In the short time still at my disposal I would not like to repeat what I said yesterday afternoon in connection with the Broederbond. I, however, want to deal with one statement made by hon. members on the other side of the House, an allegation that is often made by the hon. the Prime Minister, and that is that he apparently believes in unity between the two important language groups and that he and his party are in favour of absolute equality for and equal treatment of the two language groups. I want to put a question to him in this regard. I have here before me a cutting from a newspaper, a newspaper which may not perhaps be the leading newspaper in the opinion of the hon. the Prime Minister but which is nevertheless a newspaper that is regarded by the Nationalist Party as being authoritative, namely, the Burger. The heading above the article states: “National Party can live without other language group.” In it there appears a report of a speech that was made by a leading Nationalist Member of Parliament, Mr. J. A. Marais, the hon. member for Innesdal, who is a leading light in the party organization as well. According to this report the hon. member for Innesdal had the following to say in his speech [translation]—

He goes on to say [translation]—

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I am sorry but my time is limited. The hon. member will have every opportunity to reply to me. I am pleased that the hon. member is so anxious to reply. We would like to know what the hon. the Prime Minister thinks of the hon. member for Innesdal or, on the other hand, what the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Innesdal think of the Burger. Let us return again to the secret hand behind the other side of the House. A photostatic copy of a Broederbond circular dated 1 August 1963 appeared in the Press in which the following remarks were made [translation]—

And then they say that the Broederbond is non-political; that the Broederbond and the Nationalist Party have no connection with one another whatsoever! This proves that when the hon. the Prime Minister and his party speak of co-operation between the Afrikaans-and English-speaking people it is only for outside consumption, that it does not hold good in the inner circles of the Nationalist Party, particularly in the circles dominated by the Broederbond. It is those circles that make use of the few so-called “tame English-speaking people”. I predict that during this Session, perhaps even during this week and perhaps even to-day, we will have the case of a poor political weakling amongst the English-speaking people who will once again be used for the purposes of Broederbond unwittingly.

I should like to have said a great deal more about the influence of the Broederbond in education, but time does not permit me to do so. If anyone wants proof of the work of the Broederbond in our educational system to-day, I would urge them to read an excellent speech made by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) in this House in 1949, which has already been referred to.

I want to conclude by referring once again to the reprehensible methods used by this secret organization. We heard it said yesterday that there was a case of the theft of certain Broederbond documents. Whereas in actual fact no such theft took place. I consider that to be a reprehensible method to use and a reprehensible attack and I do not accept the apology of the hon. the Minister of Justice.

Let me mention one further case in connection with the Broadcasting Corporation. A statement was broadcast recently, a very condensed one, in regard to what the Reverend Beyers Naude had apparently said, inter alia, in connection with the Broederbond. Immediately after wards the ordinary service of the Broadcasting Corporation was deliberately interrupted in order to broadcast a reply from the Broederbond. I ask on whose authority that reply of the Broederbond was broadcast by the Broadcasting Corporation? Which of the senior officials of the Broadcasting Corporation are Broederbonders? By whom have they been appointed? Who is the head of the Broadcasting Corporation? Is it true that he is also the chairman of the Broederbond? When did the Broadcasting Corporation become the agent of a cunning and secret organization here in South Africa? The licence fees which help to run the Broadcasting Corporation are paid by every citizen in South Africa. We want to know. Surely an organization like the Broadcasting Corporation should first check its sources of information before broadcasting anything? What was its source of information? Who is the head of the organization that gave the Corporation the details of the Broederbond reply? Why was that method used? Are we going to have more cases of this kind? Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs can give us a reply in this connection. From everything we know, that we have read and heard, including the objections even on the part of Nationalists to the Broederbond, it is clear that we are dealing here with a secret organization that is harming and damaging South Africa and democracy, including our parliamentary system if that system is also used to defend the Broederbond. I want to predict again that there will also be nonmembers of the Broederbond who will defend the Broederbond because one often finds that the Broederbond is too afraid to defend itself and so makes use of other people. I want in conclusion to quote these words of General Hertzog [translation]—

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) spoke yesterday. He of course made his typical speech—bluster and sound and fury, but with very little substance. The hon. member tried to make a bad case presentable, but as a matter of fact he made a bad case even worse. This hon. member accused the Prime Minister of having shown faulty judgment and he went back to 1933, 30 years ago, to the days of the gold standard when the Prime Minister was a professor at Stellenbosch University to show how faulty his judgment was on the gold standard. What utter futility! Then, of course, the Broederbond has become an obsession with the United Party, and the hon. member for Yeoville attacked the Broederbond. He was preparing the way for his Leader to wriggle out of the challenge issued by the Prime Minister that he should ask for a judicial inquiry to investigate all secret societies, including the Freemasons and the Sons of England.

And the Anglo-American.

The Prime Minister said he was quite prepared to draw up the terms of reference in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, but I predict that the Leader of the Opposition will not accept this challenge. But I want to say this, that if he does not accept this challenge it will again be a demonstration of the political dishonesty of the United Party. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville had the impudence to accuse the Prime Minister of attempting to mislead the House and to misrepresent the policy of the United Party. The Prime Minister asked a very simple question. He asked the Leader of the Opposition who the voters would be who would vote in this proposed referendum, and with simulated indignation the hon. member for Yeoville shouted why did not the Prime Minister read the second paragraph in this yellow publication I have in my hand. I must say the colour is very appropriate.

Those are the Springbok colours.

This is the paragraph which the hon. member for Yeoville read and which he said the Prime Minister had not read. I have it in Afrikaans only, but I will read it—

That is after dealing with the referendum—

Now what on earth has this to do with the question the Prime Minister asked? The Prime Minister wanted to know who would be the voters; would the voters consist of the White voters, the Coloured voters and the Bantu voters on a communal roll? What on earth has this paragraph to do with the question put by the Prime Minister? But the hon. member for Yeoville, who accused the Prime Minister of endeavouring to mislead the House and misrepresenting their policy, should look into his own bosom because if ever there was misrepresenting of their policy and misleading the House it was that reply given to the Prime Minister’s question. [Interjection.] Sir, unfortunately there are very few members of the United Party who really understand this so-called policy of theirs, as I will attempt to show. Now, the people of South Africa make very high demands of a political party which aspires to become the Government, and one of the most important demands is political honesty. [Laughter.] A party that is guilty of double-talk, duplicity and dissembling is detested by right-thinking men, and rapidly deteriorates. In 1961 the political correspondent of the Sunday Express wrote as follows—

Nobody will deny that the United Party has deteriorated, and its deterioration has culminated in the resignation of a Member of Parliament and a Senator. [Interjections.]

Now, I want to test the political honesty of the United Party. On 21 January 1962 the hon. member for Yeoville wrote an article in the Sunday Times in reply to Mrs. Suzman, and I want the House to listen very carefully. This is what he wrote—

There is no talk about a referendum—

I want to know whether the hon. member for Yeoville still stands by this? I think this House and the country have a right to know whether the Leader of the Opposition agrees with the hon. member for Yeoville. Surely it is quite a simple question to reply to. Does the Leader of the Opposition agree with these statements by the hon. member for Yeoville? Does the hon. member for Yeoville still stand by that statement? Sir, the very least one can expect from the Leader of the Opposition is a little moral courage and to reply to a very simple question. Does his Leader repudiate the hon. member for Yeoville?

He is making notes.

I want to make another quotation and put another question. I am quoting from the Star of 3 October 1961. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) said the following in a speech—

Does the hon. member for South Coast still stand by this?

I never said it.

The hon. member then repudiates this report in the Star, but he never did so before.

When do I ever read the Star anyway? I never said it.

The trouble with the hon. member for South Coast is that directly he stands up and opens his mouth his brain ceases to work, and that is why he never remembers what he says. But the hon. member has not repudiated this.

Mr. Speaker, I ask whether the hon. the Minister does not accept my word?

I want to ask the hon. member for South Coast whether he agrees with the statement made by the hon. member for Yeoville.

I never said what you said I did.

After all, the hon. member for South Coast is a man of considerable courage. He has often threatened to march again. Will the hon. member say if he agrees with the statement made by the hon. member for Yeoville?

Why do you not accept my word?

I accept it, but will the hon. member now tell me whether he agrees with the statements made by the hon. member for Yeoville?

I have given an adequate answer.

That is the old excuse, but the answer is never forthcoming. I hope it will be remembered, after the publication of this little pamphlet and the statement of the Leader of the Opposition, that the Bantu will be represented by eight Whites in Parliament. But here there is not a word about the referendum. There is the categorical statement that Professor Matthews, if he so chooses, can become a member of this House, and the Leader of the Opposition refuses to repudiate the hon. member for Yeoville and consequently we must take it that he accepts it. If that is the position, this is not worth the paper it is written on. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition another question. After all, it has always been their objective and their main policy has been White leadership. Does the Leader of the Opposition still stand by that? Will he tell us whether he still stands by the policy of White leadership? It must be remembered that at the last Congress of the party in the Transvaal, the hon. member for South Coast told the Congress that they were developing the killer instinct in Sir de Villiers Graaff. Sir, look at that killer! He has not even the courage to reply to a simple question. Does he still stand by White leadership? [Interjections.]

Order!

If he refuses to answer, I must take it that he has abandoned that policy. Has he abandoned the policy of White leadership?

Make your own speech and I will answer you.

The House has a right to know. The hon. gentleman regards his party as the alternative Government, and as such the country and this House have the right to know where the Opposition stands. Does the Leader of the Opposition still stand by the policy of White leadership? [Interjections.] I hear some of the back benchers say yes, they still stand by it, but does the Leader of the Opposition agree with this? On 2 February 1962 the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) held a meeting. They were opposing the Progressives at that time and I am quoting from the Cape Times, which reported the following—

Does the hon. member agree with that? He might agree with a further statement made by Maj. van der Byl—

[Laughter.] He says it is a personal matter which is of no interest to the country. I would like to know whether the Leader of the Opposition agrees with Maj. van der Byl or not. I want to know from the Leader of the Opposition whether he still stands by the policy of White leadership. I find that he wrote an article in the Star of 5 November 1963, and this is what the Leader of the Opposition said. He said that their system of reform must satisfy the following prime requirements—

Now the House will note that he talks about “civilized” leadership and not “White” leadership. According to their policy, as soon as the Bantu have reached a certain stage of civilization they can be represented in this House, and also the Coloureds. What does he mean by “civilized” leadership? Does this mean that he has abandoned the policy of White leadership? He does not reply. I think the hon. member for South Coast must think again before he says that they are developing the killer instinct in that hon. member.

I want to deal with another aspect of their so-called policy as published in this yellow pamphlet. In regard to the Coloured people, they say the following—

They say the reason why they are not prepared to give the Coloured people in the Transvaal and the Free State the vote is because they have had no previous political experience. They will therefore be represented in the Senate. That means, Sir, that a Coloured man who has lived in the Cape for 40 years and has probably enjoyed the vote here for many years is debarred from voting if he moves to the Transvaal because he has not had any political experience. Have you ever heard so much nonsense, Sir? But this is the type of thing they lay before the voters and they expect to be supported.

If a Coloured man to-day moves to the Transvaal, does he not lose the vote?

I am not discussing our policy; I want to know what the hon. member’s policy is. But to show that this is not worth the paper it is written on I want to quote from the United Party’s policy on Sex and Marriage. A letter was written to one of the newspapers asking for information, and the letter reads as follows—

Now this is the reply by their Department of Information. They say—

In other words, it is not a question of principle but merely of political expediency. They are afraid of what the Nationalists might do if they repeal these two Acts to which they continually object. Therefore, is it not correct what this correspondent in the Times wrote, that they are trimming their sails to the wind, and that they are creating an image of political dishonesty in the country?

But the Leader of the Opposition also spoke about job reservation and in one of his speeches he said—

He said that they were going to abolish job reservation. Sir de Villiers Graaff asked—

That is how strongly he felt about job reservation. I said by way of interjection that apart from the clothing and building industry it affects some 5,000 White workers in South Africa. But in principle they are against job reservation because it is a sinful measure. Now I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition a very simple question. Will he also abolish the colour bar in the Mines and Works Act when he comes into power? That is job reservation, and it has stood on the Statute Book for about 40 years. Will he abolish the colour bar in that Act?

Surely you can do much better than that?

