representative of the Government, our Ambassador in Washington, trying to explain and defend the contents of this 90-day clause in a letter to the New York Times, and we have had it proved pretty conclusively that he did not know what the clause was about and that he did not understand the legislation, and as a result correspondents in the New York Times were able to point out that he had made mistakes and had—I accept, entirely innocently and honestly—misrepresented the position.

You are now talking like a representative of the criminals.

Sir, here I am, trying to help these people, to put the best face on a tragic piece of legislation, trying to help them to save South Africa’s good name, and what are they doing? They are not interested.

What about dealing with policy?

I want to know who gave that senior Ambassador the information concerning this legislation? He is far too experienced an officer to have made statements of that kind without having received instructions from South Africa. Did he get them through the Foreign Affairs Department or did he get them through the Department of Justice? Somewhere there has been negligence, shocking negligence. Dr. Naude himself has been let down; South Africa has been let down and has been harmed, and who is going to carry the blame? I say that misconceptions as to the meaning of a controversial piece of legislation are bad enough. I referred earlier to this pamphlet “Brute Force”, and I believe that now we are in danger of even more harmful propaganda being made against South Africa concerning the manner in which this clause is administered and concerning the treatment of the detainees themselves. I think this is of particular importance because of the assurances given at the time by the Minister himself when the legislation was passed. He said then that he regarded it as a personal responsibility to ensure that particularly the 90-day clause was not abused. Let me quote his words (Col. 4874)—

Of course, it has not been limited to 90 days; it is 90 days at a time and I think some of the detainees are now being detained for the third time. But, Sir, there were other statements by the Minister, and I know that in these circumstances he will be jealous of his reputation and that he will be giving attention to any complaints which have reached him from magistrates who interviewed detainees while under detention and that he will have taken note of evidence given in trials and inquests in respect of what has happened to detainees. He will know, as well as I know, that prisoners are slow to complain, especially when they fear that the result of their complaints may be that they will be subjected to more of the alleged treatment of which they are complaining. Sir, there has been some disquieting reports in our newspapers and some disquieting documents have been made available to me. First of all there was an allegation in the overseas Press …

Have they been made available to you?

Yes. I will make them available to the Minister in due course.

How long have you had them?

I have had permission to use them only for about 72 hours. I know that allegations of ill-treatment made overseas were denied by the police, but was there any investigation at the time? It is known that one detainee committed suicide. I believe also that two detainees were in Valkenberg for a time. For all I know they are still there. It must be presumed that they were perfectly sane when they were detained. Will the Minister tell us what has happened to them and what the position is?

That question was on the Order Paper to-day.

Yes, but the Minister did not answer it. Thirdly, there was the allegation that was made at the inquest of Looksmart Ngudle by counsel for the widow that he was prepared to bring evidence by 22 witnesses who would allege that they had been ill-treated. I know that the magistrate ruled this evidence inadmissible for the purposes of the inquest, but copies of alleged statements by these witnesses have been made available to me, and they make somewhat grim reading. There was also evidence in that case of a detainee who stated that he had been ill-treated, in fact, tortured. He gave evidence before that court and I know he was very closely cross-examined. There is also the case of a witness in the Cape Town case whose confession was ruled out because the Crown had not discharged the onus that it was freely and voluntarily given. There was evidence also in the inquest of a man being brought before the court whose hands, it was alleged, were still black as a result of his having been given electrical shocks. There is a further affidavit by another detainee which I am not free to disclose publicly, but which I shall show the Minister privately, because it is going to be the subject of litigation.

It is amazing that they only showed you these affidavits and not me.

They offered them to the court; there was no trouble about it. Counsel got up and stated he was prepared to lead that evidence. And he would have done so had he not been ruled out of order. Surely the hon. the Minister must know it. It was reported in most newspapers. I am well aware that these statements may not be held to be substantiated because of lack of corroboration; it may be held that many of these complaints are groundless. I have enough experience of the courts to know the situation in respect of people who make confessions and try to get away from them.

Yet you make it an issue in a motion of no-confidence speech.

Of course I do. I told the Minister last year I would. I told him that I would lay at his door any evidence of abuses. I am doing it because this is no ordinary matter with which we are dealing; we are dealing with a matter which affects the good name and the international reputation of our own country; something which we should all be jealous to protect. This is how I do it. I told the Minister last year I would do it. [Interjections.] I suppose the hon. the Minister of Information would like me to see him privately. What good would that do? I wonder whether in those circumstances the hon. the Minister himself would not be wise to recommend that the request from our Congress be accepted for the appointment of a judicial commission to investigate the treatment of detainees generally, so that if these complaints are groundless let it be said: “Here is the decision of a judicial commission; there is no slur on South Africa’s good name.” But, Sir, if there is ground for these complaints let us know that also and let us put an end to this sort of treatment of prisoners and detainees. I regard this matter as of vital importance because psychiatrists and psychologists throughout South Africa have already been warning this Minister that they regard the detention of an individual in solitary confinement for a period of 90 days as being a form of torture. I want to say that should there be any suspicion at all that there is added to that discomfort any duress or torture of any other kind, a situation will arise which will do South Africa more harm than anything which has happened since this Government came into power; something that will so affect our own consciences that we will have difficulty in trying to defend our own country in this matter.

We on this side of the House have always opposed this clause; we have been against it. The statements by psychiatrists and psychologists have lent a great deal of weight to our opposition and have lent weight to the plea that we have made that when the time for which this clause is in operation expires, the Government advise the State President not to repromulgate it. These psychologists and psychiatrists pointed out not only the serious consequences to people who are confined in solitary confinement in this way but they pointed out something worse and that is that they warned the Minister that evidence obtained in this way may be misleading and false. They have suggested that prolonged isolation might cause a disturbance of judgment to a point where the individual’s testimony is no longer reliable and that the results of interrogation of detainees in such a state might well be untrustworthy. I want to suggest to this hon. Minister that he cannot ignore evidence of so weighty a kind, especially when he tells us that he has the position under control and that the dangers with which he had to cope have now ceased to exist. Or is it going to be like Proclamation 400 in the Transkei which goes on and on and on despite the fact that we are told there is peace and quiet and that everything is going on quietly and restfully? Sir, I cannot believe that a Minister of a South African Government would lightly want powers which he now knows could lead to intense distress and impairment of the mental functions of those who are affected. Nor can I believe that he wants to resort to methods to extract information which he now knows may be utterly unreliable and untrustworthy. But leaving aside this whole question of this 90-day section, I think I have said enough in respect of the administration of justice to ask the hon. the Prime Minister, in the light of the matters which have been raised, whether he in his turn is satisfied with the Minister’s administration of his portfolio? I think that is a question which arises. As I have said this Minister always seems to be in hot water of one kind or another.

There was another case where there was an investigation by the Chief of the Security Branch into the alleged theft of documents from the Broederbond. When the hon. the Minister was asked why that investigation took place by the Chief of the Security Branch he replied that it had a security angle whereas the Commissioner of Police replied that the Chief of the Security Branch acted as an ordinary policeman in doing the job! They cannot both be right; who was wrong? Or is it, Sir, that the hon. the Minister has got so much into that way of thinking that he identifies the Broederbond with the State itself? That may be the cause. That will not be surprising because for a long time the United Party has known that in Government thinking there was an inner circle and an outer circle of Afrikaners because no Afrikaans-speaking person in the United Party could ever hope to penetrate that inner circle. What we did not know, Sir, but what we suspected, of coursewas that the vast majority of Nationalist supporters also could not penetrate that so-called inner circle of super de luxe Afrikaners. It seems that that inner circle is reserved for members and supporters and people who think like the Broederbond. I want to say it is not easy to estimate the influence of this organization at the present time. We know, of course, that many members of the Cabinet are members of the Bond; we know that many members opposite are members of the Bond.

How do you know?

Many of them have admitted it.

What about Etienne Malan?

Members opposite may be surprised to hear two things, Mr. Speaker: Firstly, that there have been lists of members. Those lists have been available from time to time. Those lists have not been denied by the Broeders. Secondly, certain Broeders have been prepared to admit that they were members. Thirdly, the Broederbond has recently apparently published lists warning people that certain people who claimed to be members were not members, so as to maintain their exclusiveness. So I think if the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) had claimed to be a member of the Broederbond he could have expected his name to appear on a list of that kind. As I have said, we know that many members of the Cabinet are members of the Bond, that many members opposite are members of the Bond and that many disappointed members opposite are not members of the Bond. I have tried to estimate the influence of this organization. It seems to me to be an important organization where not only is the alleged theft of certain of its documents—which apparently turned out not to have been a theft—investigated by the Chief of the Security Branch but where Radio South Africa is prepared to interrupt its usual programme to publish an apologia from a Bond which remains an anonymous organization. Whatever the Bond’s original objectives may have been—some of the original Broeders, of course, became disappointed and disillusioned and left the Bond—there is a good deal of evidence to indicate that at least by the year 1933 the Bond had begun to play a political role behind the scenes in South Africa. It is quite clear that General Hertzog denounced it roundly when he indicated from certain papers available to him at the time that the objective of the Bond at the time was that it should rule South Africa. He also made it clear that in his opinion membership of the Broederbond made it impossible for a person to co-operate genuinely with his fellow South Africans who happen to be English-speaking. Here is what General Hertzog said:

And now the Jews are writing his name in the Golden Book of Zion.

Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised at that hon. member, after his record in connection with the Jewish people of South Africa, for daring to mention their name in this House. I think if ever there has been a member who has a disgraceful record in respect of the Jewish people it is that hon. member. The fact that what he says creates so much amusement on that side is an indication to me that that side of the House has not given up the anti-Semitism for which it was so well known prior to the war years. Every time we have reaction of that kind, we shall make it perfectly clear that we believe that there is a continuation of that anti-Semitism which they are trying so hard to forget.

I have read what General Hertzog said on this matter. It must be noted that the next Prime Minister, General Smuts, also thought it necessary to warn his fellow-Afrikaners what the position was. I should, however, like to read just one more passage from General Hertzog. He dealt with eight other members of the Nationalist Party who were also members of the Broederbond and he said—

I know, Mr. Speaker, that I will be told that General Hertzog changed his mind.

You betrayed him.

The funny thing is that he made that statement when the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) was following and backing him. I cannot believe that a man of General Hertzog’s integrity would change his mind on a matter of such importance and not have published wide and far any recantations from the attitude he adopted. I want to see the public statement by General Hertzog in which he says that he has changed his mind on this issue. But I go further. Not only General Hertzog condemned the Bond but General Smuts also found it necessary to do so. He accused it of being a sort of Gestapo and he declared it as a dangerous, cunning, political fascist organization. Here is what he said—

Then he went on—

In response to that statement a series of articles were written by the Secretary of the Broederbond and published in the Transvaler. The secretary at that time was Mr. Lombard. He explained the purpose and organization of the Bond. He set out its aims, viz. (a) to bring about a healthy and progressive unanimity amongst Afrikaners who strive for the welfare of the Afrikaner nation; (b) to arouse the Afrikaner’s national self-consciousness and to implant a love for his language, traditions, religion, country and people; (c) the furtherance of all the interests of the Afrikaner nation. He also stated in fairness that its highest aim was honourable service to Afrikanerdom. He defended its secrecy on the grounds that (a) publicity would lead its members to be governed by personal ambition rather than selfless service and (b) that premature disclosures might result in half-baked plans and give competitors or enemies the chance to undermine plans laid in the interests of the people. He also dealt with the seven-fold political ideal of Bond members. One of those was the rehabilitation of the farming community. We do not see much evidence of that to-day. The second one was the nationalization of the money market. I take it the Minister of Finance still stands for that. Third—the most important—the Afrikanerization of our public life and our teaching and education in a Christian national spirit. He also makes the point that membership is by invitation only, extended by a particular group only after rigid investigation and approval by all local members. He says the important questions are: What service can he be to the organization and how representative is he of his section of the volk. He disclosed at that time that about one-third of the members were school teachers. It is also fair to say that as a result of widespread criticism, the Dutch Reformed Church appointed a commission to investigate the Broederbond, its activities and its tendencies. That commission, making use of documents made available to it by the Executive Committee of the Bond, issued a report in 1951 to the Council of Churches that the Broederbond was wholesome and sound and declared that it concerned itself only with the Afrikaner people and sought only to further the best interests of the Afrikaner nation. “All that Bond members must have is a devoted loyalty to South Africa.” I would be the first to concede that there is nothing inherently wrong in a group of people working together to advance causes which they treasure. On the other hand the very secrecy of Broederbond activities cannot but help rouse suspicions. The point to which we have to direct our attention is what is meant by Afrikanerization and what is meant by the Afrikaner nation. Mr. Speaker, I believe the word “Afrikaner” was first officially used in this country round about the year 1827 by an English settler, one Heatlie, in a letter to Lord Charles Somerset complaining about the activities of one of his magistrates who was an imported man. He advised Lord Charles Somerset instead to appoint Afrikaners to do jobs of that kind. I do not believe that the Broederbond means by “Afrikaner” what Mr. Heatlie meant. I do not believe the Church Council meant by “Afrikaner” what the Broederbond meant.