No, the Leader of the Opposition cannot wriggle out of it this way. He has to reply, whether he is in favour of abolishing the colour bar in the Mines and Works Act. He said job reservation was sinful and a blot on our Statute Book, and it gives South Africa a bad name overseas. That being so, will he abolish the colour bar and the job reservation provided for in the Mines and Works Act? Again, political expediency. They are afraid of the mine workers”’ vote. He knows that if he says yes, they will not get a single miner’s vote at the next election and he has not the courage of his convictions to say that they will abolish that colour bar and job reservation. But that is the party which wants to get the support of the voters in order to get into power. Is it not correct, as the correspondent of the Sunday Express said, that they created an image of blatant political dishonesty, trimming their sails to the prevailing wind? They are absolutely afraid to say outright whether they are prepared to abolish the colour bar in the Mines and Works Act. Mr. Speaker, no wonder that at their Congress in Natal one of their members, Mr. Bill Sutton, M.P.C., said in September last year—I am quoting from the Cape Argus—

What an admission! They say that thousands are voting for them just because they are the United Party and not because of their policies. I do not blame those voters. Who on earth in his full senses can vote for their policies? It has been demonstrated to-day that they want to be all things to all men. When they oppose the progressives they are ultra-liberals. When they oppose the conservatives they are ultra-Nationalists. This so-called policy is not a policy; it is merely a concoction and it stinks in the nostrils of every right-thinking man in South Africa. [Interjections.] Is it any wonder that they are deteriorating by the day and getting weaker? We have the position that the Opposition party gets weaker by the day, and not stronger. They are continually shedding members as fast as they shed principles and they have not even the moral courage to reply to simple questions in regard to their policies.

You will get a reply.

They are always saying they will reply, but they never do. I predict to-day that when the Leader of the Opposition replies to-morrow he will not reply to one of these questions I have put to him. That is why the Government is going from strength to strength, because the people realize more than ever before that there is only one party they can trust and depend upon to further the interests of South Africa.

May I commence by asking the hon. the Minister of Transport to let me have his Hansard to get that reference? Thank you. Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister followed my Leader in this debate and he rushed into this debate under circumstances which were quite different from last year and the previous year. He rushed in without any dramatic announcement to make, such as he made in 1962 and 1963, when he never replied to the debate of no confidence and the charges made against his Government by the Leader of the Opposition. He ignored all those facts and came with a dramatic announcement to distract the attention of the country and the House away from the attacks made on his Government. Now whether he intended making a dramatic announcement on Tuesday, I do not know, but the fact remains that he made no dramatic announcement, and as the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) has pointed out, for three hours we sat here while the hon. the Prime Minister wandered around all over the landscape of South Africa and half the civilized world seeking for something to bring along for our digestion in this House. But having rushed in in such an impetuous manner, he was caught on the wrong foot when he realized that the charges made against his Government by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Yeoville and others were well founded, and the Minister of Transport has been put up, not to reply to the criticism, but to put to our side of the House a long list of prepared questions which constituted his speech in Parliament. Look at the guilty look on the face of the hon. the Minister. This was done to try to get the Prime Minister out of his predicament because in a hot-headed and impetuous manner he had rushed in after my hon. Leader with a prepared speech which missed the target completely. My Leader never even charged him with some of the accusations which he defended here most hotly. He was in such a hurry to meet the accusations which never came that he never worried about the fact that those shots had never been fired. In fact, in the middle of the most spirited defence on a matter which my hon. Leader had never raised, he said: “I had not intended to deal with this matter, but now I will have to keep the House a bit longer.” So now comes the Minister of Transport to try and cover him by this so-called speech which is just a long list of questions. The Minister need not worry. He will get the reply to some of these questions. [Interjections.] The Minister of Lands will have an opportunity of making his speech, and the questions will be answered, but some of them will have to be bracketed because they are so senseless that they cannot be answered.

But, Sir, just let us deal with one or two of the points which the Minister of Transport has made. He talks about honesty in public life. Sir, he was a member of the Government and a member of the Cabinet that put the High Court of Parliament Bill before this House, and he talks about honesty in public life. Honesty in public life—in the mouth of that hon. Minister? Has there ever been anything in the history of the South African Parliament since Union which for complete and utter dishonesty equalled that particular effort to try to get round the Constitution as it was in those days? And the hon. the Minister, a party to it, one of the moving spirits in it, comes here to-day and talks about honesty and has a smug look on his face as though he is the utmost exponent of honesty in public life. Sir, the hon. the Minister goes into another matter, a matter that he was not called upon to deal with, and which he knows nothing about, and he talks about the policy of the United Party in regard to the Coloured people. He says that our policy in regard to the Coloured man who leaves the Cape and goes to the Transvaal is a dishonest policy. Sir, what is his policy? We are attacking the Government; we say the country has no confidence in the Government, and one of the reasons is its treatment of the Coloured people, never mind what the Government has done with regard to the Coloured people who leave the Cape and go to the Transvaal—and they certainly get nothing out of such a transfer. But what have they done to the Coloured people in Natal who had the vote at the time of the passing of the Representation of Voters Act? The Coloured people in Natal who had the vote are on paper allowed to keep it. In practice they are not even allowed to keep it, and as for those who become 21 years of age and otherwise qualify, they do not even get that miserable pittance of a vote that those people in the Cape get. In other words, this Government, with the hon. the Minister as one of its leading members, has differentiated to the detriment of the Coloured people in Natal against the Coloured people in the Cape. Why?

Honesty!

I want to ask him why; he is so fond of putting questions to us. Why did the Government discriminate against the Coloured people in Natal?

It has been said in the debates over and over again. The hon. member should read Hansard.

Sir, the hon. the Minister does not find it so easy to reply. He says we will find it in Hansard. I challenge him: let the Minister tell me where in Hansard we can find the answer to that question.

The policy of this party is to discriminate. That is why we discriminate.

Mr. Speaker, I know when to stop and I am stopping here.

You put your foot into it now, Ben.

I want to deal for a few moments with the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg). I am sorry he is not here at the moment. The hon. member for Krugersdorp said this yesterday (and I am only going to deal very briefly with the point that he made): “The Nationalist Party does not ask what other countries will say. It just does what is in the interests of South Africa.” That is what the hon. member said yesterday. Why? Because he was attacking certain speakers on this side of the House who had said that certain matters would blacken our image in the eyes of the world. But let me reply to the hon. member for Krugersdorp. Sir, I want to quote from what the Prime Minister had to say on 10 April 1961 in regard to the prime principle of Government policy which is being followed to-day, by the Prime Minister, by the hon. the Minister who has just sat down and by the hon. member for Krugersdorp himself, the man who says that they just do what is right, never mind what the outside world says. What did the hon. the Prime Minister say on 10 April 1961? He said (Col. 4191)—

Was that not a clear admission of outside pressure dictating not a part of Government policy but the essential principle upon which Nationalist Party policy is based? Sir, there is the mainspring. The hon. the Prime Minister and other Ministers to-day try to get round the whole of that speech of 10 April 1961. They say this is the only moral ground upon which we can stand. But there was no morality brought into the picture at that time. The question of morality was an afterthought. The Prime Minister no doubt, after that speech, regretted that he had been so frank with this House in telling us that it was overseas pressure that was making him follow this policy of fragmentation, which he would not have liked to do if he could have avoided it, and so the policy of fragmentation has gone on: it has gone on at the behest of the Prime Minister himself. The hon. the Prime Minister is taking this policy not along a preconceived, pre-planned line where he has the whole thing mapped out and where he knows precisely where he is going and when he proposes to reach there; he is doing it on an ad hoc basis, trying to fill in the gaps as he goes along. We had him yesterday, in a brief, sort of almost off-hand manner, referring to the question of the Indian setup for South Africa—this sort of government which is to be formed for the Indians, which they will form, a kind of Cabinet such as the Coloured people are to have, a sort of Cabinet, a little government of their own, where they will govern their own affairs with their own little Cabinet—and then the Prime Minister stops and leaves it there. Sir, I hope the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs is going to tell us more about this. I suppose the Prime Minister has told him what the policy is. We are going to look forward in this debate to the Minister of Indian Affairs telling us about it. Where is this government to function? Where are the boundaries of this new Hindustan to be created? Who are to be the members of this new Cabinet; how are they to be elected?

Who talked about a Hindustan?

Well, what do you call it?

Or is there to be a Cabinet with no Parliament? I follow, but I hope the hon. the Minister will get up and explain that. I am not concerned with the language used by the Prime Minister.

I explained it to you last year in the debate on my Vote.

Sir, may we draw a veil over last year’s debate on Indian Affairs out of consideration for the hon. the Minister? We let him off very lightly last time; he must not expect it again this year. What we want is some replies to our questions. What has the hon. the Minister got in mind? What sort of Cabinet is it to be? How are the members to be elected? Is there going to be a Constitution; will it come before Parliament for us to approve?

Yes.

Oh, there is to be a Constitution that will come before us in the form of legislation for us to approve. Has the legislation been drafted yet?

No.

Has the Minister got any rough ideas? Sir, I suggest the Minister of Indian Affairs and the Minister of Transport should get together and work out the technique for cross-questioning across the floor of the House. The hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs has a lot to learn from the Minister of Transport; I admit that; I grant the Minister of Transport that. Sir, can you imagine anything more important for South Africa than to know what kind of Cabinet is to be evolved for the Coloured people, what kind of Cabinet is to be evolved for the Indian people, how they are to be constituted and so forth?

It has all been stated in public already.

Will the hon. the Prime Minister give us the reference? When was it stated; where can I find it?

I told the Coloured organization exactly what development they would undergo, and then we said that for the Indians the development would be on the same constitutional lines.

Can we get a record of that?

You have it in your possession.

Very well, now I want to move on. That leads then to a Cabinet responsibility. No representation in this Parliament?

No.

In the case of the Bantustan, as they reach independence the Prime Minister visualizes a Commonwealth group, and he says that the Coloureds and the Indians will be members of the Commonwealth group. Will they have the same independence as the other members of the Commonwealth group, the Whites and the Bantu in that Commonwealth?

Of course there is a difference between the Coloureds and the Indians and the Bantu. I have fully dealt with that before.

There will be different powers then amongst the members of the Commonwealth? Some will be more self-governing than others.

There will definitely be a difference between the position of the Bantu and the position of the Coloureds in that consultative body.

I am grateful to the hon. the Prime Minister for this courtesy; I thank the Prime Minister for replying because it does throw some light on the subject. Here then the hon. the Prime Minister makes it clear that there will be a Commonwealth, in his opinion the final objective in his mind…

A consultative body, I said, like a Commonwealth consultative body.

That is quite interesting—“just like a Commonwealth consultative body”. The Prime Minister visualizes that line in the future when there will be independent Bantu states participating in that consultative committee.

It will be multi-racial.

But, Sir, the Asiatics and Coloured people in South Africa will participate in the consultative body but they would not be as independent as the other independent states or independent members of that consultative body. They will be less independent. They will not have the same powers. They certainly will not have the same powers as the Whites, so they will be permanently situated in the area of the White people of South Africa, not in an independent Colouredstan or Hindustan as the Bantu will be in Bantustans. Sir, here is one of the points that we raise in our attack on the Government in regard to its policy. In that consultative body, when he has these eight independent Bantu states, whatever powers the Coloured people or the Indians may have, has he not created—and we say that in our opinion he definitely has created—just those pressure groups which will force him and White South Africa to admit to the then White Parliament the representatives of those independent states? The hon. the Prime Minister shakes his head. That is because he would not face that contingency, not because he does not realize the danger; he realizes the danger all right, but we say categorically that in precisely the same way as we are seeing history unfolding itself elsewhere here on our Continent—and we have seen plenty in the last few days—so it will be with the Prime Minister’s attitude towards Bantustan and his creation of the Transkei—and I am going to say nothing about the present rulers of the Transkei or anything about the future rulers. The rulers of the Transkei at the present time, including their present Chief Minister, are the people who in my opinion will dictate the destiny of South Africa. The Prime Minister has lost control of the tiller; he is not steering the ship of state any longer. The Chief Minister of the Transkei will dictate the destiny of South Africa now.

Within your Ministerial Cabinet, as a co-partner he would have done so.

No, Sir, that kind of interjection will not help him.

I am now dealing with a serious matter with the Prime Minister in a serious vein. You see, Sir, without waiting for the formation of the other seven Bantustan which are to be created hereafter, the Prime Minister of the Transkei to-day, whoever he may be, will make his demands on this Government and on this Prime Minister, and they will be of such a character that they are going to serve his political as well as his economic interests in the Transkei. None of the newly emergent states in Africa has yet been constrained from taking action because of economic considerations. What has been paramount in every case has been political considerations. Sir, I will show you the position and the danger that we are in. What has happened at Zanzibar? I want to be quite frank about this.

We do not have to submit. If he was your partner in your Cabinet then you would have to submit.

It is not a case of “we do not have to submit”. In the speech which I read out he submitted to overseas pressure, not even pressure here in South Africa; he submitted to overseas pressure. He said so himself. Hence his submission on the Bantustan concept—[Interjections.] Now, Sir, what have we seen in Zanzibar? We have seen 30 armed men with a certain technique march in and take over a country within a month of independence, a country lying there on our coast, and the nations of the world like the United States of America and Great Britain have to stand by with folded hands; they can do nothing about it. Thirty armed men with a certain technique! What are we doing in the Transkei; what is the Prime Minister doing in the Transkei?