Do you believe what the Sunday Times says?

No, I believe what General Hertzog said. I believe he was right when he said that when the Broederbond spoke about the Afrikaner people, the Afrikaner nation, and the Afrikanerization of our national life, they spoke not of the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population but only of that section of the Afrikaans-speaking people who supported their ideas, their aims and their ideologies. I believe that General Hertzog was right too when he said that the Broederbond aimed to dominate South Africa. I want to go further, Sir, and say that many of us had hoped that when the Republic, which was the Broederbond’s greatest ideal, was attained it would cease its activities behind the scenes as a political organization. But I think revelations in recent months have made it clear that so far from being satisfied the Bond’s appetite is insatiable. It is continuing its activities; it is trying to establish its position even more strongly. I think that recent revelations in the Press have made it clear that it is still trying to work its members into key positions in South Africa. I think it has also made it clear that it is still exclusive; otherwise why the warning that certain people claiming to be members were not members? Thirdly, I think it is still secret and therefore it is still subject to suspicion. One cannot help getting the impression that it is making use of organized nepotism on a large scale to place its members in positions to achieve the exclusive aims for which the Broederbond stand. I do not think it matters very much whether my conclusions are correct or incorrect. I believe they are correct. But suspicion exists and while it exists—it will exist as long as the society is secret—we shall never get true national unity in South Africa. That is why I challenge the hon. the Prime Minister, in the interests of South Africa, either to arrange to reveal the constitution and the objectives of the Bond and its membership or himself to resign so that there could be no suggestion that his first loyalty was to a sectional group and not to South Africa. I thought, Sir, that that was justified because of the extremely difficult situation in which South Africa found herself at the present time. I know I shall be told that the Broederbond is like the Cabinet—it is secret. That was the story Mr. Lombard told. But everybody knows who is in the Cabinet and knows why they are there. I will be told it is like the Freemasons or like the Sons of England, but anyone can apply to join the Freemasons or the Sons of England. Can anyone apply to join the Broederbond? [Interjections.] I suggest the hon. member for Cradock be used as a test case. Let him apply. As far as I am concerned, Sir, those apologia hold no water whatever. The trouble is that very few people know who the members of the Broederbond are or why they are selected. Any secret organization in public life is unhealthy because it could have aims different from those of the people with whom it is associated in business or in public life. When you sit in a meeting in South Africa to-day with members who may be Broeders you do not know what the Bond has decided in advance as to what the position ought to be; you do not know what the aims of those people are; you do not know whether they are the same as those of the organization for which you are working. Any director on a board of directors, if he has a financial interest, has to disclose it. I wonder how many Broeders sitting on boards or on committees reveal that they are members of the Broederbond and tell the people honestly for what they are striving? You see, Sir, I do not believe that South Africa, at this time, can afford luxuries of this sort. I believe we are faced with very real difficulties; I believe we cannot put up with anything that weakens our resolve or our determination to fight for the survival of South Africa. There is already lots of evidence to show that the decisions taken at the Addis Ababa conference are having an effect—sometimes only inconvenient, but nevertheless an effect. We have seen new developments during the past few days of a kind of which I warned last year when I warned that the communist influences were beginning to make themselves felt in Zanzibar. [Laughter.] Mr. Speaker, are hon. members’ memories so short? Are they so short that they have forgotten that I warned last year of communist infiltration in Zanzibar? I gave them the authorities. I believe the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) actually went and read the book from which I quoted. They knew nothing about it. That is the amount of attention they pay to the security of South Africa! Now the communists have their first base in the Indian Ocean.

What has the Broederbond to do with Communism in Zanzibar?

It is very difficult to deal with a Minister who falls asleep from time to time and wakes up to find that he has lost the thread of the argument. I pointed out that when we are faced with dangers of the kind with which we are faced we can tolerate nothing which will weaken our resolve or which will undermine national unity. I pointed out during the last few days of last session that there were additional dangers. What I want to know from those gentlemen is who is going to blockade Zanzibar, who is going to protest when the first landing pads for nuclear missiles are established there under communist control? Zanzibar is closer to Africa than Cuba is to the United States of America. Can the hon. The Prime Minister tell us of any friends to whom he can appeal in such circumstances, such serious circumstances?

On a point of order, I am trying to listen but I am unable to do so because of the noise on the other side.

I am pointing out, Sir, that because of the dangers with which we are faced, we cannot afford any luxuries which undermine national unity in South Africa. We have got to make up our minds that if we want to survive here as a people and as a country, then we have to set out for ourselves certain definite goals and work for them. As far as we are concerned, we stand first of all for the promotion of a spirit of common loyalty to South Africa among all its people and a mutual trust and respect and goodwill amongst all sections of the population. We stand for the maintenance of the integrity of the state inviolate; we stand for a shared society under White leadership, and we reject absolutely “one man one vote”. We stand for the freedom and the dignity of the individual; we stand for a state which is adequately protected from all dangers internally and externally. We do not believe that we are getting those things from this Government at the present time, because we have a Government that is imperilling our economic future because of its lack of attention to the factors that can limit our development. We have a Government which has failed in vastly important aspects of the administration of justice. We have a Government, many of whose members are guilty of a dangerous sectionalism which will prevent true national unity in South Africa. We have a Government which is pursuing a racial policy that is going to lead without any doubt to disaster and the undermining of the very future of Western civilization in South Africa. It is for those reasons that I move my motion.

I asked myself why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition introduced a motion of no confidence in general terms instead of making a specific attack on the Government, even though it was only directed at the Minister of Justice. We received the reply to-day.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that the facts in this House and in the country prove that there is confidence in the Government, increasing confidence, accompanied by decreasing confidence in the United Party. Every vestige of proof which one can expect to obtain, such as by the expression of public opinion at meetings, or by way of any other form of expression of public confidence in the course followed by the Government, or from the peace and order which prevail in the country, indicates confidence in the Government. The proof of no confidence in the Opposition stems from the manner in which the Opposition handles the political situation at its meetings and from the attendances at those meetings, and from the extent to which members of this House stand by the Government, as contrasted with the extent to which their followers support the Opposition or not. All this reveals no confidence in the Opposition itself. Therefore I intend, during the course of my speech, not only to adopt an attitude in respect of the various matters in regard to which the Opposition has attacked us here and elsewhere, but at the same time I intend putting the vital question every time: “What would conditions have been like had the United Party been in power?” I believe that the motion before the House will eventually prove not to be a motion of no confidence in the Government. No, we have a motion here which will indicate that there is an increasing lack of confidence in the Opposition.

It is significant that in the course of the speech to which we have just listened the hon. the Leader of the Opposition dealt in detail with all kinds of minor points which are general knowledge by reason of the fact that they have been dealt with by various newspapers, particularly the Sunday Times. In fact, it has become quite clear to me that the Sunday Times has taken over the leadership of the United Party. It is really no longer Sir de Villiers Graaff who is the Leader of the United Party, but Joel Mervis! I admit that the hon. member for Rondebosch (Sir de Villiers Graaff) was the Leader of the United Party at one time, but recently the liberals in his party, under the leadership of the Sunday Times, put a ring in his nose and now the Sunday Times is leading the bull around. In other words, what the Government has to defend itself against is really the attitude adopted by a yellow Press newspaper in respect of the politics of South Africa. The fact is that the United Party is being blindly led by the yellow Press—much more so than we are alleged to be led by the Broederbond.

Towards the end of his speech the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, by way of an appeal to the people, said that his followers did not want any luxuries of any kind. They want just one thing, unity in South Africa. Well, if unity in South Africa has to be brought about by one of the greatest smear newspapers our country has ever known, which uses the United Party as its instrument, who can believe that it will ever come about? Who can believe that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is serious in regard to unity if he takes his lead from that newspaper and the type of Press which rather strives to cause friction and dissension and to sow suspicion in South Africa? I shall return to this later, but I want to say now that whilst we on this side of the House undoubtedly strive to achieve national unity and are busy bringing it about, the object of his attack (particularly the manner of his attack and his choice of words and the way in which he tried to sow suspicion to-day) is to ensure that the English and Afrikaans-speaking people in South Africa will not co-operate with each other. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was in the forefront of the racialists to-day. [Interjections.] Yes, in the past we have often been accused of being racialists. Those accusations were not justified, because they were made because we loved South Africa and hated imperialism. For that reason we were called racialists. But now I say again: We are busy building a nation in South Africa. Everybody knows it. Everybody also realizes that it is essential to resist communist interference, not only in respect of Zanzibar but also in respect of the much greater threat against which South Africa will possibly have to defend herself. We seek national unity for the sake of the survival of our nation, English and Afrikaans-speaking. Whilst we are doing that, whilst we advocate it, and whilst we as Afrikaners—and this Government party consists of Afrikaans and English-speaking South Africans, even though we still have fewer English-speaking members than the United Party has—whilst we are trying to achieve national unity, I ask what assistance do we get from the United Party? Do we get any assistance from the Press supporting the United Party? Just the reverse. We find that the Press supporting the United Party and which has it in tow tries at any price to prevent the Government Party from becoming even stronger as the result of increased support by the English-speaking people. That was the standpoint, the trend and the background of the whole speech of the Leader of the Opposition to-day. His whole speech was directed simply to this one object because of their concern that increasingly more English-speaking people in South Africa will unite with the Afrikaans-speaking people in a true national party in South Africa and that they will stand by the present Government for the protection of the whole nation and for its survival. This far-reaching aim on the part of the leadership of the United Party and its fear of such a form of realization of that unity prompt it to try to bring about the greatest measure of fragmentation, in the hope that it will succeed in its object. I ask hon. members opposite to study the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition to-day from beginning to end. Right throughout it there was merely the sowing of suspicion and the levelling of accusations. It contained charges, often very petty indeed, simply in an attempt to ensure less unity between Afrikaans and English-speaking people in South Africa than we are experiencing to-day.

It is not really necessary to point out to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition how the lack of confidence in the Opposition is growing in South Africa. He knows what happened at the meeting I held in Durban; he also knows about the successful meetings I held in other parts of the country. He knows to what extent English-speaking people there and elsewhere publicly expressed themselves in favour of the policy applied by the Government. He also knows what is being said in his own social ranks, in the clubs and in the other circles in which he moves. I also know it. He knows very well that in all those circles there is a growing appreciation of the Government and a growing desire for our White population groups to come increasingly nearer to each other. He knows that people are happy because this is taking place and that they realize that it is necessary. This drawing closer together is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party want to destroy. That is what his teacher, the Sunday Times, wants to destroy. That is what the liberals would like to see destroyed. This attempt to drive in a wedge between English and Afrikaans-speaking people is part of the process of taking South Africa out of the hands of the White man. The leader of the Opposition is playing his part in order to achieve that. His speech to-day was deliberately directed at the fragmentation of this nation which is fighting for its existence and for the preservation of its country in the most difficult period of its history. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition applied destructive tactics to-day. If only he can vilify people like the Minister of Justice and his Department and sow suspicion against me personally he thinks he will succeed. Those are the means at his disposal to disrupt national unity and then, so he hopes, after having slung all this mud, he will get the opportunity to come into power and to lead South Africa along the road of multi-racialism, even though that would lead to its ultimate destruction. That is what I think of the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to-day. It is a speech which was intended to harm the nation, because only under such circumstances does he see an opportunity to reap benefits for his party.

I should like to deal briefly—unfortunately it will have to be briefly—with the various forms of criticism, some of which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition merely touched on to-day, but which were expatiated upon outside. I should like to direct my mind mainly in three different directions. I shall firstly deal with the criticism voiced in regard to our success or otherwise in respect of international policy; secondly, the success or otherwise of the Government’s colour policy; and thirdly, our policy in respect of certain internal matters and the success or otherwise achieved in that respect.

Starting with the international policy, we find that the United Party often alleges that the Government’s international policy has failed because from time to time sharp attacks are made on South Africa, either by individual states or statesmen, or by way of discussions in bodies like UN. Because South Africa is attacked and because many votes are cast against our colour policy, it is said that our international policy has failed. Just for a start I want to pose this question: What is to-day the main characteristic of international policy? Everybody knows that in so far as international relations are concerned, in many respects it cannot be said to have failed or that there is a lack of friendship. In most spheres of international relations, the relations between South Africa and those states with which it is important for us to keep in touch and to cooperate, and with which we have also had good contacts and sound co-operation through the years, are excellent. Therefore when international policy is referred to as something with which South Africa comes into conflict in all respects, it is clear that that is wrong, but that there is in fact something in the international policy which particularly so attracts attention that people really have it in mind when they talk so generally. What is it that they think of, and as the result of which these false comparisons and conclusions so easily arise? It is clearly the obsession of bodies like UN and of practically all the states with relations between White and non-White. This relationship between Whites and non-Whites, whether it be individuals or states, came to the fore as a result of the clash between Communism and the democratic West. This conflict between the two ideologies resulted in the groups of states which take the lead on both sides trying to gain the support of the other countries of the world—and often not only the powers or nations of the world in terms of numbers, but also as they represent the inhabitants of large geographic areas. In that process of yearning for support, Asia and Africa in particular were viewed as the two large territories full of people whose support one should try to enlist. In the course of years the process of competition for this support was intensified, and the methods which were used to obtain this support were not only to invest money and to make donations but also to grant the status of freedom. This process over the past 20 years has not led more and more to clarity and peace but rather to increased confusion and chaos. In other words, an international policy which was designed, under the leadership of certain great nations on both sides, to obtain support has not led to a decisive gathering of support, one way or another, but it has in fact led to an accumulation of clashes.

One asks oneself what the inevitable outcome is going to be. Is the outcome nevertheless going to be peace on earth, or is the outcome going to be greater chaos? The signs in Asia and in Africa indicate that in those continents nothing has been solved but that only more and more problems have been created.

As far as the great nations are concerned there is no proof or assurance that their “international policy” has led to unity or peace, or to such a balance of power that discord cannot possibly arise because the two powers would then exterminate each other. Nothing of this kind has materialized. All we see is uncertainty in everything, and everywhere, and great joy, out of proportion to the success achieved, when even the smallest measure of agreement is reached, even though it is just an agreement to do nothing for the time being!

We have the right therefore to say that if South Africa’s success in the sphere of this international policy is to be measured, then regard must be had to what the international situation is, what role South Africa can play in it and what is expected of her.

In this international clash to which I have referred everyone thought that if he came forward with pleas for human equality and that if he liberated the states under his supervision and flooded the new states with offers of money, they would be grateful towards the benefactor. This objective, of gaining support and goodwill has been hidden behind an attempt to represent all this as a service to humanity and as justice and as the only Christian way to act. After all, it is well known that a pious motive is always the veil behind which the other more selfish objectives are hidden.

For the purpose of those aims South Africa is regarded as a pawn in the game. If South Africa wishes to gain the goodwill of the communists or of the West in that game, she must be prepared to sacrifice herself. She must be prepared to allow herself to be treated as both sides choose to treat her in order to satisfy Afro-Asian demands, that is to say, to allow herself to be made a multi-racial state, the real intention being that in that multi-racial state the Black man must acquire supremacy. The one who is able to enforce this then expects to be able to reap so much praise and gratitude from the rest of Africa and the rest of Asia as to gain their support perhaps. Since that is the game played by both and the desire of both, does anybody think that it will produce results in respect of either of the two sides if South Africa capitulates? In that international game surely even the abandonment of South Africa, by the Whites, for example, could make absolutely no contribution in resolving the international struggle. In the process of helping the West to get a pawn, a pawn which they would lose without deriving any benefit, South Africa would be lost to her White population. The White man would disappear—in vain!

I contend therefore that present-day international politics prove that the world is sick, and that it is not up to South Africa to allow herself to be dragged into that sickbed. It is White South Africa’s duty to ensure her survival, even though she is accused of being isolated under such a policy. It may even be the first beginning with a remedy for use in a much broader context. But at least as far as South Africa herself is concerned, steps must be taken to ensure her self-preservation.

Furthermore, I contend that the West is sick and not only the world as a whole. The West is closest to us. There we find our natural friends. It is predominantly the White part of the world. Have we ever had a case in history, as we have seen amongst the White nations during the past few decades, where under the pressure of a major international policy objective such as I have just tried to outline, a vast controlling group in the world, a group which is developed culturally, which is the bearer of a high standard of civilization, which practises a high religious and moral code, has become so frustrated and has been so willing to renounce its rights and to sacrifice itself? The tragedy of the present time is that in this crucial stage of present-day history, the White race is not playing the role which it is called upon to play and which only the White race is competent to fulfil. If the Whites of America and of Europe and of South Africa were dissolved in the stream of the Black masses, what would become of the future of the world and of the human race? What would become of its science, its knowledge, its form of civilization, its growth, its peace, etc.?

What role have we in South Africa to fulfil in respect of this international situation of confusion, of struggle and of European frustration? Is our role not to stand for the one thing which means our own salvation here but with which it will also be possible to save the world and with which Europe will be able to save itself, namely the preservation of the White man and his status? I do not mean that that must be accompanied by the suppression of the Black man or of the Yellow man or anybody else. We as Whites must recognize the right of survival of all the different people and of their nations and their states. We must be prepared to assist in building them up. But we cannot do so if we ourselves are lost or if we abandon our states. What is happening in the rest of Africa is that wherever the White man has been pushed out, by whatever method and wherever the blame may lie, the new states are gradually going under and the masses are suffering misery and hunger. Any hope of peace is disappearing there. In these circumstances it is clear that the White man must maintain himself in his areas and that the Bantu and the Coloureds and the Indians etc. must be given their rights in their own areas or within their own communities. In so far as the White man takes up a firm stand in regard to what is his own, he is able to give his co-operation to the other territories which are the Black man’s. Although the charge is frequently made against us that we refuse to recognize the humanity, the dignity, of the other races, I maintain that that is not the case. What we are dealing with here is the preservation of the White man and of what is his, and only in respect of what is justly his, coupled with the recognition of the other people’s rights. The preservation of those rights, however, must be implemented where and as they can be implemented for and by them.

I contend therefore that the Government Party has not failed in its international policy, as is alleged, but that it has succeeded. We have succeeded in warding off the threat of multi-racialism which was to be forced upon us. There have been attempts to force multi-racialism upon us, in spite of its failure throughout the whole world, even where it is a question of the multi-racial existence of various non-White races within a State. In other words, our international action to maintain our country’s independence and to maintain the position of our Whites but at the same time to do justice to our non-White groups has succeeded, in spite of all the intimidation and pressure, while at the same time, because of this success, we have also made progress in the economic sphere. My question is: What would the position have been (that is my test) if the United Party had been in power? Let South Africa ask herself what would have become of her own interests, in every respect, if the United Party had been in power. After all, that is the Party which has said that it will take into account what the other states want. It would therefore have yielded under the pressure, because friends abroad are worth more to it than the preservation of its own country.

Where do you get that from? We have never said so.

I know that the attitude of those hon. members is that if they accede to the demands of the Afro-Asian-dominated UN, and to the demands of our Western friends who for the sake of their own interests want to pander to those powers, then they safeguard South Africa better, but the point is: What South Africa are they safeguarding? They are then safeguarding that multi-racial South Africa which is their ideal, with a multi-racial Central Parliament. The hon. members say that will protect our country. But I want to allege that if we consider whither that policy, which is also the British and American policy, has led in other parts of Africa and even in parts of Asia, we just see failures everywhere. That policy has nowhere resulted in a multi-racial state which could be preserved, and in which there was not internal unrest. Last year still the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, supported by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) and others, held Cyprus up to us as an example of how a race federation could succeed, and where is Cyprus now? What peace is there to-day? What success has multi-racialism between the Turks and the Greeks had there. Multi-racialism has not succeeded anywhere. It is quite clear that if the United Party were in power it would have acceded to the pressure which was brought to bear and is still being brought to bear from the outside world. [Interjections.] I realize that the hon. Leader and his party believe that their policy will make South Africa safer than our policy, but I am talking about the instrument he wants to use. That we must test. He wants to bring about a multi-racial South Africa, but I say that nowhere in the world can he point to a multi-racial state which did not fail, whether it was a federation or not. It was not many years ago when the Rhodesian Federation was the model state of the Opposition, even before Cyprus. Then some of them told us that the Federation was the example of how the United Party would implement its policy, and nobody here denied it. [Interjections.] If the members of the Opposition deny it now, I suppose they will also deny that they used Cyprus as an example, because every time their examples fail them they accuse us of having misquoted them. I maintain that, tested by broad international policy, there is every reason for the people and for this House to have confidence in the Government, because its policy has hitherto kept our country safe. If, however, the United Party had been in power we would have had the same misery in South Africa which is now being experienced in the Federation and in Tanganyika and Kenya and Zanzibar, even though the ratio between the Black and the White populations is different. Therefore I say that tested by this yardstick it is fortunate that the lack of confidence the people showed in the Opposition in 1948 has steadily increased since that time.

Let me now discuss certain aspects of the international communal policy. I want to take the case of the African states. We have been reproached for not having close diplomatic links with the African states, for not being in a position to be on a friendly basis with them, and that whilst they bitterly attack us and organize against us we cannot overcome their opposition. It is true that those states are carrying on a feud against South Africa, and as long as that feud is maintained by their leaders it is impossible for South Africa to have the relations with them which one should like to have. But the United Party would no more have succeeded in doing that, because of their policy, in so far as their policy is one of granting a limited degree of co-authority to the various non-White races whilst at the same time endeavouring to keep the Whites in control for as long as they can manage to do so. As long as that is their policy, none of those states, Egypt or Ghana or Nigeria, will be satisfied with it. The fact that we are in conflict with those states therefore certainly causes a certain amount of trouble, but that is not something unique to our policy. However, I may say this, that when those states emerge from the maelstrom resulting from the mistaken course they are adopting at the moment, and once the nations of the world discover that they cannot continue pouring their funds into that bottomless pit; when they discover that they cannot continue pandering to them by giving them a vote in international bodies out of all proportion to those new states’ importance or economic value—in other words, that they cannot continue allowing them to dominate the world at UN, and when the older nations start opposing the irresponsible actions of these African states in all kinds of bodies, the time will arrive when the African states will have to seek co-operation with other countries in the normal way. I am convinced that then those countries will learn to appreciate the value of South Africa, and then the foundation will have been laid for a relationship different from the one existing at present. But where would South Africa have been even at such a stage under United Party rule? The Leader of the Opposition at one time was a great admirer of Ghana and of Nkrumah. [Interjections.] Yes, he even pleaded with me, before I went to the Commonwealth Conference, at least to learn from Nkrumah how to remain in the Commonwealth. He was to be my leader in that sphere.

No, that is not correct.

If the Leader of the Opposition had been there, Nkrumah would have been his leader at that conference. In the same way that the hon. the Leader first sought guidance and encouragement in the Federation and had confidence in Nkrumah, he was an admirer of Nigeria. I think he is also very disappointed about Nyerere’s experiences to-day. Surely the Opposition will not deny that they believe that they would be able to co-operate with all those states. They always reproached us that it was only we who could not manage to co-operate with them. I am surprised at the Judas Iscariot attitude now adopted by the hon. members of the Opposition in respect of the African states.

On a point of order, is the hon. the Prime Minister entitled to say he is surprised at the Judas Iscariot attitude of members of the Opposition?

Surely my meaning is quite clear. All these years the members of the Opposition said how they wanted to seek the friendship of the African states. Because I now say those states are their friends, they deny it. In my opinion, that is a disavowal of their attitude towards people whom they said were their friends. What I call the Judas Iscariot attitude is their disavowal of their friends to-day. That is what I meant by it.

The hon. the Prime Minister has now explained what he meant. In my opinion, it is quite wrong of him to use the words “Judas Iscariot”. Judas Iscariot is the most contemptible figure in history. He betrayed someone for 30 pieces of silver.

We need not waste time on this. I used the words without attaching any ugly meaning to them. I merely meant that they were disavowing their friends, and I accordingly withdraw the words “Judas Iscariot”.

In respect of our policy in Africa, there is a very clear difference between the attitude of the United Party and that of the Government, and there is no doubt at all that the Government’s attitude so far has been correct, also in regard to its warnings about the chaos which might still arise in Africa. Now there have been riots again in Zanzibar and Tanganyika. That is not the end yet. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition claims that he issued warnings that certain things might happen. We therefore all foresaw that trouble would arise, but that trouble arose as the result of the wrong international policy in regard to Africa. We also implement a policy of granting freedom to nations, but we do it along the road which we are following in the Transkei, where a nation is guided step by step from the beginning to become self-governing, and where it is really the nation which learns to govern itself and that nation is not left to the tender mercies of a dictatorship.