It cannot happen because…

Sir, this happened only a few hundred miles away in a country with the same people, the same flesh and blood and the same ideas, and the Prime Minister thinks that people like we have in the Transkei are going to believe that for this time at any rate blood is not thicker than water, but water is thicker than blood, and he is going to prove it to them, Sir. This is the most dangerous thing that has ever happened since Union was formed in 1909, not excluding the two Great Wars—and the Prime Minister has created it. What has he put in the mouth of the Chief Minister of the Transkei? He has said to him: “I, the Prime Minister of South Africa, say: no White men in the Transkei; ‘skop hulle uit’; no Coloured people in the Transkei; the Transkei is a Black State for Black people,” and obediently the Chief Minister of the Transkei says: “I want no White people in the Transkei; I do not want their investments here; I want them out and I want the Coloured people out; this is to be a Black man’s land for Black men.” Sir, what is the position in Tanganyika, Uganda and Nyasaland where the White people are being chased out? Does the Prime Minister now say to those newly established states out there: “You are doing the right thing; you are following the principle that I have laid down in my own creation in the Transkei. You are a Black country with a Black Government; the White people should not be in your country”? Sir, he will make himself very popular with those Black Governments if he will say that. I do not know but perhaps Kenneth Kaunda will be prepared to go even further with suggestions to the hon. the Prime Minister if the Prime Minister will follow the same policy with the other Black States in Africa that he is following with his own creation here in South Africa in the Transkei.

That is the danger of your policy of one fatherland, not the danger of our policy.

Sir, presumably the Prime Minister wants that policy which he has enunciated to be followed by the Chief Minister in the Transkei.

Your policy of One fatherland will bring you into all the difficulties of a Zanzibar and a Tanganyika.

The hon. the Prime Minister cannot tell me anything about my fatherland; I fought for it. Sir, what I am coming to is this: Why one policy for the Black States created in our midst if it is to be a different policy to what he is adopting towards the Black States elsewhere in Africa? Why not be logical?

I am not illogical.

Why is he not logical in the case of Kenya, Tanganyika, the Rhodesias and so forth?

Your partnership proposal is illogical.

That is not the point. The Prime Minister says “The White man, out of the Transkei”; why does he not say “The White man out of the Rhodesias, Kenya, Tanganyika and so forth”?

And Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland.

Why is he not logical; why does he not follow the same course? Sir, where is the Black Government in the Transkei going to take us? [Interjection.] Oh yes, he has offered the Protectorates the same; presumably he will help them get rid of the White people if they will come under his suzerainty. They belong to the Black people, just as the Transkei does, so the White people are to go out of Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland, but when it comes to the Rhodesias and Nyasaland, Tanganyika and Kenya, then why not?

Then I do not interfere; it is not my business.

Oh, the Prime Minister only interferes when it comes to the British Protectorates?

Only in the family.

When it concerns the British Protectorates, then he is prepared to interfere, but when it comes to British possessions and colonies outside the Protectorates then he is not prepared to interfere. Sir. what a thing of bits and pieces is this policy of the Prime Minister’s! It is completely illogical, step by step. Where then do we go from here? Sir, I want to end on this note: I say the Prime Minister has handed over control of the ship of South Africa to the new steersman, the Chief Minister in the Transkei. The day the Prime Minister or his Government thwart that man in his political or economic ambitions, he will go straight to the United Nations. I want the hon. the Prime Minister to tell us—I am afraid very shortly—to tell us what he is going to do in that case. Here the Prime Minister, perhaps quite wisely and rightly—time will show—is prepared to make gestures, to make motions, which look almost like an actual physical defence of South West Africa to keep out the United Nations people, to prevent them from interfering in a matter which he believes has been handed over to South Africa for us to administer.

Do you not agree?

I say, perhaps quite wisely. I am not raising that matter now. I merely say that there we have that position. But, Sir, in regard to the Transkei, what is going to be the Prime Minister’s attitude in regard to the United Nations wanting to come into the Transkei at the invitation of the Chief Minister of the Transkei?

We are in control of the external affairs.

What will the Prime Minister’s attitude be if the Chief Minister of the Transkei invites the United Nations to come in and participate in some issue in the Transkei?

You know what constitution for the Transkei was accepted by this Parliament.

Is the issue upon which the Chief Minister of the Transkei is at odds and quarrels with our Prime Minister the control of external relations, does he demand that he should be allowed to control external relations?

The Constitution which they themselves drew up makes provision for us to have control over their external affairs.

Sir, we were assured by the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration over and over again—and they have said it in public speeches—that as time goes on further and further powers will be handed to that constituent assembly in Umtata, to the Transkei Government, until they reach complete sovereign independence, and then they come into the consultative body forming this consultative commonwealth which the Prime Minister has already elaborated. Sir, if the first power which the Chief Minister of the Transkei wants is power to control his external relations with other countries, then how does the Prime Minister deal with an invitation from that Chief Minister to the United Nations to send a presence to the Transkei? Sir, this is the most dangerous facet of the whole thing. The Prime Minister has created an instrument which will be clothed ab initio with the authority to seek the intervention of the United Nations or people who may feel at one with the United Nations, acting under its behest, and he knows it.

If you had them in the same Cabinet they could force your hand.

He knows it and he has now taken a step which is past the point of no return; he cannot go back on it. We are entitled to know how he is going to control and under what circumstances he is going to control a demand for increased powers from that Government of the Transkei which he has created, with the claim which he has put in the mouth of the Bantu in the Transkei, “Kick the White man out, kick the Coloured man out and make yourself a purely Black man’s state, and allow no White capital or White persons here, except my Government officials whom I am allowing to remain here for the time being to train you”. How is he going to deal with that danger?

My White-controlled Government is perfectly safe but what would happen to your mixed country?

Sir, I hope the Prime Minister will get ready to answer that question because it is one that I am afraid is growing up very rapidly indeed and we would like to know what the answer is going to be.

I want to pay the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) the compliment that if he had as much logic as he has patriotism, and if he had as much logic as he had regard for the position of the White man in South Africa, he would have been one of the leading figures in the Nationalist Party. His weakness in politics is that he has all the patriotism and all the devotion to the position of the White man, but unfortunately he is not gifted with that degree of logic which is necessary to understand these things logically.

Mr. Speaker, on the day of the opening of Parliament a public servant asked me, by way of a joke, “Blaar, are you ready for the slaughter (slaggereed)?” I said, “Yes, I am ready for it, but I see such a damn puny little thing to slaughter”. This debate has shown that there is indeed very little to slaughter. The few animals that could be slaughtered have already been attended to by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Transport and other hon. members. Consequently we shall now have to be satisfied with a little offal. The hon. member for South Coast will forgive me if I do not jump in immediately to slaughter him. I will just roast him over the coals in passing during the course of my speech. I must say that during the last few days I have again developed some measure of admiration for my old party. I gained admiration for the way in which they tried to fight.

Surely you do not want to come back?

Oh, please, no!

I think that if there is one thing that can be said of me, it is that I am not without courage in politics, but heaven knows, if I were in the position in which that party finds itself I would honestly have seen no chance to fight in the way they have fought here during the past few days. They fought stupidly and badly, but I would not even have had the courage to fight in that way. I thought of all the catastrophes which have struck that party since I have been in Parliament, and I summed them up as follows: The first catastrophe that struck them was when they kicked us six Conservatives out of the United Party because we wanted to get rid of Strauss as the leader. The next catastrophe which struck them was that they then got rid of Strauss, instead of having done it the other way round, because then they might perhaps have retained us, but thank heaven they did not. They got rid of six; then they got rid of Strauss, and so they were rid of seven. Then they got rid of Dr. Friedman; then the number increased to eight, and then they got rid of the members of the Progressive Party, 11 in number, who deserted them. Then they were rid of 19 so far, including Mr. Harry Lawrence, one of their leading figures. Then Mr. Hamilton Russell deserted, which made it 20, and now two more members from Natal have run away, which makes it 22. Twenty-two, almost one-third of their strength, have left them during the past ten years I have been in Parliament, and then in the middle of all these catastrophes which have struck them, all these members who resigned, all these members who were kicked out, the greatest catastrophe of all struck them; then they got Japie Basson back.

And they got Jan Moolman.

Yes, I had not even thought of the hon. member for East London (North) (Dr. Moolman) because he has never come to light with anything yet. Mr. Speaker, one must have a great excess of courage or else a fantastic stupidity to move in such circumstances a motion of no confidence in the Government. Under the leadership of the Opposition and that of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), the United Party has been lying in ruins for the past ten years, but now they want to come and tell the Government how it should govern the country. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot control his own party, but he comes here and says that he wants a “crash programme” for this country. He crashed his party and now he wants to crash the country also. He is angry with the Minister of Justice because Goldreich and Wolpe escaped. The Minister of Justice was very merciful by pointing out that only two detainees escaped, but over the past ten years no fewer than 22 escaped from their own ranks.

Was it the same class of person?

Precisely the same class of people, people who for years played a leading role in that party. I want to ask the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw): “Where does he stand in the queue to resign from that party?” I do not believe he stands too far back in the queue because he is quite a good South African. Sir, the position is now developing as follows: The other day we had the privilege of welcoming the hon. Senator Groenewald in the National Party caucus, and then the Acting-Chairman, the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Mostert), said that he heartily welcomed him and hoped that he would feel very much at home in the National Party. I then remarked to my friends around me: “There are now so many of us ex-United Party members in the National Party that he ought to feel at home.” We are now just waiting for the next one. The hon. member for Durban (Point), as well as the hon. member for Yeoville, made a great point of it, as they do right throughout the country, that South Africa’s unpopularity and the difficult position in which we find ourselves are due to the policy of this Government. Sir, a more superficial, a more childish and a more naive analysis of a serious position I have never heard before.

It remains the truth.

The hon. member for Point says it remains the truth. When did these attacks on us begin? These attacks on us started in 1947 at UN when there was still no policy of apartheid, when we were not represented at UN by Mr. Eric Louw, but when our representative at UN was the then favourite of the Western nations, Field-Marshal Smuts. Even when there was no talk of apartheid, when UN was still mainly a White body, then already a motion by the representative of India was adopted by an overwhelming majority against the then Union of South Africa. Was that as a result of our policy?

Let us look at the position of Rhodesia. Southern Rhodesia follows a policy precisely the opposite to ours. There is no talk of apartheid there. There is no social apartheid. There they have all the social intermingling they want. There they have not only eight representatives in Parliament for the Blacks. There they have a constitution which gives the Blacks 15 representatives—not White people but Black people. And when the motion came before UN to condemn that constitution which England wanted to give Southern Rhodesia, Sir Edgar Whitehead told them: “You must please not adopt that motion; I guarantee that within 15 years there will be a Black Government in Southern Rhodesia.” Did that satisfy UN? Did that satisfy the Western countries? Every single one of them voted against Rhodesia or abstained from voting, with the solitary exception of the Republic of South Africa. Why do they condemn Rhodesia which follows a policy precisely opposite to ours? Now, the hon. member says it is due to our policy. Then I want to put this question to him: If they condemn us because of our policy, is our policy worse than that of Ghana?

In many respects it is the same.

Thank you very much for that reply. Is our policy worse than that of Russia? Is our policy worse than that of Ethiopia, or that of Liberia? Mr. Speaker, our policy is better than that of all those countries, nevertheless we are condemned whilst not a single one of those countries is condemned. This hon. member and that hon. member say it is as a result of our policy that we are being condemned. Is it not quite clear that it has nothing to do with our policy? Is it not quite clear that this fight being waged against us is not with Verwoerd, that it is not with the National Party, that it is not a fight against the policy of apartheid, but that it is a fight against the presence of the White man on the continent of Africa and also in the Republic of South Africa? That is as clear as daylight to any child. But in order to compete with the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), they say these scandalous things. They grasp at everything possible to foster hatred against South Africa and to put the world up in arms against us instead of at least choosing the side of the White man in this struggle. Then they still consider that their policy is acceptable!

We shall retain our friends in this struggle.

The hon. member says they will retain their friends and that their policy is acceptable to the West. Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition this: When he says that his policy is acceptable to the Western countries, either he is not telling those Western countries what his policy is or else he is condemning his own party. He says the Western countries do not demand one man, one vote. I agree with him. They do not want one man, one vote. In fact, they are not interested in that at all. It is, however, as clear as daylight that the pattern of the Western world for Africa—not even to mention the communists—by whatever nice name they might call it, a pattern of “merit and merit alone”, “human dignity”, “according to the United Nations Charter”, etc., and for the Republic of South Africa, is that where the Black man is in the majority the Black man must rule. Therefore they are not concerned with whether he rules by way of one man, one vote, and they are not concerned whether it is a dictatorship or not. Therefore if the Leader of the Opposition says that his policy satisfies the West, then it only satisfies the West because they know that if that policy is applied there will eventually be a Black Government and a Black Prime Minister in the Republic of South Africa. I say that it is the most serious form of political dishonesty to tell the people that their policy, as they announce it here in the Republic, is acceptable to the West and to the statesmen of the West. I say it is an untruth and they know that it is an untruth.

I now want to say this to the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson). His Leader saw Adlai Stevenson. I do not know whether the hon. member for Durban (Point) saw him. I want to ask them: Have they an assurance from Adlai Stevenson that he is satisfied with only eight representatives of the Bantu in the Republic of South Africa? Let the common sense of the hon. member for Pinelands now tell him this: If Adlai Stevenson is not satisfied with 15 Black representatives in the Southern Rhodesian Parliament, why in heaven’s name should he be satisfied with eight representatives for the Bantu in the Parliament of the Republic?