And then you will wake up!

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) would prefer the whole of South Africa to be governed by all races together as one nation in one fatherland, but the result would then be that in time we would not have a White Government here but a Black one. Then he would wake up.

In regard to the African states, will the Prime Minister tell us what his attitude will be in regard to the Whites in those states?

I need not restate my attitude in regard to the Whites in those states, because I have already done so from time to time and it is now a fait accompli. Britain, France and Belgium all adopted a similar attitude and the results are obvious to all. It is not necessary for me to say now that I would have done this, that or the other thing in so far as the Whites there are concerned. Nor is that the argument with which I am dealing now. I am dealing with the question as to whether the policy of this Government is correct, viz. not to comply with the demands of those states for multi-racialism in South Africa, or whether the policy of the United Party would have been the correct one in that direction. I have disposed of that argument and it is clear that we were correct and that we could therefore maintain order. I say that the policy of the United Party, of forging bonds of friendship with all those leaders by acceding to their demands would have landed us in such misery as one can best realize when one sees what is happening in those countries. Our attitude of aloofness and of waiting to see what would happen was the wise one. It kept South Africa out of the maelstrom of what is now happening in Africa. So much then in regard to those countries.

Let me now take the case of our neighbouring states. I do not want to discuss Southern Rhodesia or the Portuguese Territories. Our sound relations with them are well known. I wish to refer again to the High Commission Territories, because in that connection there is also continual misrepresentation of our policy, and because in respect of those territories there is also a great difference between the policy of the United Party and that of the Government. What then is our standpoint in regard to the High Commission Territories? Simply this. Right throughout the past 50 years Britain has retained its control over those territories, in spite of what was provided in the Act of Union. Now it has stated it as its declared policy to lead those territories to independence. We adopt the standpoint, in the light of developments over the years, that our Bantu areas should rather be led to independence as good neighbours than that we should strive to have one large common fatherland in which in the end the Bantu must rule because of his numerical superiority, as eventually happens in every democracy. Under all these circumstances the Government has adopted the realistic attitude that South Africa no longer claims the incorporation of those territories. On the contrary, the fact was accepted that those areas would develop into independent states, actually as Black-dominated areas, in spite of the fact that they are called multi-racial areas in which the small White majority is also given a say. What is South Africa’s attitude to be towards these territories? Our attitude is that they are neighbouring states with which we want to have the best possible relations for the sake of our common safety and economic interests. There is, however, a further fact. It is that in those territories there is a continual attempt to misrepresent our policy, which fosters a bad spirit. It is said that under the guise of a Bantu homeland policy we really want to annex those areas as our own; in other words, that we have imperialistic ambitions. I therefore stated clearly that we had no such ambitions and that it really follows from our policy of apartheid that we could not have such objectives. I stressed that this was the change which had come about during the past 50 years, viz. that as the result of the policy of separate development we no longer desired incorporation. We are seeking to have neighbouring states with which we can live in friendship. However, because our policy of apartheid is continually being misrepresented in those areas, and because that is detrimental to good relations in Southern Africa both economically and politically, I adopted the attitude that it was desirable that we should be allowed to explain in those territories themselves what our policy would mean to them. I cannot just let that be done in British territories, and therefore I stated publicly what we were aiming at, so that there should be no doubt about our good intentions. I repeat that if our policy is correctly understood, the Bantu in those territories, and Britain and the world, which so often condemn us, will discover that what we want to do is simply to assist those territories along the road to nationhood, the course which was followed in Europe and America and is now being followed also in Africa and Asia. If we could act as a guide to that development, we would more easily be able to bring about a sound form of freedom than Britain, which is 6,000 miles away, could do. In other words, we have only good and decent motives and no motives of plunder at all. It is a policy of friendship which ought to enjoy the confidence of Britain and of the world and of those Bantu territories, and we have stated it clearly because we wish to have orderly relations. Now the hon. member for South Coast need not tell me again that I will wake up later, because I know of course that in those territories troubles may also arise because of communist influences which may be present there or which may enter the picture. South Africa will not be able to prevent attempts at interference, but neither can Britain. The question is how to prevent misery ensuing there, and what methods can be adopted to prevent communist influences infiltrating there. The assistance of their economically strong neighbour is necessary to ensure that those territories develop economically soundly.

As against that, what is the policy of the United Party? Its policy cannot arouse confidence either on the part of Britain or on the part of the Bantu in those territories, or on the part of the other powers. The United Party in fact states that it wants to incorporate those territories into this one common fatherland in which the Bantu and the Whites must rule by means of a joint Parliament. The United Party wants to give the inhabitants of those territories representation in this Central Parliament and I take it that it will be Black representation—but that means that Swaziland, Bechuanaland and Basutoland will each have to be satisfied with being a minor part of a larger South Africa and with sacrificing their freedom as separate, Black-dominated states. I do not believe they would like that any more than the rest of Africa would. Therefore I say that the United Party by means of this policy will not only harm South Africa by enlarging the Black representation in a Federal Parliament, but it will not gain the confidence of the Bantu in those territories either because such a policy would really be depriving them of their own independence. In this sphere, too, therefore, in the sphere of international policy, namely in our immediate area, the United Party fails because while it accuses us of not taking into account the realities of modern times, it itself does not take them into account.

There is another matter of international policy which is discussed outside of this House—it has not been mentioned here to-day—and that concerns our membership of the F.A.O. and of the U.N. I want to say very little in that regard because the Leader of the Opposition did not raise it but I do feel that this is perhaps the occasion to say at least the following: South Africa became a member of these various bodies years ago under entirely different circumstances. It is true that during this period there were some hitches as far as South Africa as a member was concerned but nevertheless her membership was a fruitful one both for these organizations and for herself. As the attacks on South Africa increased the position changed but this Government continued to judge the position, including the question as to how her membership was compatible with the honour of South Africa, in the light of what was in the best interests of South Africa at that moment. That determined the attitude which we adopted in connection with our membership of the Commonwealth. South Africa was undoubtedly correct in acting as she did, that is to say, to remain a member as long as she did and to withdraw at a certain stage when it was no longer possible to remain a member and at the same time look after South Africa’s interests and retain her honour. A similar position developed throughout the years in connection with the F.A.O.. South Africa remained a member in spite of attempts to push her out, because she does not allow herself to be pushed out by others for the sake of considerations of their own. But when circumstances arose, inter alia caused by our so-called friends, the Republic, at a time when there was no demand that South Africa should withdraw but when our friends created difficulties, decided of its own free volition no longer to remain a member of a body in which in any event South Africa had no particular self-interest. In the same way we shall use our judgment in a sensible and careful manner in respect of other world organizations. That also applies to the U.N. South Africa is aware of the difficult circumstances prevailing there. She is also aware of the desire of the Western Nations that she should remain a member. If, however, they want to keep her there they will have to consider her position, together with the other factors which weigh with them, in evolving their policy. South Africa will have to continue to place her interests first in making her decisions, one way or another, just as all countries do. I am not prepared to-day or at any other time, except when the time is ripe to decide one way or another, to say more about it than that. Then there is one point which I should like to clear up here, although it was not mentioned either by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in connection with foreign affairs, and that is that reproaches have been levelled at me in connection with the appointment of Dr. Carel de Wet as Ambassador in London. In that regard I want to say the following because I think it is necessary that this should become known before the new Ambassador leaves to take up his post. Dr. Carel de Wet was appointed because he is a capable middle-aged person who can represent South Africa in London with the necessary integrity, the necessary thoroughness and the necessary zeal. Members of this House ought to know that while he certainly always put up a vigorous fight here for his political attitude, he is a decent person with whom it is pleasant to associate and one who knows how to behave himself in respect of the task which has been entrusted to him. I do not have the slightest doubt that when he is in Britain he will be found to be a person with an acceptable and pleasant personality. He will put forward the case which he has to state there in the correct way as one can expect from a diplomat. On previous occasions already we have sent abroad persons who had been involved here in the political struggle and who had fought hard because we found it necessary also to have our country represented there and to have our policy presented there by politicians. Very few reproaches can be levelled at those who were sent abroad from our political ranks to represent their country there, even though they went there straight from Parliament after having taken part in this hard struggle shortly before. Let me add this: Dr. De Wet has been described as a person who hates the English. Why is that said? After all, it is obviously not true. It is true that his grandfather was Gen. De Wet who fought as a honourable fighter for his country in a war against Britain. Everybody knows that, and he was honoured in all countries, including Britain. He is an honourable heroic figure of the South African nation, and it is also well known what a gentleman he was. When reference is made therefore to Dr. De Wet’s descent in an effort to prove this point, it is so transparently untrue that even the Opposition here refused to accept it as a basis for attack. I should like the people in Britain to know that; that is why I say it here. I should like them to know that none of us, on either side of the House, can approve of references to his grandfather as evidence that he is allegedly not favourably disposed towards the British. I want to mention a second point in this connection, and that is that in his personal association with persons of British origin he has proved that he can be on terms of good friendship with them. That he fought as a Nationalist against Imperialism and against those who advocated it is indisputable—we all do it—but it is not true that he expressed hostile sentiments and adopted a hostile attitude towards Britain or the Government of Britain or the Englishmen of England. His conduct when he visited England previously, where he was received by certain members of the different Houses of Parliament—he also lunched with them—proves this. Then there are a few further facts to which I must refer. Certain attacks were made upon his appointment in Britain after he had been appointed. Those attacks, however, did not originate in Britain; they originated in South Africa and in the newspapers which support the Opposition Parties.

Stanley Uys.

It is a mean attack of South African origin. I repeat that: It is a mean attack of South African origin. I do not blame Britain. I blame certain bodies in South Africa. The so-called factual background to it which was given consisted of two points, and I think even the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) is decent enough to be ashamed of the fact that this sort of attack is being made. At any rate that is how he ought to feel.

Who made the attacks on him? You are condemning an attack which was never made.

No, this attack was in fact made in public. I am replying to an attack which was made in public by supporters of the United Party, and since South Africa ought to be represented in England as well as possible it is necessary for me to put this matter right timeously. That is what I am trying to do now, and I am sorry if Opposition members begrudge me the opportunity to try to put South Africa’s case in the correct light.

The accusations are based on two points. The one is a sentence which he used in this Parliament, after the Sharpeville incident, when he wished to proceed to deal with a new point, just when he had to end his speech because of the expiry of his time. That one sentence is an unfortunate sentence as it stands there but it is perfectly clear that those words were hasty words which, as we all know, sometimes fall from one’s lips, without giving one’s full attention to them, when one is called to order because one’s time has expired, and one then hurriedly adds something without being able really to make one’s point. After I had ascertained from him what he wanted to say I gave an explanation in the House of Assembly and my explanation was perfectly clear and perfectly acceptable, and that was that Dr. De Wet simply wanted to put forward the plea that if there were any threats to order there must be no lack of firmness because the fact that few people are hurt when unduly mild action is taken may mean that thereafter large numbers of people have to suffer if the disturbance is not effectively ended. That is all he wanted to say. The newspapers who support the United Party have now broadcast the story that he allegedly meant what the Opposition first understood him to mean, namely that he wished that more people had been killed.

What does Hansard say?

That is obviously not what he wanted to say. [Interjections.] There are interjections here now from members who resent the fact that I explain this matter, but in doing so they reveal that they adopt the same ugly attitude as that adopted by those newspapers. That is why it is necessary for me to state the true position. The second point is perhaps even more blatant and that is the following: Years ago, in 1954, Dr. De Wet made a speech in support of a candidate at a provincial election in Johannesburg. It was at the time when we were attacking the United Party’s immigration policy because it supported the idea of importing immigrants on a large scale—“the good with the bad”—the object being really, as was said by ex-Minister Reitz, to plough under the Afrikaners. That policy was still being attacked, and on this occasion Dr. De Wet also took a stand in the first place against a large-scale immigration of persons whom it would not be possible to accommodate here as far as housing and employment were concerned. In the second place he stated that he was also against any policy of large-scale immigration which resulted in bringing the scum of the earth into South Africa. When he made the first point with regard to large-scale immigration he was referring to workers, to labourers, not to the Labour Party. He was referring to labourers for whom there would be no work in South Africa because of the presence of the Bantu. It was then stated in a Press report, of which he informed me but which I myself had not seen previously and which I have only now caused to be looked up in the Star, that he had called the members of the British Labour Party “the scum of England”, which is not what he said. In the other newspapers we could not even find such a report. That one brief erroneous report in one newspaper has now been dragged out after 10 years in an attempt to undermine the prestige of South Africa’s new Ambassador and therefore also the prestige of South Africa. I can only describe this as a scandalous attack on the part of those who say that they want harmonious relations between the Afrikaners and the English-speaking people here and between South Africa and Britain and the outside world.

Are you not making it worse now?

There is just one point that I want to add and that is that a Labourite in Britain has adopted the attitude that he takes no notice of this, but that he does not want a representative from South Africa who supports the apartheid policy. In this connection one need not say much, except this, that an Ambassador represents his Government in another country and he will therefore have to present the policy of his Government there in a manner befitting a diplomat. There have been British representatives in this country in the past who have not agreed with our policy but who on the contrary have expressed themselves rather vigorously about it, particularly when their own Government has expressed drastic views about it. If the Labour Party does come into power I assume that they will also send persons here who will not agree with our policy and whom we will nevertheless be expected to receive here because they represent their Government and may therefore present its views here. We do precisely the same. We have to send people to other countries to represent the Government and its policy, although they will represent the Government efficiently and courteously. Neither the Opposition here nor any other country can prescribe to us whom we send. When a country wants to send a representative to another country, there is only the diplomatic procedure through which approval for this person must be obtained from that Head of State and that Government. For that there are suitable yardsticks, and those yardsticks do not affect the man’s political views. We have acted on those lines and I hope that this agitation will now come to an end and that Dr. De Wet will be allowed to demonstrate overseas the efficient, proper and friendly way in which he will represent South Africa there.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition referred to the Transkei and the election there and he made the allegation that the people there do not believe in the Government’s policy, i.e. that they do not believe in their own independent development but that they believe in multi-racialism and that they should be incorporated into a larger South Africa. Well, I have very, very strong doubts about that, for various reasons. The one is this. The election there, in which the Government refrained from interfering, was in fact influenced by various groups of Whites who had other motives. There is no doubt at all that there was communist agitation. I do not want to go into details; the Minister concerned can do so in this debate if it is necessary. But there is no doubt that influence was exerted by communist, liberal, and perhaps also by United Party circles. [Interjections.] There is no doubt about that at all. Interestingly enough, the Leader of the Opposition also saw to it that shortly before the election he held a meeting in Umtata.

No, after the election.

It was before the election, was it not?

As usual, your facts are wrong. It was after the election.

Then it was before the election of the Chief Minister thereߞduring that interval. The newspapers published his photograph, together with persons who belonged to the Opposition there. I know that he also went to see Matanzima, but he was clever enough to meet both sides. I have no doubt that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) and his partner in his practice, as well as other people, tried to exert influence on the minds of the Bantu in connection with the election.

How? Please explain.

I will leave it to others to explain.

Who distributed Matanzima’s pamphlets?

I did not. I merely state as a fact that there were attempts to influence the Bantu during the election in the Transkei on the part of all kinds of White interests, and that as a result any allegation that the masses of the Transkei willingly desire to have a multi-racial Government in the Transkei, or not to obtain this development they are now getting, is simply not acceptable. In fact, when Poto himself uses the word “multi-racial”, I am convinced—and I have met him on various previous occasions—that the word “multi-racial” does not have the same meaning in his mind as the political policy of the United Party. I am convinced that all he means by it is that they do not soon want to rid themselves of the presence and the assistance of the Whites. Even in terms of my policy and in terms of the constitution granted to them, that would be very unwise. Therefore if that is what Poto understands by multi-racial, then the United Party cannot, through its leader here to-day, argue that it means multi-racialism in the way he has described it here. Supposing, however, that another Government had been elected, one which believes in other policies than those believed in by the people who have been put into power, then as far as I am concerned that would have been none of our business. South Africa is giving those people an opportunity to govern themselves. After that it is immaterial to me what course they choose. Where it is their task to govern themselves, it is for them to decide their own destiny. If they decide to hand their country over to White co-domination, or even to White domination, or if in their Bantu area they want to allow the Whites to buy out all their land, that is their affair. I will not allow that to be done as long as that area is under my control, because I think it is wrong, just as my predecessors and all Governments before me did. I think that the Bantu’s right to his own area should be preserved. But if the Bantu themselves want to abandon their authority in such an area, or their land in such an area, or their chances of economic development in that area, and if they do so of their own accord, then they cannot later claim such rights in our area. If they give away the rights which a fair partition ensures to them they must not think that we will give away ours, so that segregation will disappear. That must be very clear. I am not interfering with what they do there in respect of the rights they have obtained. That is their affair, but the fact that they abandon their rights will not give them parallel claims in the White areas. Therefore all the propaganda made in the newspapers supporting the United Party during that election period, to the effect that we and the Bantu are in conflict as to what happens in the Transkei, is completely wrong. That also gives me the right to infer that the United Party interfered there. They associated themselves with Poto’s policy and challenged us in that regard. We associated ourselves with nothing at all; they continuously in their newspapers advanced the cause of Sebata and Poto. At first the attitude adopted by the United Party in connection with the Transkei was that it was senseless to let those people vote because they did not know what they were doing; but when they thought that Poto would win—and they regarded him as their candidate—they suddenly told the public that public opinion in the Transkei was in line with the policy of the United Party. Then suddenly the Bantu knew what they were doing, because the United Party thought they could use them in the way they are still trying to use them to-day, viz. for their own party-political interests. Therefore, in regard to the Transkei I just want to put it very clearly once again that the situation there ought to be left in the hands of the Bantu themselves. What happened there was often influenced by connivance, or at least by interference, on the part of certain Whites with political ambitions. In the third place I want to add that after a Government was established there it became quite clear that the attempted interference inter alia by the communists has not ceased. It is quite clear that those efforts will continue and that one of the present methods is that of sowing suspicion. We must expect that just as suspicion was sown in this House to-day against the Minister of Justice of this Republic—I regard it as a sowing of suspicion—in the same way suspicion was sown in and outside the Transkei against various people whom the Bantu representatives themselves chose as Ministers of the Transkei. I am not concerned who they choose. Just as little as Britain could interfere when Kenyatta, whom she condemned as a criminal, was recently chosen as the Prime Minister in Kenya, just as little can I or my Government interfere with any person who may be elected by the Parliament of the Transkei. Those are their own affairs. But I do want to issue a warning that the country should expect the subversive influences, which in anticipation try to destroy the Transkeian development by influencing the elections in certain directions, to continue to make it as difficult as possible for those Bantu who will have to govern the Transkei to do so properly. Therefore it will be necessary for us to regard very sympathetically everything which happens there. It is a pity that this experiment in Bantu self-government is not being granted a fair chance by all sides to prove itself. The Bantu leaders are now experiencing more or less what we experienced when the Nationalist Party came into power in 1948. Then also every possible measure, every possible form of attack, every possible form of vilification, was used to undermine the Government and to cause its administration of the country to fail. It is a tragedy, a great tragedy, that the Bantu Government of the Transkei is not being given the opportunity, uninfluenced, to show what it can do. It will certainly be harmful to race relations, whereas this experiment otherwise would probably prove how much more easily we can introduce self-government in South Africa than was the case in other parts of Africa.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also attacked our colour policy in a different way, viz. by saying that our policy had failed. He alleged that our colour policy had failed because it was discovered during the last census that a large number of Bantu had entered the urban areas as a result of the industrial development. Then he made the mistake, which I have often pointed out already, of saying that this is proof of integration. I have often proved already that the mere presence of larger numbers of Bantu in employment does not amount to integration. It is only when there is intermingling of those people in social life or in the political or religious spheres that one really gets integration. The mere fact that foreigners are employed in a community or in another country does not constitute integration. I have often stated that clearly already and I now just wish to repeat it as a fact. Also for other reasons it is quite incorrect to state that our policy has failed because of the presence of these increased numbers. The attention of this Parliament has, right throughout, been directed to the fact that there will be an increase in the numbers, that for a long time still we will have an upward graph, a graph which we can only curb by means of the measures we apply, but which will reach its peak appreciably later only. In 1950 already I mentioned the year 1978. At that time already I pointed out that if we could succeed by the year 2000 in again having the same number of Bantu in the rural and in the urban areas as we now have, that would represent a very satisfactory long-term process of development, particularly when at the same time we can give those people their political satisfaction in a different way, viz. by incorporating them in their political units, precisely as is happening now. In other words, the fact that these figures for 1960 show an increase over those for 1950 is precisely what I predicted at the time and what we have repeated over the years. It is simply ridiculous for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition suddenly to try to use this as an argument now and to say that it proves that our policy has failed.

What surprises me even more is that hon. members opposite evidently find cause for concern in it. If the United Party had been in power, those numbers would have been infinitely higher. The United Party claims that it wants to give the Bantu property rights in the White area, although under certain conditions, that they do not want to have family life broken up, and that it will not worry them if Bantu women are allowed to come in uncontrolled. Nor do they want influx control in the form in which we apply it. They say they will relax the identity book system which we are applying to-day. They call it petty apartheid, but it is not. They also want to extend the opportunities for employment in the White areas, even at the cost of the Whites, because they want to train the Bantu to be skilled workers in our towns and cities because otherwise, they say, there will be a shortage of labour. In other words, they even want to create the stimuli in various ways for a much greater influx of Bantu than exists to-day. I do not even want to mention the fact that in so doing they will have to incur much greater expenditure on housing, etc., something for which they reproach us sometimes. In other words, the United Party is prepared to allow the urban areas to become increasingly blacker to a much greater extent than can happen in terms of our policy of levelling the graph, by means of which we are trying to cope with the position. The same person (the Leader of the Opposition) who tries to put the rural areas up in arms against us by saying that we are allowing the rural areas to become blacker, is prepared to allow a far-reaching blackening, which is an even greater danger to us, viz. the blackening of the urban areas. But not only that. That same person, the Leader of the Opposition, wants increasingly more industries to be attracted to the rural areas. Now he complains that the rural areas are becoming blacker, as if the attraction of increasingly more industries to the rural areas will not rather result in those areas becoming blacker than would have been the case if more agriculture was practised there.

We find the greatest number of Blacks, as compared with Whites, in the agricultural industry.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows well enough that a process is also in progress of removing some of the superfluous Black labour on the farms gradually to their own areas. He knows that that is the policy, and he also knows that there are many things which complicate it. There is, e.g., the squatter labour system which makes it difficult. This is not a process which shows rapid results. To the extent that we succeed in building up the Bantu areas, something with which we are dealing, the process of attracting them away will, however, be increased in a fair manner, without hardship to anyone. Without any doubt, whilst we must be in favour of a certain degree of decentralization of industries, not only to the border areas but also to certain rural areas, we shall have to be selective in regard to which industries should be allowed to go to the latter. Therefore we will not be able to allow that full-scale decentralization for which he pleads and which will constitute a great danger to the platteland, which will then become much blacker. We are therefore dealing with conflicting policies.

The test which we should, however, really apply to the colour policy of the United Party in order to ascertain who deserves the confidence of the electorate and who does not is not whether a larger number of Blacks flows in, as the Leader of the Opposition has stated. We all expected that. The test should be what action is taken against it. The United Party practically wants to allow free influx. They want to create stimuli as the result of which increased numbers will come in. I have mentioned those stimuli. In addition, the Leader of the Opposition wants to give them increasing political authority in the White area. The vital question which must therefore be asked by every voter when it comes to colour policy is: Whom do I trust? By whom do I stand in regard to this question of political integration? Let there be no doubt about that: the United Party is losing support, and to the extent that it is increasingly being taken in tow by the liberals it will lose even more support because White South Africa is not prepared to allow Whites and non-Whites to sit together in the Central Parliament, with the latter increasingly taking over the authority. There we have the cardinal difference. The Whites of South Africa have confidence in us because we ensure the preservation of their own Parliament. Moreover, we provide legislative bodies for the Indians and the Coloureds to deal with their own affairs. But we are not prepared to allow a mixed Central Parliament or Government. A test in that regard has repeatedly been put to the United Party, and through their leader they have now adopted a clear standpoint. He has adopted a clear standpoint in favour of a race federation. He has clearly adopted the standpoint that such a race federation will result in every race being represented in the Central Federal Parliament, i.e. that they will govern together with us. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot get away from it that even though this representation will in the beginning be by Whites, in time each race will have its own representatives.

The Coloureds too, in terms of your policy.