Read his speech.

I have read his speech. His speech just amounts to this, that he is satisfied with these things which they do to begin with, because he knows that it will inevitably result in a Black Government in South Africa. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke to Adlai Stevenson—

With whom?

But surely you spoke to the leaders of the West, did you not?

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) spoke to him.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows precisely what I mean. If they say that those people are satisfied with their policy, then I want to ask them this: Did the Leader of the Opposition, did the hon. member for Pinelands, did the hon. member for Durban (Point) tell Adlai Stevenson that in terms of their policy Luthuli cannot live in the same suburb as the hon. member for Point?

Yes.

Was he satisfied with it? Did he tell Adlai Stevenson and the people to whom he spoke that Luthuli’s children could not sit on the same school benches as his own children, in terms of that policy?

Of course.

Were they satisfied with that?

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, then you must forgive me if I now very quietly say: He is telling a big lie. I withdraw that, Sir, and the only reason why I do not want to use such strong language is the good personal feelings between that hon. member and myself. How can a man tell him he is satisfied with the policy of the Republic of South Africa in terms of which Luthuli’s children cannot sit on the same school benches with his children, when that same man applies armed force in America in order to allow White and Black children to sit on the same school benches?

That is a domestic matter.

Is it not a domestic matter if the people of South Africa say that they do not want a Black Government here? Is it not a domestic matter if the people of South Africa say they prefer Verwoerd’s apartheid policy to their ridiculous policy? Surely that is also a domestic matter. I ask the hon. member, whom the Cape Times paid the compliment this morning of having the same status as I have in politics, whether he told those people that in terms of their policy the Black man will be in a perpetual state of inferiority? Did he tell them that? Did they then say yes?

Make your speech.

Yes, Sir, I am making my speech, but all I desire is that the hon. member should give his replies, which he refuses to do. Then I want to continue to say this: When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says his policy is acceptable to the West, that his policy is acceptable to America and to Mr. Wilson—because surely he also spoke to Mr. Wilson—

No.

Then you were very stupid.

I leave him to you.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) said that all the responsible Western nations accept their policy. England is a responsible Western country and the chances are very good that this year England will get Mr. Wilson as Prime Minister. If one wants to find out whether those people agree with one’s policy, it is only logical to talk to them. Did they talk to Mr. Wilson? Macmillan’s Government surely cannot bind Wilson’s Government. So if one really wants to find out, one has to talk to those people.

I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, what the crux of this matter is. It amounts to this—and I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, and he can make all the political capital out of it that he wishes to make—that the West, Mr. Wilson, Adlai Stevenson, Lord Home and all of them are satisfied with their policy because they know that the policy will eventually mean our having a Black Government here. Now I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this: He crossed the Rubicon on the day when he irrevocably bound himself to the presence of Black members in this Parliament. I now say to the Leader of the Opposition that he personally is in favour of having Black members in this Parliament. He admitted it yesterday when he told the Prime Minister, “Not for all eternity”. But, Sir, I go much further. I say that is the policy of the major portion of his party. I challenge him to reply to this: Will he oppose Black people entering this Parliament in his life-time? I will now prove that he cannot oppose it. The hon. member for Yeoville, who now conveniently is not here, said that there was a large and influential group in that body who believed that it was inherent in their policy of race federation that Black people should eventually sit in this Parliament. Why be so secretive, Sir? Why be so secretive about the names of the people in that group? May we not know who they are? He says an influential group in their party says that Black people must sit in this Parliament. I know which members are not in favour of it. There is the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker); the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) is not in favour of it. The hon. member for Point is not in favour of it—tell me if I am doing you an injustice. The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) is not in favour of it. I wanted to mention the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp), but he is for and against everything whichever suits him best. And the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) is not in favour of it. So now we know who are opposed to it, but we also know who are in favour of it. The hon. member for Constantia is in favour of Black people being enabled to sit in this Parliament within a reasonable period; and there are “the younger Pitt”, the hon. member for Pinelands, the hon. member for Hospital and the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross). So we know now who are the members of this influential group who are opposed to Black people ever taking their seats here, and we know who are the members of the influential group who are in favour of Black people sitting here. But two names are absent, the names of the Leader of the Opposition and his deputy leader. Now I ask the Leader of the Opposition: To what group does he belong? Is he a member of that influential group to which the hon. member for Yeoville referred? I now tell him that he is a captive of those people who believe that Blacks should sit in this Parliament. And I say the hon. member for Yeoville is also a captive of that group. Accordingly the argument advanced by the hon. the Prime Minister is so cogent, because they dare not shelter behind a referendum, because that referendum they will hold will be of absolutely no value unless it is accompanied by a personal statement of where they stand. What guidance are they going to give their party? What guidance are they going to give the people of South Africa? It is inconceivable that one can hold a referendum in South Africa on the question of a Republic and tell the people: We give you no guidance; choose a Republic or a monarchy. What absolute nonsense! The Leader of the Opposition had the courage to choose a monarchy, and we chose a Republic. Now I ask him where will he stand in that much-discussed referendum of his; what guidance will he give his party?

What guidance do you give?

I can tell you very easily. We are not in favour of Coloureds sitting in this Parliament. That is the guidance given by the Prime Minister. I now ask the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher): What guidance will he give when he asks the people to choose whether Black people should sit here or not?

I will tell you later.

Yes, you will tell me later; you will tell me later; you will never tell me. It is this duplicity which the Minister of Transport referred to, it is this lack of courage, it is this lack of political philosophy which has now brought poor South Africa to this stage, where it is simply impossible to carry on an intelligent political argument with that side of the House. I welcome it. I must honestly say that I do not regret the demise of the Opposition, and they will die still further. I see hon. members over there who will sit with us and support us during the next five years. Let them then be destroyed in this process, because heaven knows it simply is not in keeping with the dignity of the Republic of South Africa to have an Opposition with such a lack of courage.

I want to conclude by referring to my friend, our Ambassador in London, Dr. Carel de Wet. The Prime Minister was blamed by the English language newspapers and also by the Opposition because he, as they put it, took a swipe at a ball which had not been bowled. But did the Opposition and the English language Press think that they would get away with that smear campaign they waged against Dr. Carel de Wet? Did they think we would keep quiet in this House about that unpatriotic thing which they did? It is not necessary for me to defend Dr. Carel de Wet. He is my friend and my neighbour and therefore I am prejudiced in his favour. But I say with the utmost conviction that there is no other man in this House who would represent South Africa with as much devotion, as much energy, as much enthusiasm, as much patriotism and with as much dignity as Carel de Wet. I just want to tell them that the day Card de Wet was appointed as the Ambassador in England of this country, he ceased to be a representative of the National Party. Then he became a representative of the Republic of South Africa, one who will have to perform a very difficult task. One would have expected every patriotic South African to support his representative in London and to make his task as easy as possible. But what did these people do? What did a section of the English language Press do? They dug up every bit of smut and every bit of mud and every bit of unpleasantness they could possibly dig up in order to ensure that when the Ambassador of the Republic of South Africa goes to London he will be a besmirched man. I have already been concerned in active politics for 25 to 30 years and I have made a more earnest study of it than most other people, and I know of no single instance where any opposition party in England has criticized their representatives in other countries. Wilson hates Macmillan and he hates the Conservative Party, but I cannot remember that the Labour Party has publicly criticized a single British representative in another country, and they could not have agreed with all the appointments made.

Why did we do it?

I will reply. The hon. member for Pinelands did not do it—he is too decent—but the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) made one of these mean attacks on Dr. de Wet. The trouble with the hon. member for Pinelands is that he himself is such a decent man but the company he keeps is not good.

I want to conclude by asking under whose leadership this smear campaign was instigated against Dr. de Wet? Under the leadership of the sacrosanct Star of Johannesburg. They are the people who started it. I say their actions amount to nothing else but treason against the best interests of the Republic, and I want to put this question to the hon. the Prime Minister: How long does he think the people of South Africa will be satisfied with this flagrant baseness of the English language Press in South Africa? It is becoming just too much for anyone to swallow. I say this, that amongst the English-speaking people of South Africa to-day there is as much revulsion for this unpatriotic attitude adopted by a large section of the English Press as there is amongst the Afrikaans-speaking people. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now wants to make common cause with those people, and he wants to come back to the Broederbond, the thing which killed the old United Party under Conroy—and now that whole party has changed into a lot of Conroys—

Are you a member?

No, I am not a member of it. I am quite willing, time permitting, to give my opinion about the Broederbond. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with intense interest to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and to members of his party during this debate. I hoped sincerely that there would be some clear and definite lead to all South Africans who love their land. As I could find nothing on which to get a firm grip my thought went back to January 1963 to the no-confidence debate of that year. The highlight was without doubt the complete failure of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his divided shadow Cabinet to answer the following question put by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. C. de Wet). I quote (Hansard, vol. 5, p. 62)—

Mr. Speaker, this is the vital million dollar question every thinking South African is asking. The answer to this question decides whether or not we as Whites remain in peace and harmony in the last Christian bastion of this Continent of Africa. Our whole future hinges on this cardinal principle; all that has been built up in the 300 years of our glorious history: all that has been built up for the good of the Bantu as well as for the Whites. This is a question that cannot be evaded. No political party can leave this question unanswered. Every voter in South Africa must make his or her decision. There is no middle of the road. South Africa must accept this challenge. Time is running out and a clear answer must be given. We must accept a full multi-racial Parliament or not.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark asked the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) the exact same question she gave an honest and courageous reply. She did not beat about the bush; she did not evade the issue. Not only did she say her party accepted Blacks as members of this Parliament but that they would accept Black Cabinet Ministers. You see, Sir, the Progressive Party is prepared to stand or fall on this cardinal principle. Whether you agree with them or not they have stated their case. The voters of South Africa know that if they vote for the Nationalist Party they vote for separate development. They know that if they vote for the Progressive Party it means a multi-racial Parliament.

And if they vote for Odell, they do not know where they are.

The whole issue then falls into the right perspective. The new simplified position in South Africa: Do you or do you not have a multi-racial Parliament in South Africa. The issue is not whether you are English speaking or Afrikaans speaking, but simply: Do you or do you not? Do you accept the traditional way of South Africa or do you not?

Mr. Speaker, when I got back to Pietermaritzburg after the last session I was repeatedly asked this million dollar question on this vital principle of United Party policy. I found myself in a very embarrassing position, an almost humiliating position. My Leader had refused to answer. What answer was I expected to give? What answer did the United Party expect me to give. Sir, I could not help reflecting on what General Smuts would have done had he been asked the question while Leader of the Opposition. It is quite inconceivable that he would have refused to answer so vital a question to the United Party and to South Africa in general. However, these thoughts belong to the glorious past of the United Party.

During the recess a new pattern began to emerge. It did not take long to realize that the United Party had been talking to the Right (e.g. the support of the General Law Amendment Bill last year) but in fact was moving Left. This reached a point of no return when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated in his famous Pietermaritzburg speech: “I would rather have eight Bantu in Parliament than eight Bantustans.”

And you stood up and cheered him.

This definitely launched the United Party on the road to a multi-racial Parliament. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what brand of multi-racial Parliament the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has in mind. Is it the Kenya brand? Is it the Cyprus brand? A Nigeria brand? A Tanganyika brand? A Zanzibar brand, a Congo brand or even perhaps a Ghana brand? Whatever brand the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has in mind, one thing is certain it will end up a firebrand of multi-racial Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, at the time of my election in 1961 I was given a clear mandate. The United Party stood four-square for a White Parliament. There was never any doubt. The Progressive Party learnt this to their cost at Pietermaritzburg. When challenged on the meaning of “foreseeable future”, the answer was given that we were not prepared to tie up future generations. With this mandate the election was fought and won. The cardinal principle at stake was a White Parliament. In view of this and knowing that a large percentage of the people in Pietermaritzburg supported this principle and expected me to stand firm, my only course was to write to the Natal leader of the United Party for clarification of this new United Party policy.

Are you prepared to test it at a by-election?

Because it was clear to me that the hon. the Leader of the United Party now accepted the cardinal principle of Bantu in our Central Parliament. He spoke as leader of the United Party—not in his personal capacity. If the hon. the Prime Minister were to make a similar statement it would be accepted that he was speaking on behalf of the National Party. He and his party would have to stand or fall on his policy statement. I now wish to read a copy of my letter dated 7 October 1963 and addressed to the hon. member for South Coast who is the United Party leader in Natal. I believe this letter to be straight-forward and deserving of a reply. Let this House be the judge. I feel that had I addressed a letter in similar terms to the Natal chairman of the National Party or the chairman of the Progressive Party, I would have received an immediate reply. I wrote to the leader of the United Party in Natal as follows—

After waiting for almost ten days, the hon. member for South Coast phoned me, but when I pointed out to him that I had expressly asked him to reply in writing, he stated that as leader of the United Party in Natal he refused to do this.

Mr. Speaker, it was at this point that I resigned from the United Party.