No, that is not our policy. It is in fact the policy of the United Party. The United Party has indeed adopted the standpoint that the Coloureds should be on a common roll together with the Whites and that they should be treated equally in every respect, politically also. That would mean that the mixed constituencies would have to have Coloured representatives in Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition cannot get away from the fact. He accepts that Coloureds can come into this Parliament as the representatives of White-Coloured constituencies.

The hon. the Prime Minister says that we will not be able to avoid the various races eventually being represented by their own people. How will he avoid the representatives of the Coloureds being Coloureds in terms of his policy?

Surely I stated it very clearly. Our policy is that there will be a Coloured Legislative Council which will care for the interests of the Coloureds; the leaders will be equal to a Coloured Cabinet; they will form an executive body. This Council will deal with matters affecting the Coloureds only. The other matters, affecting the country as a whole, will be dealt with by this Parliament as it is constituted at present, and the representatives of the Coloureds will remain White, as they are now. That is our policy.

Why will they not remain White under our policy?

Because the hon. member stated that they would not.

I want to continue my argument. I had intended dealing with it briefly, but now I shall do so more thoroughly. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says he stands for a race federation; he says it is not only geographic. He says that in the first place he will regard the Coloureds and the Whites as absolutely equal political partners. That is undoubtedly his integration policy. This is not something which will be tested by means of any referendum or anything like that. That is the declared United Party policy. That will happen immediately he comes into power. It will be one of the first steps. In other words, what will happen immediately is that Coloureds will be able to take their seats in this Parliament, not as the representatives of a separate racial group but as the representatives of the White-Coloured electorate in every constituency. He does not deny that; it is a fact.

Secondly, he said that he would give the Indians representation, but in regard to what will he consult with them? In regard to how they are to be represented in the Central or Federal Parliament? Now the following is not what he says but what I say, viz. that he will not be able to get away from the fact that he will have to treat the Indians in Natal in the same way that he treats the Coloureds in the Cape Province.

Are you going to give the Indians representation here?

No. I am going to treat the Indians as I treat the Coloureds, up to the stage where they have a Council. I will only take up the leaders of the Indians in that purely consultative general body, which I said would be similar to a Commonwealth body (also merely a consultative body). However, I have never said, nor will I ever say—it is not our policy—that the Indians would be represented here in the same way as the Coloureds. If the Leader of the Opposition tells me it is his policy that the Indians will not be represented here by Indians, then I accept his word, but he has never said so yet. He merely says he will consult with the Indians about it. I emphasize that if he asks their advice, the least they will demand from him will be to be treated similarly to the Coloureds in terms of his policy. If he says he will not allow Indians here, even though he consults with them and even though they demand it, I will take his word for it. Does he say so now? He does not say so now.

I will reply.

Now we come to the Bantu. We now know where we stand in respect of the Indians. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition dare not reply to that. In regard to the Bantu, the Leader of the Opposition has already said in the first place that he prefers eight representatives for the Bantu to eight Bantustans. Of course we differ on that. I prefer to be assured of a White-dominated and a White representative Parliament in South Africa. Although I am forced to accept a Bantu-dominated multi-racial Northern Rhodesia as a neighbouring state, and a Bantu-dominated Swaziland, and Basutoland with a policy of partnership, I prefer to have my own Bantu separate, with full self-government, in their own areas. But he prefers eight Bantu representatives in this House. Nor do I believe that he will be able to keep it down to eight when once they are here. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was asked in Greytown in Natal whether those Bantu representatives would be White, and he then said he admitted that in the course of time they would be Bantu.

I said that they would be White, but I added that due to the development which we see taking place around us I admit that it would be impossible to keep them for ever from being represented by their own people.

“For ever” is a little longer than we understood from the report that it could last. The Witness reported in its issue of 2/11/1963—

I say frankly that I would rather have the Bantu as rulers in their own territory, outside the borders of my White states, than as corulers here, because I know that when once one starts with that they will eventually dominate through force of numbers, as has happened everywhere else. I say frankly what my standpoint is, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot escape the fact that he is prepared to accept Black representatives in the Central Parliament, even though he stated it in the form of rather having this than that.

Why do you not state it correctly? I spoke about a referendum.

I am still coming to the referendum.

My next point is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said that in fact he had a federation of the races in mind, but that he realized that those areas which we are developing as Bantu homelands—a development which he does not oppose—will have to be represented in this Parliament. That is the undertaking he gives in that yellow pamphlet of his. Now I ask: Is it in any way conceivable that he can get the Transkei or Zululand represented in the Federal Parliament, particularly in terms of a policy which must satisfy the world, viz. a federation of races, without every race representing itself? Is that conceivable; is it possible? Now I go a step further. He says that he would like to have the High Commission Territories as part of his own fatherland, in other words, as provinces. Can he have them represented by White people in his Federal Parliament? In order to escape from this problem, the hon. the Leader said he would not introduce a further extension of non-White representation without the decision of the electorate by way of a referendum. Let us see what that means. He talks about “voters”—note, not “White voters”. It is not White voters who will decide whether he should introduce Blacks into Parliament. It will be “voters”. By that time all the Coloureds of the Cape Province must already be voters. That is the first point I made. Perhaps, as the result of his consultation with the Indians, they will then also be voters, even though they will be voters who elect a White representative; but they will be voters. Those are now the voters who will decide what further representation he must give! By that time there may be Bantu voters also, because if he is going to have eight Bantu representatives who are Whites, the Bantus who elect them will also be voters, or how else can those representatives come into Parliament? Surely they are going to be elected, are they not? I ask this question: How are those Bantu representatives going to be elected by the Bantu? It is quite clear to me that the United Party is trying to escape from that question. Now I am going to put another question to them. When that referendum is held, the United Party must be in power. In other words, it holds the referendum to ask whether the voters (let us say) want to have Bantu representatives in the Federal Parliament of the race federation or not. My question is: What guidance is the United Party Government going to give at that referendum? What standpoint will it adopt? I held a referendum on the question of the Republic.…

Without leaving the Commonwealth.

That is quite correct. However, I also held the referendum subject to certain conditions, two of which were fulfilled by our leaving the Commonwealth. The point, however, is now that the Government had to adopt a standpoint. It could not hold a referendum and say: Choose what you like; we do not care. That is not how a Government holds a referendum. Now I want to know what attitude will be adopted on such an occasion by the United Party, which now wants to evade the fact that it is prepared to have non-Whites, particularly Bantu representatives, in this Parliament? All I can tell the Leader of the Opposition, who alleges that our policy has failed, is that he dare not adopt a clear standpoint on this issue. He asks the people to trust him to take over the reins of Government: he promises them the protection of a referendum; but he dare not say in advance that he will protect the Whites by the attitude he himself adopts when holding that referendum. He dare not say anything against non-White representation now. He can say it in his reply, if he likes.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) will say it.

I do not know whether hon. members noticed that little interjection, but the hon. the Leader says: “The hon. member for Yeoville will say it”

I wonder whether hon. members know this pamphlet. It states the colour policy of the United Party. I just want to make just one interesting little point, and that is that nowhere in this pamphlet does it state what the Leader of the Opposition or any other member has to say except that in one place there is a prominently displayed statement viz. that Mr. Marais Steyn stated that the race federation is as follows! (Laughter.) Well, the hon. member for Yeoville will tell us again! The point I wanted to stress is that it is clear that when it comes to the question of racial policy there is a decided difference between us, viz. that members of the Central Parliament will be kept White by this Government, whilst under the United Party the Central Parliament will be mixed, White and Black. They still do not want to give the country clarity as to the extent to which it will be mixed; they still shelter behind their referendum, but it is perfectly clear that they are just seeking shelter. The Federal Parliament of that race federation must consist of Bantu, Indians and Coloureds. Now, the question is: Who has the confidence of the people?

Then there are a few problems in connection with internal policy which I still wanted to discuss. I shall limit it to two points, the one dealing with the Broederbond and the other dealing with the economic development in the country. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me to resign from the Broederbond. The reason he advances for it is that I must thereby prove that I put South Africa first, and not a particular body. That is a stupid request. One’s membership of any body, whether it is a church or a company or an association, cannot be taken as proof that one’s greatest allegiance is to that body as contrasted with one’s country and one’s people. One also makes certain promises or takes oaths of allegiance towards one’s church in one’s catechism. If one becomes a member of any organization, one undertakes certain obligations. But the standpoint from which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition sets out is that I am neglecting the proper fulfilment of my duties as Prime Minister by being a member of one particular body. I definitely deny that I cannot as the responsible Prime Minister properly discharge my duty towards the public because I am a member of that body. I refer to my membership of that body because it has been known for more than 25 years that I am a member of it.

It leaked out!

No, it did not leak out; I made it known. Every member has the right to disclose his own membership if it is necessary for him to do so. I did so long ago. Hon. members need not shield behind that either therefore.

Before I proceed I should perhaps put one question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Is he a Freemason?

No.

Are there important members of his Party who are Freemasons?

I do not know.

Yes, it is a secret.

Are there members of your Party who are Freemasons?

I cannot say. We do not know.

Do you deny that there are Freemasons on the other side?

I do not know. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not know either whether some of his members are members of that organization. I am not asking them. The point is simply that we have in our country various bodies which have certain secrets, in various ways.

But this is a different matter.

It is not different. There are different ways in which various bodies have their own secrets. I am being asked now, because the Sunday Times has taken it upon itself to wage a feud against a particular body, to adopt a certain attitude, inter alia a personal attitude, in connection with that body.

To start with, let me pause for a moment to deal with the history of the Broederbond, and mainly the history of the attacks on this body. It is well known that General Hertzog made certain attacks upon the Broederbond. It is also well known that after he had had a discussion with the then chairman of this body—I think it was the late Professor van Rooy—General Hertzog did not carry on with these attacks. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition now doubts whether General Hertzog was satisfied. In any event since General Hertzog never repeated these attacks such a doubt reveals a very peculiar attitude.

When did this interview take place?

I think immediately after the disclosures which he made at Smith field, or within a reasonably short period thereafter. Secondly we know that during the war General Smuts made certain allegations, or whatever you wish to call them, with regard to the Broederbond. He objected to public servants being members of the Broederbond. That was the end of the matter. Although he had the power General Smuts did not cause an inquiry to be instituted. Why not? Why, if he knew sufficient about that organization to regard it as subversive of the State, did he not institute an inquiry? He had objections to the Broederbond, particularly as far as membership of members of the Public Service was concerned, while he was engaged in a war, but why did he not cause this body itself to be investigated? Presumably because he too knew that it was not necessary.

In 1953 there was a further series of attacks under the leadership of Mr. Strauss. As we all know Sen. Conroy regularly attacked the Broederbond both throughout the years of his ministership and also thereafter. It then led to a debate in this Parliament, a debate similar to this debate with similar attempts to sow suspicion, and the same accusations were made at that time. The then Prime Minister (Dr. D. F. Malan) invited the United Party to ask for an inquiry into certain secret bodies. The United Party did not avail itself of this invitation and here the matter ended. The allegations which were then made as to what the Broederbond was supposed to be and what it was supposed to do and what influence it was supposed to exert upon the Government were all on the same lines as the present attacks. The only difference is that the attackers have now published a few additional documents and they have got the present Leader of the Opposition to be their mouthpiece. At that time the then member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) referred to certain information which was also available, namely a certain court judgment, and he also referred to a report from the (Raad der Kerken) Council of Churches.

I referred to it a moment ago.

It might be as well perhaps if I read it out again in the form in which it was set out. This was a case between the Council of Churches and General Conroy (not Senator Conroy but his brother), and this is what the judge said—

I think the Opposition accepted at that time, and apparently still accept, that Dr. Nicol is a most honourable and a most reliable person who would not tell a lie when he makes such an allegation.

Then there was an inquiry by a commission of the Raad der Kerken (Council of Churches), that is to say, a body representing the various Afrikaans churches in the four provinces, and their finding was as follows—

Nothing was found to be wrong with that, of course.

What is the reason then why this issue is now suddenly being brought into prominence again in precisely the same way, with no further information, with nothing more that can arouse suspicion? I am convinced, as I said at the outset, that it is only being done to arouse suspicion against the Government and the Afrikaner and against myself and others in the minds of the English-speaking people in this country. May I be permitted to say quite unambiguously that naturally in its early years the Afrikaanse Broederbond had to wage a struggle for the Afrikaner and the Afrikaner nation. It came into being for this purpose and that is why it converted itself into a secret body, which it was not to begin with. What was the reason for converting it into a secret body?

In 1922?

It was not a secret body at first but it became one later on. Why? Because the predecessors of the people who are its attackers to-day, immediately proceeded to prejudice in every possible way any person who belonged to this body and who stepped into the breach for the cause of the Afrikaner during that period of imperialism and jingoism; to prejudice him, wherever he happened to be employed, by means of boycotts, by retarding his promotion, etc., because he fought for the promotion of the interests of the Afrikaner population at a time when the Afrikaner race was the underdog. That is why this body consisting of a number of young men came into being, young men who did not wish to do anything subversive or who ever did anything subversive; young people who, dedicated to their nation, sought to promote the interests of their nation; young people who decided to come together once in a while to discuss what could be done to promote the Afrikaner cause. When I talk about the 1910, 1920 and 1930 decades, hon. members know how much leeway the Afrikaner had to make up, how the Afrikaner was often oppressed in the social and economic spheres. In the political sphere too he was also pushed into the background. It was at that time that certain young Afrikaners developed this organization so as to be able to discuss with one another in small groups what they could do; what they could do in the economic sphere; what they could do for their language; what they could do for their literature; what they could do to build up their nation; what contribution they could make so that their national group could also have a share in our political life. What is wrong with that? Nothing.

Did General Hertzog not know this?

No, General Hertzog, in exactly the same way as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to-day, was misled by mischief-makers. In this case the main mischief-maker is the master of the United Party, namely the Sunday Times. Joel Mervis, with his newspaper and with the instructions which he is giving to his reporters, is trying to get hold of something to alienate the Afrikaners from the English-speaking section in South Africa. Those are the people who are now giving a lead to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

These young Afrikaners established a body at that time and they were forced to keep their names and membership secret because of the harm which was done to this handful of young people. In this way a tradition of secrecy was built up. And now I want to make a few statements myself to-day. The first is that this body has tried to do nothing else over the years other than positively to do its best for the Afrikaans cause. It has never done so in a spirit of hostility towards the English-speaking section.

Oh!

It had to maintain itself at a time when certain English-speaking persons and bodies in South Africa directed their attacks against the Afrikaners. It had to maintain itself in the face of that strong and mighty stream. We Nationalists had to do the same thing. We Nationalists had to fight against imperialism as personified by English-speaking South Africans at that time. For years we as Afrikaners had to wage a hard struggle. But the time came when our language was recognized, when our literature was recognized, when the Afrikaner was recognized socially and when he made great progress in the economic sphere. The position has now arisen, particularly in recent times, that in the political sphere too the pro-National Afrikaner has become so strong that he has been able to proceed with his attempt to convince the English-speaking section of our population that the greatest asset of all of us to-day lies in co-operation in all spheres. Not only does the National Party invite the English-speaking section to-day to join it in becoming members of the party …

Of the Broederbond?

It is no longer necessary for the National Party to fight with the English-speaking section. Its whole spirit and inclination is one of co-operation. Secondly I say that just like the National Party the Broederbond had this same experience. Just like the National Party the Broederbond too was at first inspired by the danger to the survival of the Afrikaner race in South Africa, and to-day the Broederbond too seeks co-operation between Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking for the survival of the White race. The Broederbond is prepared to accept that it is in the best interests of the Republic of South Africa that Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking should co-operate and it is not imbued with hatred against the English-speaking section.

How many English-speaking people are there in the Broederbond?

I do not know. I might just as well ask how many Afrikaans speaking people are members of the Sons of England. I do not know.

Thirdly I want to say that the attitude which we adopt as a Government is not to allow ourselves to be influenced by any other body. We represent the voters and the party which supports us. Our policy is only influenced by the voters through the ordinary channels of the party. I say most emphatically—and every member of the Cabinet, whether he is English speaking or Afrikaans-speaking and whether he is a member of the Broederbond or not, will be able to confirm this—that no attempt is being made or has been made by the Broederbond, or as far as that is concerned by the Freemasons or by the Sons of England, to influence the policy of the Government or the implementation of the policy, or to influence appointments or to force its will upon the Government in connection with anything which relates to the Government of the country. No attempts are being made and no attempts have been made by the Broederbond to dictate policy or to influence policy. If I am regarded as an honourable person, then my word must be taken for it that I would never permit such a thing. I have a duty to fulfil towards my party and towards my people, and I shall fulfil my duty. No one is going to dictate to me from outside what I as Prime Minister should do or should not do. Neither the Opposition nor any other body which tries in an organized way, as a state within the State, to dictate to the National Party, is going to dictate to us. It simply does not happen. There is no such thing. I want to add too that the ordinary practice of the Broederbond is that if a member becomes a Minister, then because of the sort of accusations which are now being made and because of this type of attack, he is relieved of his tasks and duties. In any event he has very little opportunity of cooperating with the Broederbond or any other organization. In the nature of things his duties as Minister make that almost impossible. I think in the ten years during which I have been a Minister first and then Prime Minister I have been in contact scarcely three or four times with the division or the branch to which I happen to belong. That is the position of the Government therefore, and yet hon. members on the other side have the audacity to say that we are ordered to do this, that or the other thing. The fact of the matter is that all this propaganda is untrue. Moreover, it is also a fact that there is another type of propaganda which is also untrue, and that is that we are allowing nepotism to be practised; that we are promoting people in various ways in the Public Service or elsewhere as a result of pressure exerted by this body. There is no such thing. Indeed, since this suspicion has been sown and since the question has been raised as to whether it does not happen that such pressure is exerted, I might also add that while I am able to make this firm denial in respect of the Broederbond. I have received a very large number of complaints about influence exercised by the Freemasons in the matter of appointments. I do not say that that is true; I do not know. But one continually hears this allegation. If I wished to start a feud or if any of the newspapers to which I am connected wished to start a feud against, shall we say, Freemasonry, we would be able to do so on a colossal scale if we were to give publicity to all these complaints, whether they are well-founded or not. It is often alleged that in point of fact the Public Service is dominated by Freemasonry in the matter of promotions; that in the Defence Force the Freemasons rule the roost and that they dominate the Police Force. That is the sort of complaint which reaches me on a large scale. Must I start a witch-hunt now against the Freemasons?

There is no proof, but what about the Broederbond?

I have said that I am a member of the Broederbond and I am at the same time head of the Government and I know what sort of charges are made against all these bodies, without proof. I am not saying that pressure is exerted by the Freemasons; I make no such accusation. I do not belong to the category of witch-hunters to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition apparently belongs to-day. I took no notice of these charges. I adopted the attitude that we the Government should keep out of all these silly disputes and accusations; that we should try to unite the Whites of South Africa into one nation and that we should try as far as possible to banish suspicion from our minds. That is not the spirit, however, in which the hon. members on the other side are acting.

Secrets one finds everywhere. In many bodies there are secret discussions which may well have a political effect. Indirectly pressure may be exerted by these bodies in the political sphere. We are all aware of the fact that there is a freemasonry, but does anyone of us know what is going on there confidentially? We know nothing about influences which they may exert through all sorts of normal channels as a result of their deliberations.

You can read books about it in the Library.

Can I go and read in the Parliamentary Library whether any Lodge has held a meeting to discuss what they think, for example, about the support which should be given to the leadership of the United Party against the Government—how funds should be obtained? I do not know. Can I discover there whether they are the inspiration behind the ideas of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) as expressed in this yellow booklet (on Colour policy) which I am holding in my hand? How am I to know? Can I go and look it up in the Library? No.

But there are books there.

No, as far as the Broederbond is concerned, for example, I could also read out certain statements which were reported in Hansard or which were made in the course of the court judgments or which came to light in other reports, but I do not know what is intimately discussed in the branches of all those bodies. My own caucus is a secret body, and unless the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has spies there he does not know what goes on there. I know who sits in the Opposition caucus but I do not know what is discussed there secretly unless I have a spy there, which I do not have.

Let me go a little further. The Sons of England is another body which I am not attacking here either. I must say that in the last few years the Sons of England organization has made rather a good impression on me in certain respects. After our withdrawal from the Commonwealth it issued a statement in which it accepted the Republic of South Africa, and at its annual congresses every year it has sent the State President and me a message vouchsafing their support to South Africa. But I am aware of the fact that as persons with an English background they probably discuss many matters amongst themselves in confidence in terms of their English connection, matters such as the maintenance and the purity of their language. I do not begrudge them that. In the same way I suppose the Afrikaner Broederbond also discusses certain matters from the Afrikaner point of view. I have publicly advocated more than once that we, the Afrikaans-speaking section and the English-speaking section, must not begrudge each other our separate festivals; that we must not begrudge each other certain separate customs, just as we have our separate churches. Let us also concede our separate associations to each other. Thus, for example, we do not begrudge the Scots their Caledonian Society. Let us concede a good deal to each other as far as differences are concerned but let us stand together and co-operate as one nation in essential matters. I do not begrudge the English-speaking section a body such as the Sons of England. I do not know what discussions they have; they do have secrets. Nobody knows what they are trying to achieve. People do know certain things about them, but that is all. But I concede that to them. Similarly the demands of the Afrikaner should also be conceded. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I shall not resign from the Afrikaanse Broederbond. At the same time I shall also fully discharge my duty towards South Africa. I do not regard myself, as has been alleged, as a better Afrikaner than others who are not members, nor do other members regard themselves as better Afrikaners. When one creates a large and powerful organization which is able to hold huge meetings on the same lines as a political party, members do not have the same opportunity for ordinary discussion and consultation that they have where small numbers of people gather.

What about the Federal Council of the National Party?

The hon. member must not be objectionable now. The members of the Broederbond do not regard themselves as better than other people. There are probably equally good Afrikaners or even better Afrikaners outside of the Broederbond than there are within the Broederbond. There are perhaps also better pro-English or English-speaking people outside of the Sons of England than there are within that organization. There are perhaps better Christians outside of the Freemason movement—after all, they say that they are a Christian orientated organization—than there are within. Membership is limited in every case for different reasons.

I want to mention another example of secret gatherings. Certain business undertakings hold private discussions in the same way as our political parties and in the same way as the Cabinet and in the same way as our Government and other bodies. A business undertaking may be a powerful machine. One finds large combinations of business undertakings such as the Openheimer group—an octopus in the sense that it has its branches in all spheres of the economic life of South Africa. It is a huge undertaking which is spread over the whole of the country’s economy. The directors, when they meet, hold private discussions. In the case of such a powerful body there is also a central body somewhere which lays down basic policy. The influence of that central body, to say the least of it, must be great in our economic life. Nobody knows, however, what they discuss there. In the course of his speeches Mr. Openheimer, the leader, makes political statements; he discusses political policy, he tries to exercise political influence. He even supports a political party, which it so happens is not the party of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In other words, he has political aims; he wants to steer things in a certain direction. He can discuss those things secretly with groups of people on his boards of directors. He can secretly cause a good many things to happen. In other words, he can pull strings. With all that monetary power and with this powerful machine which is spread over the whole of the country he can, if he so chooses, exercise an enormous influence against the Government and against the State. Such a secret machine, if it is misused, can be much more dangerous than any organization such as the Sons of England or the Broederbond, because it has an economic power which far exceeds the power of such small groups of people sitting in consultation. Must we investigate it? We could also mention other groups.

What about the Federale Trust?

Yes, there is the Federal group which is much smaller, of course. There are also other large groups of companies which have amalgamated. Just think of the power which those people can exercise over the whole of South Africa, including the Afrikaner race, including the National Party, without anybody being aware of it. Just imagine how dangerous such a body can be if there is a secret central body which is prepared to devise all sorts of subversive plans there. Just imagine what harm it can cause if it uses its organization and its money to exert influence. Has the Sunday Times ever stated that that danger should be investigated and cast out? Did the Leader of the Opposition utter a warning that I would not allow myself to be influenced by powers of that kind? Why not? I want to conclude on this point therefore by saying that I want to make the following offer: If the Leader of the United Party is prepared to move that there should be a judicial inquiry into the extent to which secret organizations or bodies which gather secretly—I mention the Broederbond and the Freemasons specifically, but there are others as well—should be investigated with an eye to any possible subversive activities against the nation or against the State or any possible intrigue in connection with appointments in the Public Service or elsewhere—the terms of reference can be formulated in consultation with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—if he wants to propose the appointment of such a judicial commission to investigate such things which are secret—I mention as examples the Broederbond, the Freemasons, the Openheimer organization…

The Nasionale Pers.

I am talking now about those which they say are powerful forces and others which we know may become powerful forces. Let us investigate whether they are carrying on such subversive work. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition puts forward such a proposal I am prepared to consider it.