Mr. Speaker, this vital question is still unanswered. Many thousands of people, not only in Natal but throughout the Republic, are looking to the hon. member for South Coast for his reply. Parliament is the highest court in the land, the top forum. I want to ask the hon. member for South Coast here and now: Would he, like his Leader, rather have eight Bantu in this Central Parliament than eight Bantustans?

May I ask the hon. member for South Coast another question: Does he support his Leader where his Leader has stated that he would rather have eight Bantu in Parliament than eight Bantustans?

I will answer you in the Town Hall in Pietermaritzburg.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the United Party has not only become a chameleon party but a cul de sac party. The Afrikaans words are much more expressive “Vir die Verenigde Party loop die straat dood”.

It is a pity that my hon. friend who has just sat down delivered his farewell speech in such a comic-tragic manner. I think it is a great pity that an honourable man, which I have taken him to be, should leave his party in such a way. I want to say to him that I am sorry that I cannot switch over to the other language at this stage because he cannot follow Afrikaans intelligently enough; but apart from everything, I should like to say that I believe his intention is to throw in his lot with a Nationalist Party which consists in the main of Afrikaans-speaking people.

Where do you get that from?

There are certain honourable people in the National Party who will expect him to act honourably, people who, like our English-speaking fellow citizens, will expect him not only to resign from the party who sent him here but also to resign his seat in this House.

Why did you not request Japie Basson to do the same?

Mr. Speaker, I differ widely from Mr. Hamilton Russell and I differ widely from the policy of a Friedman but I shall always honour them for one thing and that is that they realized what their duty was and that, when they resigned from their party, they also resigned as Members of Parliament. In any case I trust the Nationalist Party will derive greater benefit from their new friend than we did.

I am pleased to see the hon. the Minister of Transport has in the meantime entered the Chamber. He said something to-day which I do not think he meant and I think we should give him an opportunity to rectify it as soon as possible. It was this that the policy of the Nationalist Party was one of discrimination and that that was why it also discriminated in its legislation. I am sure this unfortunate statement has already been sent abroad and I am convinced the hon. the Minister has expressed himself incorrectly and that the hon. the Prime Minister has stated it just the other way around previously. If the hon. the Minister feels he should correct that statement I think I ought to give him the opportunity of doing so so that the newspaper reports will not jeopardize the interests of South Africa.

I am grateful to the hon. member for giving me the opportunity because I think it can be misinterpreted. What I said was that, as far as the Coloured franchise and representation were concerned, the policy was to discriminate between the Coloureds in the Cape Province and the Coloureds in Natal. That is correct.

No, but that was not what you said.

Yes, the question was why we discriminated against the Coloureds of Natal when we passed the Coloured legislation and I then said that it was the policy of the party to discriminate between the Coloureds of the Cape Province and the Coloureds of Natal.

I accept that, but as his colleague in this House I thought it was necessary for me to give him the opportunity to say precisely what he really meant.

I think I can pat myself on the back to-day because of a piece of intelligent anticipation, if I may put it that way. I did not know I would have to follow the hon. the Minister in this debate and when he talked about the “political honesty” and the “political dishonesty” of this side, and how we were supposed to be misleading the people, I was reminded of the promises which the Nationalist Party made in 1943 before they came into power. Talk about “political dishonesty”! I just want to quote a number of those promises—

That was a promise of the Nationalist Party and the leading figure in the Nationalist Party was a certain Mr. Ben Schoeman. I read on—

Particularly on the Railways.

We already have it on the Railways.

I continue—

The trains would not run on Sundays. And then—

In connection with these promises Mr. Ben Schoeman said the following according to Hansard of 19 January 1943 (Cols. 81-92).

Where is the hon. friend to-day? Did he also refer to job reservation to-day and what a great advocate he was of that? The memory of the hon. the Minister is very short. There is also such a place as the Other Place and my hon. friend said the following in the Other Place—

That is the rate for the job.

But that is right.

I am sorry the hon. the Prime Minister is not here because I want to refer to what he said yesterday and I make no apology, particularly after the speech of the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee), for reiterating what the policy of the United Party really is.

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely essential for me to do so in order to get the record straight and also because, after all is said and done, the whole future of the White race and of every national group in South Africa, depends on neither the policy of the Nationalist Party or that of the United Party. Consequently we must for the umpteenth time once again focus the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister on the fact that his so-called interpretation of United Party policy is wrong and false, it is not right. He pretends to be the only person who knows what that policy is. He pretends to be the only person who interprets it correctly. He is the person who can tell us what the United Party actually means with its policy. I am sorry to say this but that false interpretation placed on it by the other side makes it essential for me once again to state the policy and also to submit it to the electorate outside.

The hon. the Prime Minister says we are betraying South Africa with our policy and that we are betraying the White man in South Africa. That is precisely what we say the Nationalist Party is doing with their entire apartheid policy. That is precisely what they are doing because they admit to-day that those Bantustans of theirs are going to be completely independent and that even to-day they are not going to interfere in what they are doing or not doing there. I could honestly not believe my own ears yesterday when I heard the Prime Minister say what he did say. I quote from his speech what he said in connection with the powers, rights and privileges and sovereignty which the Transkeian Bantu Government already have according to the Prime Minister. I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development will tell me whether he agrees with the hon. the Prime. Minister or whether the Prime Minister perhaps allowed his tongue to run away with him, with due respect. I quote from the speech of the Prime Minister—

In other words, “If you want to allow Chou en-Lai to make propaganda here for Communism, it is your business. I am not going to interfere”.

Oh no!

If he allows what he says here, he says by implication to Chou en-Lai “Come to the Transkei and make the necessary propaganda”. He says—

This is a serious state of affairs, this statement by the Prime Minister already at this stage of the development of the Bantu in the Transkei. I shall return to this at a later stage when I deal with another aspect of the matter.

Mr. Speaker, the United Party and, I think, the people as well, cannot reconcile themselves with the Nationalist Party policy of Bantustans. But to get away from that, to escape from the results of the criticism of it, to escape the criticism of the people, we find that the Prime Minister, instead of putting his cards on the table, instead of telling us precisely what he has in mind with his idea of total territorial apartheid, instead of trying to place the benefits of it before the people, comes here and criticizes and condemns (so he thinks) the policy of the United Party. That is not what we expect from a Prime Minister. We expect the Prime Minister (seeing that he is in power) to tell the people of South Africa what the results of his policy can be.

But he did tell us, didn’t he?

No, throughout he dealt with our policy. The Prime Minister stood here with the so-called yellow booklet in his hands—

Yellow!

Yellow and green. The colours of the Springboks. The Prime Minister stands with the book in his hands, but what does he do?

Is it your policy or that of Marais Steyn?

It is the policy of the United Party. I have no policy and Mr. Marais Steyn has no policy except the policy of the United Party. We do not have individual policies as we heard this afternoon the hon. the Minister of Transport had. He has a policy in connection with discrimination but the Prime Minister has another policy. The hon. the Prime Minister explained a policy to us yesterday but I know the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has another policy as far as the self-governing body which we have in the Transkei to-day is concerned. The policy of the Minister of Bantu Administration is perhaps the more sensible one. The Prime Minister says to-day already that he is not going to interfere in the government of the Transkei.

He holds our statement of policy in his hands and what does he do? He only reads half the sentences, or he stops half-way through, or not at a fullstop. He only reads as far as he wants to or what suits him. That is why I think that, when we talk about “dishonesty in politics”, the Nationalist Party should do a little sweeping before their own door, and I am addressing myself to the hon. the Minister of Transport in particular.

The United Party’s policy has been formulated to ensure, inter alia, that every individual who is a citizen of South Africa will have a share in the government of the country.

Black and White.

I am coming to that. Hon. members are so afraid of the Black man, of the non-Whites in South Africa, that you would swear they were not the descendants of our forefathers who subdued South Africa. As I said previously many of the hon. members opposite could never have been Voortrekkers, they could never have formed part of that small number of 404 men who stopped 10,000 Zulus at Blood River. They are fear-ridden. They are lost. They betray their own past. They are prepared to sacrifice their heritage. No, the United Party is not afraid of the non-Whites. It wants to accept them as part of South Africa. The policy of the United Party, moreover, ensures that South Africa will not be fragmented. The policy of the United Party ensures that South Africa will be maintained as we inherited it from our forefathers. The policy of the United Party will ensure in particular that the guidance of the White man will be maintained in South Africa because we are particularly not going to teach the Bantu to develop a national consciousness but to develop a South African consciousness. That is our object. Like the hon. friend who has just left our party as well as the Chamber, my hon. friends say that our policy will lead not only to the intermingling of the races, that not only will we promote integration, that not only will we be overwhelmed by the non-Whites, but that we even want Bantu in this House of Assembly or that we shall ultimately bring that about.

What do you say about that?

That is a lie of course, a distortion of the facts, a distortion of the real position, because we issue a guarantee. If that were ever to happen the people would be responsible for it, the voters of South Africa and not the United Party as such. If Bantu were ever to sit in this House of Assembly, the voters on the Common Roll, including the Nationalist Party, would be responsible for it.

But who will be on the roll? What about the Coloureds?

The guarantee is given, a guarantee which is of far greater value than the unwritten Native policy of the Nationalist Party—they are too scared to write it in their policy. What does the United Party say? It says that if ever there were to be more than eight Whites in this House to represent the Bantu it would only come about as a result of a referendum or a special election gained by a definite majority on that particular issue. The same applies as far as the question of whether or not Bantu themselves will ever be able to sit in this House of Assembly is concerned.

What question will be put to the electorate?

“Do you want it, yes or no”. It is very clear that if that were to happen it could only happen if we had the support of the Nationalist Party as well. When I am asked to-day: “What are the Natives going to do, what are the Bantu going to do?” I say that they will obviously and quite naturally ask for increased representation. Then my hon. friends ask “What are you going to do?” How do I know? How do I know what the son of the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) is going to think to-morrow or my son? What I do know is this that if we act honestly and sincerely, in the light which the Almighty has given us, future generations will also know, in the light they are given then how to act in the interests of South Africa and the White man.

However, I want to place on record what the United Party says precisely and now I am reading the sentence to the end—

Which voters?

That refers to the voters on the Common Roll.

Why does it not state that?

How many voters are there to-day other than those on the Common Roll? But I really want to deal with the Coloureds. The policy of the United Party as far as the Coloureds are concerned is very clear. We say honestly that it is our policy to recognize those people as an appendage of the Whites, and in that respect we are in good company. We are in the company of General Hertzog, of the present Minister of Transport, of Dr. Malan and of the President of the Senate. We say we accept them as an appendage of the Whites and if we are honest we must also accept them on an equal footing in the political sphere. I am not talking about the social aspect or about residential areas; I am talking about the political aspect. Certain traditions and conventions have been observed in South Africa for 300 years, traditions and conventions which are part of our way of life. But we say that in the political sphere they will be regarded, with certain exceptions, as part of the White nation on the Common Roll. At one time the Nationalist Party were very fond of the Coloureds. They even wanted to extend the franchise to Coloured women. That is why we also say that if we as voters want to elect a Coloured to sit in this House it should be possible to do so. Many Coloureds have not as yet the necessary experience, as in the Free State and the Transvaal, and they will have to be on a separate roll.

Will they also vote in the referendum?

No. How many more times must I give that reply? They come on a separate roll. That is why we say that as far as the Coloureds in the Cape Province and in Natal are concerned they will be treated on the same basis as the Whites in the political field. [Interjections.]

How are you going to treat them socially?

Just like to-day and like they were treated for 300 years. Four Nationalists attended the Commonwealth conference with me. For three months night and day lived and spoke together with the non-Whites of Africa, from Ceylon and the East, but we did not sleep together. Every morning a non-White brings those hon. members their coffee but they are not equals socially. We are still maintaining social segregation and this aspect does not worry me. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few remarks with reference to the speech of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, and then I should like to refer to the speech by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) which he made yesterday and I ask him kindly to remain here. Firstly, with reference to certain remarks made by the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp), he referred to what the Prime Minister had said about the Transkei. I do not think that the hon. member was quite fair, because he will remember that when the Prime Minister said that what they did there did not concern him he said that in connection with the election which they held there. The question was put by way of an interjection that the party that actually obtained the majority in the election was the party which was not in favour of apartheid and upon this the Prime Minister replied that when we gave them the opportunity to elect their own representatives and to rule themselves we may not interfere and tell them which people they must choose and then it does not matter to us whether they elect a Government which is in favour of segregation or against it. Now the hon. member for Hillbrow goes further and says that should Chou en-Lai be invited to the Transkei we have nothing to say. But the hon. member should remember that last year when we approved of the Constitution for the Transkei provision was made that Foreign Affairs, at this stage, would not be controlled by the Transkei Government. But now he reads a small portion and I say that it is unfair that a statement by the Prime Minister should be taken out of context thereby establishing a false impression of what the Prime Minister really had said.

No, I did read it.

Yes, I know the hon. member did read it but he did not read the whole thing. Had he done so he would not have created this confusion he tried to create. The hon. member said that we were afraid and asked what had happened to the Voortrekker blood. A few years ago he was asked if he was not afraid of the threat constituted by the Bantu and he replied that of course he was afraid. The hon. member himself is concerned about the future of the Whites in this country.