I also want to deal briefly with the economic development. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that it is taking place in spite of the Government. I definitely deny that. He says the policy of the Government impedes our economic development. Such an allegation is in conflict with the logic of the points of view stated by those hon. members themselves, because it is not so long ago when the Opposition alleged, when we were passing through a difficult time, that it was due to our policy that South Africa was not developing economically. In the first place, they initially tried to stop us from setting in motion proper economic development by sowing suspicion and making things difficult for us. Secondly, later, in 1960 and 1961, they said that it was as the result of our policy that South Africa encountered difficulties. But at the moment there is a turn in the tide as the result of the actions of the Government. They refuse to admit that it was the policy of the Government which brought about this change. Then suddenly it is despite our policy. Surely it is nonsensical to argue in that way from two opposing points of view. I allege that the prosperity we are experiencing in the Republic of South Africa is a direct result of the actions of the Government. In various spheres it set in motion processes which created the climate as the result of which the present large-scale development is taking place. In saying that, I am not even mentioning that most of the immigration and the employment and the investment taking place here is the result of the fact that people in the outside world are assured that there will be stability and security here as long as this Government, with its policy, is in power. Particularly the investments are the result of the confidence and the stability which have characterized the administration of this country for the past 15 years. That is what it is due to. Also, because White civilization is preserved here, in contrast to what is happening in other places, investors see that their money is safe here. In addition, I can mention an infinite number of other things the Government has done directly to promote economic development, but I just want to mention a few. When I became Prime Minister, trade missions were sent to various parts of the world to investigate export possibilities for us. That was followed by an export congress and the development of an export organization, in which the Government played a direct role and to which it gave its support. That was accompanied by the continual economic investigations made on a large scale by the Department of Economic Affairs in order to promote exports. The economic development was also the result of the appointment of my Economic Advisory Council, the co-operation between the private and public sectors which flowed from it, and the planning which accompanied it. Apart from the financial planning which took place in the country, not only on the part of the Government, there were also the financial measures taken by the Government, such as those which were applied at the time when there was a flight of capital from South Africa. The Government has been condemned by hon. members opposite because of these measures, but they have proved successful. In this difficult time the Government was responsible in many ways for the drafting of long-term schemes of development, inter alia, by the statutory bodies. The Department of Economic Affairs inspired Iscor, Sasol and other bodies to concentrate on five-year and ten-year plans. The development of Phalaborwa and the expansion of the chemical industry were encouraged. Recently another big housing scheme has been launched. There are enormous schemes such as the Orange River Scheme, which proves what confidence the Government has in the country, and which involve the expenditure of large sums of money, which comes into circulation and which gives a fillip to the industrial life of the country in respect of many products. So I can continue to mention one thing after another, including the encouragement given by the Government by means of the Budget and in other ways, as the result of which this climate exists in which this tremendous development is taking place. But in spite of that, the Leader of the Opposition is presumptious as to say that this Government has done nothing to stimulate the economic progress of the country. I contend that even the favourable climate which has arisen overseas vis-à-vis South Africa is due to this Government and to it alone, because it provided the inspiration which led to this great development taking place. The private sector held back until, as the result of the measures adopted by the Government, it gained new courage to participate in this large-scale development.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to lay his finger on one weak point. In fact, that is the only one that it is possible to argue about, namely the manpower problem. Now I would just like to say that as far as that is concerned he is completely wrong. It is not true to say that South Africa runs the risk of getting into difficulties if she takes certain steps she is taking to-day. His allegation that there will be a shortage of 30,000 trained men in 1968 is an estimate and it is based on an estimated immigration figure and an inflow of 5,000 immigrants per annum. In that case we shall have that shortage but after it has been proved that that immigration figure is 30,000, or even higher, that whole calculation falls away. As a matter of fact if there is a consistent inflow of immigrants of only 20,000 for the next five years, the entire estimated shortage of 30,000 skilled labour at the end of that period falls away. Apart from that it is correct to say that by improved training, by drawing in older people and making better use of them, and by various other methods, some of which he mentioned, that situation will be even further improved. We are giving attention to all those matters. Not only do I have my Scientific Advisory Committee and my scientific adviser who are investigating this matter, not only are the Minister of Planning and his fellow-workers giving their attention to this, not only is the Department of Education, which is concerned in this matter, active in this field, not only are the Economic Advisory Board and the economic adviser studying this matter, but the latter is busy evolving an economic development programme, part of which is precisely an investigation into the growth of manpower requirements and how to meet that demand. We have for a long time been engaged on that. The data at my disposal show that this is simply a bogy but that, if we handle the situation properly, we need not be afraid of such a shortage. I want to say this to hon. members: the motive behind this attack by people outside, by some businessmen and also by the United Party and its Leader, is that they want us to abolish job reservation. They are very anxious to promote their economic integration policy as a forerunner to political integration by trying to force us to take in more and more non-Whites unnecessarily into the professions and trades in the various White areas. Nor do they take account of the fact that we are indeed busy bringing non-Whites into our skilled industrial life where they fit in, namely, each one in his own circle, that is to say the Coloured into Coloured undertakings in Coloured areas, the Indian into Indian undertakings in Indian group areas and the Bantu in the Bantu areas. That is also a way that will assist to solve the manpower problem without integration, namely, by making use of their services in the right places, although also as skilled workers. Compare the position of the Bantu building worker in Bantu residential areas. It was to that that I referred when I said what he quoted, namely, that I saw my way clear, without causing disruption, without there being a conflict between the interests of the White and the non-White worker, to give everyone a fair and full opportunity to develop and to take part in the country’s development but not in a way that will bring about a mixing of the races in employment. There is no doubt about it that the motive behind the United Party’s attack is not a purely economic motive. It is not even necessary to bring in Blacks in the skilled jobs in White areas. It is a politically inspired attack in an attempt to get us to abandon a method (job reservation) which they attack and to force us to absorb more and more non-Whites in our economic life whatever the consequences may be. We do not intend to allow ourselves to be led astray by that sort of propaganda of his.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said that we did not realize that we were experiencing a period of scientific development. He made all sorts of accusations in connection with teachers”’ salaries and the salaries of similar employees. I can assure him that the Government is indeed giving proper attention, by means of its Scientific Advisory Board and by means of certain investigations, to the broad question of how the State can make better use of scientific methods.

When shall we hear about that?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will hear about that when the Board has proper data. They are conducing a very thorough investigation but in the meantime South Africa is also busy introducing scientific methods everywhere. When we are dealing with the question of salaries there is a scientific way of properly adapting the salaries of all sorts of groups with one another. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition thinks he may cause unrest by telling teachers that had he been in power he would have given them an increase in salaries, he will not succeed, because everyone knows that a Government has to keep count of a whole series of consequences, consequences that will affect all sorts of other bodies in the country and all sorts of other employers and employees when it makes such a promise. The teachers are clever and experienced enough to know that he is merely trying to catch their vote and that his views are not as sober and sound as one would expect from a responsible man before he makes any promises.

On what do you base that?

On what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said a moment ago. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also attacked the way we acted in the building industry. There too the motive is the same reprehensible one. The building industry has passed through a difficult period, as happens often, because that industry, more than any other one, is subject to fluctuations. During that period, as usually happens, far fewer apprentices enrolled and as a result of that the average age figure naturally went up. It is a further fact, however, that as soon as there is an upsurge in the industry new apprentices immediately enter the industry. That is precisely what is happening. We are obviously trying to help to find recruits for the building industry by getting the right type of immigrants, but the one step which we shall not take—and that is the step the Leader of the Opposition is heading for—is this: We shall not unnecessarily allow the building industry to become Black. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition really wants to depart from the basic principle we laid down when we introduced the Native Building Workers Act namely that Natives will indeed be trained as building workers but that they will only be trained in order to build their own houses in their own residential areas, whether that be in the cities or in their own areas. We shall continue to train and to use them for that purpose, but as promised at the time we shall not assist in unnecessarily employing them on ordinary building projects as a result of attacks, panic inspired, as those we have had from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition thereby jeopardizing the position of the While building workers as well as the Coloured building workers in the Cape Province. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition thinks he will tempt us to do that by his attacks he is wrong and he will find that because of his attempt to attack us people will rather lose more confidence in him, also as far as this point is concerned, than lose confidence in us.

I did not refer to the attacks which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made on the Minister of Justice. In that regard I shall leave him to the Minister of Justice because his attacks were aimed at his administration. He did raise one point, however, in this connection which affects me, namely, whether I was prepared to support such a Minister. My reply to this is quite unequivocal. The Minister of Justice is an extremely capable Minister. He does his duty one hundred per cent. The people have confidence in him. They live in peace and quiet because the Minister of Justice is leading his Department in a sensible and judicious manner. I shall most certainly stand by the Minister of Justice through thick and thin. Let me tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that forces are active in our country against which we must be protected. Red Communism is not only active in Cuba or in Zanzibar; it is active all over. We are aware of that and we do not intend leaving the people of South Africa in the lurch by protecting a few people who are instigators, or know of instigators, at the cost of the nation as a whole. Let me put it very clearly—I have said this before—the ordinary South African who behaves in a decent and law-abiding manner is not affected by any legislation which is aimed at combating subversive activities. The small number of people who are affected, they are often influenced from outside, are those who endanger South Africa. If I and the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Defence and the Government want to defend the entire nation properly against subversive influences from outside, influences which operate with the assistance of small numbers inside the country, we have to do so in the way in which we are doing it today. It is far more important to protect the entire nation than to reveal a special weakness, as a result of arguments based on sham humanitarian considerations, as far as a small group is concerned. Hon members know what has happened in Zanzibar. The revolt there was caused by a small group of instigators and saboteurs. We shall not allow ourselves to be caught by people who endanger the peace in that way. I am adamant on this point that the Government must have all the power and exercise that power to ensure the safety of our country and our nation. Whoever criticizes that will have to keep count with the necessity of having such a policy. When a group of psychiatrists and psychologists sign a certain document I give my personal attention to that document as I did in the case of certain other protest documents which from time to time emanated from university professors. These are documents drawn up by people the most of whom do not express a personal opinion. They are simply a group of people who are willing to allow themselves to be used to achieve a political object. In other words, it is nothing more or less than an attempt by a certain smaller group, which do belong to certain professions, it is true, to intervene politically but who do not act as experts but as layman in politics.

Do you say they are dishonest?

I say it is a political act. There are people who differ from us and who are honest in their political convictions, but their professions must not be dragged in where it is nothing else than an attempt to make political propaganda in connection with any matter. Here is an attempt, more than anything else, to attack the Government. It is therefore not a purely professional diagnosis which we shall allow to influence our judgment.

Mr. Speaker, it was unfortunately necessary for me to deal somewhat at length with these matters but the reason why I have done so, particularly in these days when South Africa is fighting with her back to the wall for her continued existence, is that it is desirable not to mince matters. It is necessary for everybody to know precisely where he stands. I would very much like South Africa to choose between the United Party and the Nationalist Party as government. So far the choice has always, and to a growing extent, been in favour of the National Party. The United Party is trying to stem that tide which is still in our favour. Because that tide is to-day being directed in favour of the Government by the English-speaking section more than any other section, the United Party is trying to stop it by sowing racial hatred. I had hoped that by giving a detailed exposition of the various points I would show that all attacks were aimed at achieving two objects: namely to abandon South Africa to multi-racialism, even though it ended in Black domination in the long run, and to put a spoke in the wheel of the growing unity between the English- and Afrikaans speaking sections in South Africa. Only by revealing that can that aspiration of the United Party be thwarted. That was the reason why I adopted the attitude which I did adopt. I trust South Africa will in an increasing measure show its disapproval of that racial hatred which the United Party is fanning on and of a body which is so destructive, as well as how much they distrust that body as a result. That is why I move—

We have had the very interesting phenomenon this afternoon that the hon. the Prime Minister in the course of his long speech, for the length of which we do not blame him, devoted half of his time to a debate which is not being conducted in this House. He spent almost half of his three hours in replying to matters which were not raised by the Leader of the Opposition. He tried to reply on matters which he thought the Leader of the Opposition might perhaps raise in the discussion on a motion of no-confidence. I want to give the hon. the Prime Minister the assurance that the Leader of the Opposition will never make speeches in this House which are based on the Prime Minister’s expectations. What also struck one about the Prime Minister’s speech was the fact that the lengthy first portion of it was devoted to a discussion of international affairs in a spirit which I can only sum up in this way, that the Prime Minister stood up to exclaim to the world, “Pull up, I want to get off.”

Since one would like to discuss this matter after some further consideration, I move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

Agreed to; debate adjourned.