But I am not afraid of it.

Of course we must oppose that threat, but we on this side have no intention of running away.

You have already run away.

All that the Africa States and the world expect of us is to do what the hon. members on the other side want to do, to make concessions. As surely as the sun shall rise tomorrow, if we start making concessions it will be the beginning of the end for the White man in South Africa, and those hon. members know it as well as I do. But we are prepared to do battle against this threat. They are not prepared to fight that battle. They are prepared to sacrifice everything for the sake of the friendship of the world.

Not the country.

They complain that we want to divide the country, but what the hon. member wants to do is to hand the country over to the Black man holus-bolus. That can be the only result of their policy and I shall return to that later…

The hon. member gave us an exposition of the policy of the United Party out of that little yellow book. He told us that it would not be they who would decide, but the electorate of South Africa. There is an outstanding weakness in the policy of the United Party with regard to the Bantu and that is that they have a policy which can nowhere in the world be defended morally. It is too ridiculous for words. The hon. members suggest that according to their policy they will give eight representatives in this Parliament to represent the 11,000,000 Bantus and that the 3,000,000 Whites should have about 150 representatives. Do the hon. members think that the Black man of Africa or of South Africa will be satisfied with this? Do they expect that that matter will not be brought before UN the following year? And if it is, what moral defence would they have?

How many representatives have the Coloureds in your Government?

But our policy has not been completed yet. Hon. members on the opposite side are now busy making this debate ridiculous. When there are serious arguments from this side for which they have no answer, they sit and laugh. They have been sitting laughing here the whole afternoon. The Prime Minister said yesterday that the expansion of the Coloureds’ rights has not nearly been completed. Eventually their representation will be quite different from what it is now. Over and above the representatives whom they have in this Council, they will get a Council of their own which will have great authority. But when you are attacked in the world organizations because you give eight representatives to 11,000,000 people, and you claim for yourselves 150 representatives for 3,000,000 Whites, what defence will you have?

How many representatives are there for the Indians?

Our policy also makes provision for the Indians, hut your policy can never, be defended on moral grounds.

I think it is essential that I should react to something which was said by the hon. member for Durban (Point) yesterday. The hon. member said that he had been to America and Europe and all over the world and especially in America he met with terrific animosity towards South Africa.

That is not exactly what I said, but I did find bitter animosity.

Well, I was also there and I found exactly the opposite. I should like to put it in a few words. I found that wherever I went, without a single exception, the ordinary people understood the problems of South Africa. They are prepared to understand our problems and the dangers ahead of us, and when we tell them what we are busy doing they say: “I do not see any better solution”. That is because those people understand. We do not realize what a big problem the colour problem is in America and how aware the people are of that problem in spite of the fact that they have a population of 190,000,000 of which only 19,000,000 are Negroes. It is not a problem in the same way that our colour problem is a problem. Our problem is the survival of the White man here. Their problem is mainly a social one. But now I would like to say why that hon. member did not have the same experience as I had. It is because I went there as a son of South Africa to defend my country.

I defended our country all along, and even the Government.

I do not want to be unfair towards the hon. member, but when one of those members goes overseas he goes to represent the United Party. They do not go to put South Africa’s point of view, not to put South Africa’s problems in the correct perspective…

Did you defend the United Party overseas?

No, they do not talk about the United Party there, or about the Nationalist Party; they only talk about the White man and the Black man. But those hon. members do not go overseas to put, South Africa’s point of view, but only to relieve their own political frustration. To prove that, I have here a cutting from the Dallas Morning News. There is a picture of the hon. member for Durban (Point) with it. He gave an interview and I want to confirm now what I have said. It proves the lack of patriotism on that side of the House. This is what the hon. member said to the newspaper—

Here he does not speak about South Africa, but about his party.

Is that not a part of South Africa?

Yes, but when one goes there one must defend South Africa and not one’s own party, and that is my accusation against the hon. member. [Interjection.] He says in the newspaper that they represent 48 per cent of the electorate and that they have a policy that will work and then he explains this policy, but he does not mention the eight representatives in this House. He says—

It all sounds lovely but it is only in defence of the United Party—

Read the following sentence.

I will read the whole thing—

Thus he spoke in general terms, but the fact of the matter is that the hon. Member experienced exactly the opposite of what I experienced, except in Government Departments which are subjected to political pressure. I do not want to dwell upon that now because it has already been stated clearly that the Governments of the various Western countries are not kindly disposed towards South Africa owing to political pressure.

May I ask the hon. member why he was not prepared to have discussions with Negroes in order to hear their point of view?

The hon. member is now talking nonsense. I did not only talk to Negroes, but one day I spoke for an hour to a Negro without realizing that he was a Negro. I was not at all unwilling to talk to Negroes. I one day spoke to a man and then I discovered only after an hour that he was a Negro because he appeared to be White. I asked him when a Negro was a Negro and he said that it was generally accepted that if you have one drop of Negro blood you are a Negro. That is why I did not know that he was a Negro.

Mr. Speaker, it is customary at the beginning of a session to introduce a motion of no confidence and we realize that it is done to analyse the administration of the Government over the past year and to criticize where necessary. But the object is also to determine the policy of the Government and at the same time the policy of the Opposition. Because should the Opposition come with a motion of no confidence in the Government, it is obvious that should this motion be passed and the House has no confidence in the Government then it must have confidence in the Opposition. And there is a further implication. Because this House is representative of the people, it means that if this House has no confidence in the Government the people of South Africa also have no confidence in the Government. That is why we use this opportunity not only to analyse the policy of the Government but also that of the alternative Government, the Opposition. But now we find this ridiculous position that practically all the time is devoted to the Opposition because the attacks on and criticism of the Government are of such a trivial nature that they are being east back onto the Opposition. We have the position to-day that we have an Opposition that has gradually deteriorated over the past 15 years. I do not want to disappoint the hon. Leader of the Opposition more than he has already been disappointed, because he has already suffered much punishment during this debate, but I can give him the assurance in all seriousness that that party is still steadily busy losing support. One is not surprised at that. The hon. member for Pinelands laughs over this, but he should weep. During the last few weeks, old traditional United Party supporters came to me and said: “I have been a supporter of the United Party all my life, but there is only one thing that we can do in this country and that is to implement the policy of the Government”. Only last week an old traditional United Party supporter came to me.

A large number of Nats come to me too.

He said to me: “We are disappointed in the guidance of the United Party and we feel we just cannot follow it any longer.” On this side we are now becoming worried that later on we shall be without an Opposition, and because of this I want to give the Opposition some advice, and I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that as long as he persists in his present Coloured policy he will never come into power. He advocates that the Coloureds be returned to the Common Voters’ Roll and he said in this House that if they could be elected as members of this House they should have that right. The hon. member will remember that some time ago the Coloureds were a political play-ball in the hands of the different parties, and we do not want that again. But over and above this the hon. member will remember that before they were removed from the Common Roll there were constituencies here in which they were in the majority. If the Coloureds are returned to the Common Voters’ Roll it will mean that in numerous constituencies in the Cape the Coloureds will have a majority and according to his policy, they will have the right to send Coloureds to this House. And that is not yet the worst, but what are the implications thereof? The implications are that Whites shall be represented by Coloureds in this House. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition really think that the people will accept this, and does he think that as long as he stands for such a policy the people will support him? If we refer again to the Bantu policy of the hon. members opposite, then we see that throughout this debate there was an intimation of multi-racialism on that side. They advocate multi-racialism. We are, indeed, a multi-racial country. We are multi-racial because there are different races in this country but we do not want to go on with a multi-racial administration. They stand for multi-racialism; we stand for separate development. The hon. member for Yeoville said yesterday that multi-racialism was a success in America. Multi-racialism has never been a success anywhere. Multi-racialism has only succeeded in countries where the people are so intermingled in any case that the one does not know what the other one is, but where there are definite different races in the world, multi-racialism did not succeed. Does the hon. member for Yeoville who said it, or any member on the other side, wish to say that multi-racialism is a complete success in America? If you should talk to an American to-day he will tell you: “We have a terrible problem.” multi-racialism there is a serious problem for them; it just does not work out. Recently I read an article in the Cape Times by Adrian Leftwich in which he referred to a certain Richard Luyt who had had many negotiations with Bantu leaders in Central Africa. Heading this article was the caption—

Where did it appear?

It appeared in the Cape Times of 18 January. But in the same article he points out that it does not work. He says—

Of course, we accept it. It sounds so logical and correct. But why is it so? Because multi-racialism does not work out. Multi-racialism can only succeed when colour or race makes no difference whatsoever and where you judge on merit alone; then only can multi-racialism succeed, but as long as blood remains thicker than water, as the hon. member for South Coast said here this afternoon, multi-racialism will never succeed.

I should like to conclude with a testimonial which the organ of that party gave themselves, the organ of that party of which we have heard so much. The hon. Leader of the Opposition came here and complained about our economical position and other matters. I now want to tell you, Sir, what the Sunday Times wrote on 29 December, the last Sunday of last year. Amongst other things it said under the sub-heading “Policies in 1964”—

But the hon. friends on that side say that things are going badly for South Africa—

Now we come to the political part and I want the hon. members on that side to listen to the testimonial which they got from their own organ—

Do you believe everything they say?

No, I do not believe everything they say, but when they say something in favour of the Nationalist Party one must believe them. [Time limit.]

I am sure the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) will forgive me if I do not deal immediately with some of the issues that he has raised. I propose to utilize the limited time at my disposal to deal with a matter which I regard as being of great importance to our country and to the people whom I represent in this House. I refer to the Government’s attitude in enforcing petty apartheid measures which are unnecessary and which are causing so much resentment and irritation in our country. Sir, I was very much impressed with a leading article written by Mr. W. van Heerden, the editor-in-chief of Afrikaanse Perspublikasies, which appeared in Dagbreek in October last year, in which he made a plea for the abolition of petty apartheid measures. In the course of this very interesting article Mr. van Heerden drew a distinction between the apartheid measures which were necessary to establish political apartheid and those which were unnecessary for that purpose. He claimed in this article that political apartheid was the ideal of the Nationalist’s Party policy and then he went on to assert that all other forms of petty apartheid which were not necessary to give effect to the Government’s policy of political apartheid should be removed from our Statute Book. I would like to say immediately that I wholeheartedly support the views expressed by Mr. van Heerden in this article. It is quite obvious that no amount of pleading from this side of the House will cause the Government to change its policy voluntarily with regard to political apartheid. Session after session we on this side of the House have made appeals to the Government to relax its policy of political apartheid and certainly as far as the Coloured people are concerned, but up to the present our pleas have been in vain. It is in the hope that at long last the Government will realize the necessity of abolishing many of the petty apartheid measures that I now intervene in this debate and make this appeal to the Government.

Sir, I would like to read to the House extracts from this very illuminating article which appeared in Dagbreek. I am quoting from the Cape Argus report of that article; it is dated 28 October 1963. The article is headed “Nationalist Editor urges Abolition of ‘petty apartheid’ ”, and it goes on to say—

This is what Mr. van Heerden said in the course of this article—

I want to pause here for a moment to emphasize the point made by Mr. van Heerden: He claims that whilst all forms of apartheid and even compulsory apartheid which are necessary in order to realize the ideal of the Government’s policy of political apartheid are justified, but he asserts, and in my view correctly, that all forms of apartheid which are not necessary for implementing the Government’s fundamental policy of political apartheid and which affect and hurt the self-respect of people of other colours should be removed. Sir, I say that there have been many apartheid measures which have been introduced by this Government which fall under this category, measures which by no stretch of the imagination can be regarded as being necessary in order to realize the ideal of political apartheid which is the Government’s policy. I say that many of these measures to which I am going to refer in a moment are wholly unnecessary to give effect to the Government’s policy of political apartheid. These petty apartheid measures have only caused a great deal of irritation and annoyance and ill feeling in this country and have humiliated the Coloured people and affected their self-respect.

I want to deal briefly with some of these apartheid measures which come to my mind. I instance immediately the humiliation and ridiculous position which has arisen as a result of the Government’s trying to enforce taxi apartheid in our city. Sir, for generations our Coloured people have followed the occupation of cab-drivers and eventually taxi-drivers. They have earned their living in a lawful manner by driving White passengers. What harm has resulted from this procedure which has been accepted for generations of Coloured drivers driving White people in this city as taxi-drivers? What heinous offence have they committed? Why is it necessary for these men who are law-abiding citizens to be deprived of their means of livelihood and to be debarred from carrying White passengers in the city in which they were born, where their homes are and where they have worked all their lives? Sir, I ask in all seriousness; now can this petty apartheid measures in any way be claimed to be necessary to realize the Government’s ideal of political apartheid? How are the two co-related? This is one of the petty apartheid measures that I instance as an example of how unnecessary it is to impose these petty apartheid laws in implementation of the Government’s policy of political apartheid. I claim that this petty “taxi-apartheid” measure can in no way be regarded as necessary to carry out the Government’s policy of establishing political apartheid in South Africa. On the contrary, it can only have the effect of hurting the self-respect of these non-White people and harming them in their livelihood. It can only have the effect of harming them economically and, in many instances, of depriving them of their jobs and of their liberties. This petty apartheid measure certainly brings us in conflict with the world standards and helps to bring ridicule and contumely upon our country. It is one of the measures which I feel fall in the category mentioned by Mr. van Heerden when he wrote this very illuminating article. Sir, the enforcement of taxi apartheid is absolutely indefensible. The Mother City has always enjoyed freedom of taxi use. There are many Coloured drivers who have followed that occupation for generations. Their fathers before them were taxi-drivers. They are law-abiding, respectable citizens who have earned the goodwill and respect of their White fellow-citizens. What justification is there for depriving them of their jobs and of their means of livelihood? Surely it cannot be claimed that taxi apartheid is necessary to implement the Government’s policy of political apartheid. They are absolutely unrelated. Sir, it is this type of unnecessary repressive race policy, resulting as it does in innocent people losing their means of livelihood, that is causing our country infinite harm and bringing ridicule upon our country in the eyes of the world.

Another absurd example which comes to my mind is the position which arises with regard to the Government’s policy of bus apartheid. I suggest that an absurd position arises if you give effect to this petty apartheid measure. We have daily instances of non-Whites having to stand in half empty buses because they are not permitted to take seats which are reserved for Whites, despite the fact that those seats happen to be unoccupied. In terms of the rules laid down under the Government’s policy, the non-Whites, even if their section of the bus is full and there are empty seats in the White section of the bus, nevertheless have to stand or catch another bus. Sir, how can this petty apartheid measure be necessary for realizing the ideal of the Government’s policy of political apartheid? This is another example of the harm that petty apartheid is doing to this country. Let me mention another instance. In many of our big buildings and particularly in buildings occupied by Government offices there are different lifts for Whites and non-Whites. In the event of a non-White lift breaking down, the non-Whites are obliged to walk up the stairs; they are not allowed to step into the lifts reserved for Whites for fear that they may contaminate them. I myself have seen instances of elderly Coloured messengers having to walk up several flights of stairs because they are not permitted to use lifts reserved for the White people. Can you imagine anything more ridiculous, anything which is more likely to bring about resentment in the minds of those poor Coloured people than such a measure? It is this type of measure which brings about such humiliation and frustration in our midst. I ask again: How can such a petty apartheid measure be necessary for realizing the ideal of political apartheid? I have seen myself, in our gardens and our avenues here, unoccupied benches marked “for Whites only”. No Coloured person is allowed to sit on those benches despite the fact that the benches reserved for non-Whites are fully occupied. How can such a situation be tolerated and be regarded as being necessary to give effect to the Government’s policy of political apartheid?

I want to refer to another portion of Mr. van Heerden’s article. He says this—

repeat “at this stage”—

I agree absolutely with what Mr. van Heerden says there. The time has come now for the Government to take the necessary steps to distinguish between necessary apartheid measures and the unnecessary ones. The instances which I have given you, Sir, and I have mentioned only a few, are but a few of the petty apartheid measures which we claim are wholly unnecessary and can in no way be justified on the ground that they are necessary to implement the Government’s policy of political apartheid. There are many more examples which I feel call for immediate abolition by the Government. I want to support the Leader of the Opposition in the plea made by him for the abolition or certainly for the modification of the Government’s policy with regard to job reservation. How can the Government continue with its job reservation policy in so far as the Coloured people are concerned, particularly at a time when there is such a shortage of White manpower in this country? What justification can there be for it at a time when we are clamouring for additional manpower in this country? To my mind job reservation is an unjustified discrimination against the Coloured people and is one of the apartheid measures which the Government could quite easily abolish without in any way affecting the Government’s rigid policy concerning political apartheid.

I want to refer particularly to one industry which affects the Coloured people tremendously. I want to deal with one aspect of job reservation only to indicate to the House how the policy of the Government in that regard is affecting the Coloured people of this area. I want to deal with the building industry, and in this connection I want to refer to some of the remarks made by members of the Industrial Council for the building industry of the Western Province when that Council sat to consider whether as a result of inter-racial competition the White workers in the building industry in the Cape needed protection. Sir, these are some of the sentiments expressed by the European members of the Council representing both employers and employees in the building industry. In the course of the inquiry representatives of the employers said this—

Then another member of the Council, also representing the employers and also a European, said this—

Finally, a non-European making a plea on behalf of the employee section of the Council urged the Tribunal not to enforce job reservation and went on to say this—

He then went on to plead with the tribunal that if in fact job reservation had to be introduced it should only be done in special cases where it will be practicable and where it will not have a disruptive effect. Sir, these views were almost unanimously supported by all sections of the Industrial Council, but despite this the Government proceeded to introduce this policy of job reservation. This policy of job reservation has had a most devastating effect upon the Coloured people. It has caused a great deal of resentment and frustration in their minds. It is true that with the present economic situation in this country their unemployment position has been improved tremendously, but despite that there are extreme difficulties which have arisen as a result of the job-reservation policy. The point I want to make is this: How is this job-reservation policy necessary for implementing the Government’s policy of political apartheid? Here again Mr. van Heerden in this article draws attention to the fact that if a measure of apartheid is not necessary for implementing the Government’s policy of political apartheid, then it should not be undertaken by the Government and the sooner it is abolished the better in the interests of the whole country. Sir, I say that the policy of job reservation introduced by this Government can have no bearing at all upon the implementation of the Government’s policy of political apartheid. It has elicited the greatest amount of condemnation throughout the whole world, and I say it is wholly unnecessary for the Government to continue with it.

There are many more instances which could be quoted of unnecessary apartheid measures which could quite easily be abolished by the Government without in any way coming into conflict with the Government’s policy of political apartheid, but in the limited time at my disposal it is impossible for me to give many more of those examples. Those I have already given, however, must be an indication to the Government how unnecessary it is for them to proceed with these unnecessary petty apartheid laws which cause so much friction and irritations. Surely we should strive to do everything possible to ameliorate the condemnation which our country is receiving from the outside world at the present moment. Our relations with the outside world have never been worse than they are to-day. Never before in our history have we received greater and more solid condemnation of some of our policies than we are receiving at the present moment. It must surely be the concern of the Government and our political leaders particularly on the Government’s benches to try as speedily as possible to remedy this unfortunate position. I am quite certain that our international reputation could be greatly improved and rapidly improved by adopting a degree of moderation in our policies. If this Government could only be prevailed upon to adopt a degree of moderation in its future attitude towards the non-White people of this country and generally in regard to their policies towards those people I am sure that we could ameliorate considerably the unfortunate position in which South Africa finds herself to-day vis-á-vis the outside world. Sir, an article emanating from New York, appeared in the Cape Argus on 14 October 1963, and I would like to refer to that article very briefly. The headline is “Some moderation of policy could help South Africa”. The article continues—

Sir, I know that there is no point in again pleading at this stage in this house for the restoration of the Coloured franchise to the Common Roll and I do not propose to do so this afternoon. As I have already pointed out, we have made such appeals to the Government session after session and our appeals have been in vain. We went to the extent of asking for the restoration of the Coloured franchise to the Common Roll but I am not pleading for that to-day. That would be regarded by the Government as being in conflict with its policy of political apartheid. Sir, I am certain that the time will come, as sure as night follows day, when the Coloured franchise will be restored to the Common Roll, but for the present I am not prepared to argue it for the purposes of this debate. I am convinced that a moderation of policy by this Government could help us tremendously in our relation with the outside world.

I want to conclude by referring briefly to another portion of Mr. van Heerden’s very illuminating article. Mr. van Heerden says this—

In this debate we have heard from the hon. the Prime Minister himself his idea of bringing about a commonwealth relationship in this country between ourselves and the non-White people—

Sir, these words are almost prophetic. They were written in October 1963. The hon. the Prime Minister himself envisages the establishment of a commonwealth with mutually friendly relations. How can this possibly succeed—I ask the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government—if our petty apartheid rules remain in force? These petty apartheid measures to which I referred this afternoon and which have caused so much resentment and friction among our people? There was a suggestion in the Press yesterday or the day before of the exchange of envoys from the new Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia. How can this possibly take place unless we relax our application of these petty apartheid laws? Sir, I am convinced that if the Government could be prevailed upon to adopt a policy of moderation as suggested by this American critic and could apply that honestly and fairly to all people in this country, without affecting for the present the Government’s rigid policy of political apartheid, we could do a great deal of good for our country. It is for this reason that I appeal to the Government to take tangible steps now—not to delay it—but now, while we are able to take such steps, for the abolition of all petty apartheid measures, measures which are inhuman and which are unnecessary for maintaining the Government’s political apartheid policy.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down will agree with me that he merits only a very brief reply. This story about petty apartheid that is now being peddled in this way has its origin in the fact that the liberal elements in South Africa have deliberately broken the conventions of this country in order to make White survival more difficult. They compel the State to lay down in legislation matters that have long been understood amongst decent people. If they conduct themselves properly it will be far easier for them to achieve what they now state they want to achieve.

This little yellow book of the United Party has quite rightly become a talking point in this no confidence debate. We have repeated the fact often enough to-day that this debate is the recurring test of the country’s confidence or lack of confidence in the Government and also in the Opposition. I want to discuss the matter that the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) dealt with in detail—the federation plan of the United Party in regard to the Cape Coloureds—and the statement that the Cape Coloureds will be acknowledged to be Westerners. Not only will their former political rights—the right to be enrolled on the Common Voters’ Roll in the Cape and Natal—be restored, but they will also be permitted to take their seats in Parliament if they are elected. I want to devote my speech to this ostensibly very simple aspect of the federation plan—analyse it more thoroughly in the light of the facts that are available to us to-day and point out precisely the terrible implications inherent in it. I have three points of criticism to level at this aspect of United Party policy. In the first place there is an inadequate vagueness about this promise, or rather, this threat, to the voters of South Africa. In the second place there are disturbing practical implications inherent in this threat which have obviously as yet not even been plumbed by the United Party itself in its reckless indifference to the interests of the country by trying to reach a short-term political advantage. In the third place I want to point out the untenability of this proposal in principle.

In the first place, as far as the inadequate vagueness of this matter is concerned, I take it that it is only the male voters to whom they refer. They do not say that but because they talk about “restoration” I want to assume that they are referring to male voters only, although they ought to confirm this fact. If they are referring to male voters only, what age limit are they going to impose upon the voters—18 or 21 years? If only the male Coloureds are to be given the franchise, what are the property and educational qualifications to be? Mr. Speaker, I shall prove later that this question of the qualifications of the Coloured voters is going to have tremendous repercussions. There is also the further question: If only male voters are involved and if there is to be no general franchise either amongst the male groups only or the male and female groups together, how can they have any moral justification for it? It is time the United Party explained these things to us. As far as I know the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) wrote eight explanatory statements about the matter besides the little yellow book which I also attribute to him, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wrote at least four explanatory statements, but why do they not give us these cardinal facts?

I pass on to discuss my second point, and that is that there are tremendous practical implications involved in this threat as a result of the change in the size of the population in the Cape which the United Party has not appreciated. In order to appreciate the practical implications of this United Party threat we must study the census of 1951 and 1960 which those hon. members are so fond of using in another connection. I shall reply to their arguments in regard to the member of Bantu surrounding the White areas on another occasion. What do we find if we take 1951 as the basis? We had a census in 1951 when the Coloureds were on the Common Voters’ Roll. We can justifiably therefore take 1951 as a basis and then take the 1960 figure and try to make an estimate of the number of Coloured voters who would have been on the roll in 1960. In 1951 there were 46,800 Coloured voters on the roll in the Cape; there were 516,000 White voters and so the number of Coloured voters at the time was nine per cent of the number of White voters. The Coloured population was then for the first time in the history of the Cape just slightly larger than the White population. In other words, the ratio of the Coloured population to the White population of the Cape was 104.9 to 100. But the 1960 census showed that the ratio of the Coloured people to the White people had risen in that nine year period from 104 to 100 to 132 to 100. Accordingly, if we accept the fact that the population ratio is the basic factor that will affect the ratio of the voters, we come to the conclusion that in 1960 the ratio of the Coloured voters to the White voters would not have been only 9.06 to 100 but would have risen to 11.4 to 100 in the Cape. The number of White voters in the Cape numbered about 582,000 in 1960. This means that in 1960 we could have expected to have 67,000 Coloured voters in the Cape if no new factors had arisen since 1951. But two very important new factors did arise. The restriction upon the Coloured voter in the past was his non-compliance with the educational and property qualifications. I do not want to deal more fully with the educational qualification because it is not easy to convert the improved educational level into a statistical determination of how many more Coloured voters would have qualified. I merely want to mention the fact that in 1951 there were only 111,000 Coloureds in Stds. I to X and that in 1960 they numbered 163,000. This indicates that a larger percentage of Coloureds would have been eligible for registration. But the factor to be noted and the norm to be applied is the rising economic level. In 1951 there were 89,000 Coloureds earning between R200 and R1,000 per annum and there were 3,373 Coloureds earning more than R1,000 per annum. These figures had risen by 1960 to 142,900 earning between R200 and R1,000 per annum and more than 18,000 earning more than R1,000 per annum. In other words, the registrability of the Coloureds increased in direct proportion to the increase in the classes who qualified economically—viz. 151,000 in 1960 as against 92,000 in 1951. This brings us to the conclusion that in 1960 there would have been at least 110,000 male Coloured voters eligible for registration in the Cape, or indeed, a ratio not of nine or 11.4 of the White voters but nearly 19-18.9 to be precise. I am speaking now of 1960, four years ago. The Graaff plan can no longer be put into operation in 1960; the earliest that that diabolical plan can come into operation is 1968—two years after the next general election. What are the numbers going to be then? When we make a simple mathematical calculation in order to work out the growth of the Coloured population from 1951 to 1960, we find that during that period their numbers increased in the Cape from 981,000 to 1,330,000. When we estimate it mathematically we find that the Coloured population in the Cape will number 1,800,000 by 1968. I concede that this is not an estimate that makes provision for demographic adjustments but over the short period of seven years the demographic adjustments cannot be of much importance. Out of a Coloured population of 1,800,000 in 1969, without considering the fact that the educational qualifications of the Coloureds are still rising, without considering the fact that this dramatic economic improvement is taking place in the life of the Coloured, something that is so seldom acknowledged by their representatives, about 154,000 Coloured voters will be registrable in the Cape in 1968 while, at the latest registration this year; the number of Europeans had not yet reached the 577,000 mark. Therefore in: 1968, if that plan is put into operation, the Coloured Voters will make up at least 25 per cent of the voters of the Cape. One of the details that those hon. gentlemen did not tell us or did not want to tell us was whether they would or would not repeal Section 6 of Act 46 of 1951 in terms of which the Coloureds were not taken into consideration in the fixing of a quota within the province. In accordance with their policy of the restoration of rights I assume that they will also repeal that provision of the National Party and that the full weight of Coloured voters will be evenly distributed.

Nobody can predict how a new group of voters will affect the result of an election because everything depends entirely upon the manner in which the old voters are divided at that particular stage. One may have a situation in which the old voters are divided up more or less equally and where the addition of a very small number of new voters may be the deciding factor one way or the other. In another case one may find that a very solid block of voters will vote together so that new additions will not make such difference.

May I ask a question?

No, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal fully with these facts. In order to arrive at a reasonably practical political estimate of the part that this 25 per cent of Coloured voters is going to play under the Graaff plan, I Want to refer to the 1948 election, which was a critical election at a time when political feelings were fluid, and to the 1958 election in the Cape when divisions were stabilized. In 1948 there were 30 seats in the Cape which were decided by majorities which represented less than 25 per cent of the registered voters. Seven of them represented majorities of less than 5 per cent of the voters. In 1958 there were 14 seats in the Cape that were decided by majorities of less than 25 per cent of the number of registered voters: of these, in two seats the majorities numbered up to 5 per cent and in five others up to 10 per cent of the number of registered voters, And so in these two elections we find that in the Cape 44 out of the 105 seats were decided by majorities of less than 25 per cent of the number of registered voters—20 out of 50. I say, Mr. Sneaker, that a reasonable political estimate is that Under the Graaff plan the Coloured will be the deciding factor in 1968 in at least 20 Cape seats out of a total number of seats which will probably not exceed 50. But this is not the only factor that we must consider. The Coloured vote in the Cape will be spread in certain districts. In the Eastern Districts the Coloured vote is not of so much importance, but, as has already been mentioned, there will be a number of constituencies in which the Coloureds will be in the majority. Do hon. members Who designed this plan realize what the pattern of the growth of the population is? Here in the Cape Peninsula itself the ratio of White to Coloured has remained fairly constant in the nine years from 1951 to 1960. But if We take the heart of the Boland, Ceres, Montagu, Paarl, we find that the Coloured majority has over the past nine years increased by virtually 30 per 100 over the White population and that the ratio of the Coloureds to the Whites in that area is already 196.7 to. 100. In other words, the number of male Coloureds is already equal to the number of White voters; it is merely a question of their having to comply with the qualifications. This pattern is being repeated throughout the Western Cape with the exclusion of the Eastern Districts—that the Coloured majority over the White population has doubled by about 50 to 100 in the nine years from 1951 to 1960. In that period of nine years the Coloured majority over the Whites has increased by 50 per 100. Throughout this whole area the number of Coloureds is on the average already twice as large as the number of Whites. This means that there are just as many male Coloureds, without the extension of rights, as there are White voters. The number of potential Coloured voters is already there and by 1968 that majority will have reached fatal proportions. I say that in the light of these facts, Mr. Speaker, the plan of the United Party contains the germ of three necessary things. In the first place, under their slogan of “the restoration of voters to a Common Voters’ Roll” they will unleash a bitter enmity between White and Coloured such as has never been experienced in this country before because the entire European population of the Cape, west of Humansdorp and Gordonia, will know that this will mean the end of their political existence. The Second factor will be that they will be introducing a disintegrating factor within the whole of the Republic because the Cape will no longer be the heartland and the consolidating factor of the Republic but will then become the dangerous key by means of which the stout door to the stronghold of South Africa can be opened to Black racism of Africa. The third factor is this: If this plan is implemented, even the least dangerous form of application of the plan, and if this plan is carried out with the necessary considerable representation of the Coloureds in this House, because of the tremendous power of the Coloured vote, it will lead to the eventual destruction, by surrendering to the Blacks, not only of the Afrikaners but of the entire White population of South Africa and eventually of the Coloured population who are the key to Black supremacy in our country.

I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by referring to the untenability in principle of the United Party proposals. Historically, the Coloured received the franchise, the franchise being regarded as a part of full equality. The full equality of the Coloured was watered down by the national policy followed in this country. As part of the process of the watering down of full equality the Coloured woman was not given the franchise and that vote was given less value in other ways. But in principle the idea and the original conception of the Coloured vote was that it was an expression of full equality and I say that this is the only logical import that one can give to the franchise on the Common Voters’ Roll of a country. It is the highest symbol of full civil rights. One cannot impose certain restrictions on voters, on full citizens. How can we say that people who are born in Natal can be registered on the Common Voters’ Roll but cannot send their children to certain schools; that they cannot live in certain residential areas; that they cannot join the Public Service or the Army? If one does say this one will provoke a group vote, people who will vote as a group against all those restrictions. The United Party have to make it their choice. They must either admit logically that they must fully integrate the Coloured by giving him the supreme right of franchise or else they must accept the fact that the Coloured will be compelled to make use of that supreme right of the franchise as a group weapon to fight against all forms of differentiation. They have to choose either one or the other alternative. What does history teach us? What else is the present American problem of integration but that America now has to swallow what the United. Party wants to make of South Africa. The Negro in America has for generations had the vote on the common roll but the time has come when he has used that power and has said: I want to be a citizen in all respects; I do not want to be discriminated against. The United Party is trying to implement something in South Africa which America is having to swallow and is suffering under to-day. How are they who say that they are seeking the favour of the world for us going to justify their discrimination against the Coloured woman to the world? What justification is there to-day for a man who says: I want to give the Coloured man the vote on the Common Voters’ Roll but I will not give that vote to the literate and educated Coloured woman? That is nonsense and they know it. They know that they are going to be an object of international ridicule. They know that they cannot give an unqualified franchise to the Whites generally and they cannot say that the world will not ridicule them because they withhold it from the Coloureds. They know that in the long run they will not be able to say that the Coloureds should not be included when determining the quota for the demarcation of constituencies in the various provinces of South Africa. They know that the madness of this plan will be obvious. Mr. Speaker, this plan of the United Party that has filtered through here and there, is perhaps the most fatal part of their federation policy because they will implement it simply on the strength of a fortuitous majority at a general election. They will also give these hundreds of thousands of Coloured voters the right to take part in the referendum on the result of which the further extension of rights will depend. Our National Party policy that has been under fire here openly differentiates between the groups; we give the Coloured separate representation. We give the Coloured separate ethnic government; we give the. Coloured a diversity of rights in the political and other spheres. And thus diversity of rights is not always disadvantageous to the Coloured. It may perhaps be to his disadvantage politically but militarily it is in his favour. The Coloured youth is to-day spared the sacrifice of a full year’s service to his country. But we make this differentiation in the certainty that by this means we will maintain our pattern of life. That is why in this debate we are unassailable not only by the Opposition but we are also unassailable by the world and our Creator because we know that we do not differentiate in order to deprive people of rights but in order to give them a diversity of rights. We as a party take our stand humbly and without presumption in the knowledge that, knowing what the situation is, we must also sometimes be selfish and that both good and bad are interwoven in many of the measures that we take. But the National Party stands before our people and before the world in the knowledge that we differentiate between the national groups in order to bestow rights and not to take them away. The hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) completely misunderstood the main matter to which Mr. van den Heerden referred in his article. We are in favour of the important principle that our nation must stand as a separate nation through all time. Because we cannot give full rights within our systems we want at least to achieve this one end—to protect in perpetuity the land and the shrines of our fathers that have been entrusted to our care. The policy of the United Party will swiftly and surely jeopardize and lead to the destruction of those shrines of our forefathers.

My reply to the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) is a short one. Compared with the Whites the Coloureds are in a great minority in South Africa; they do not constitute half the White population; and if the White man in South Africa cannot even maintain himself against a minority by granting that minority reasonable rights, will the hon. member tell me what earthly hope he has of maintaining himself in the long run against the majority.

The replies the Government have given thus far to the motion of no confidence have been dominated by a few arguments we already know. The first argument is that the majority of the voters support them and by implication they add: “That is why we are right.” Mr. Speaker, the majority argument has no merit whatsoever. If you take the religions in the world you find that the Christian belief is by far in the minority. It is experiencing set-backs in many places, set-backs against Communism in Asia, set-backs against Islam in Africa. Will any Christian argue that because of that his religion is wrong and that he must renounce it? We know that before the Second War there was a political party in Germany which with its race policy of domination and apartheid at one stage enjoyed the support of 95 per cent of the voters. This Government in South Africa does not even enjoy the support of 52 per cent of the White voters in South Africa. Is there one sensible man in Germany to-day who will say that because Hitler had a 95 per cent majority he was right? No, to be in the minority in politics, to be in the minority temporarily, does not mean that you are wrong, and to have set-backs in politics as we sometimes have, and as we will probably again have, does not mean that you are going to lose the battle. For 50 years the cause of the Republic has had set-backs in South Africa, but did that deter those people who advocated it from continuing to believe in it? To have set-backs does not mean that you are going to lose the battle. We are convinced that no matter over how long or short a period nothing is more certain than the collapse of forced apartheid and accompanied with that the collapse of the Government and the party which sustains it.

There are two other arguments which are continually repeated. The one is: “Look how much better off we are than the rest of Africa” and “Look at the prosperity we are enjoying.” Mr. Speaker, we at the southern tip of Africa are more or less in the position as the United States at the northern end of America. We have colossal sources of wealth; we have a long tradition of parliamentary institutions; we have human material which in many respects is more developed and much more mature than the material to our north; we are a nation of 3,000,000 White Africans who are not colonists. Yet we find that the Government continually wants to compare our position with that of the countries in Africa where they do not have one-thousandth of the benefits or opportunities we have. I cannot imagine any American measuring the peace and prosperity of the United States against the political problems of Peru or the capers of Castro in Cuba. They apply their own high standards and they measure the progress of the United Party against the standards of their own inherent potential. I can quite understand a government wanting to find favour in the eyes of its own people, but I am sorry to have to say that our Government and members opposite always try to create the impression that they can only create a favourable impression by telling us that they are acting less foolishly than Dr. Banda or that there is greater peace here than there is in the Congo. I think the time has arrived for us to measure South Africa against her own inherent potential, the potential inherent in her own people. There is no doubt about it that we can reach colossal heights of development in South Africa if we are guided correctly in the political sphere; and nothing can argue the fact away that when you measure South Africa against her own inherent potential, we are not near (and I underline the words “not near”) to where we can and ought to be to-day had we acted sensibly politically. The prosperity we enjoy is prosperity with a reservation. The day Parliament opened the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs said at a Press interview that there was every reason to believe that the prosperity South Africa was enjoying at the present moment would be maintained for a considerable time. But then you get the reservation. He said “political shocks, particularly in the world outside, can influence our future growth”. The effect of a wrong political policy and wrong political actions always dominate the social and material welfare of a country. And the gravamen of our charge against the Government is this that it is in the nature of its politics, although they probably do not want it or intend it to be so, to give offence and to cause disquiet, and that it causes disruption and constitutes a permanent danger to South Africa.

There is only one way in which you can measure the success of a government and that is to measure it against the realities of its régime. What are the realities of the present régime? As far as our relationship with the rest of humanity is concerned it is a tale of going down more and more so that we are faced with greater dangers to-day than ever before in the entire history of South Africa. We are gradually being pushed out of the community of nations, not only in the political sphere but also in the social sphere. It is a process which is gaining momentum year by year and doing greater damage to our position. We are excluded, trade and all, from the greater part of our own continent. In respect of our most vulnerable point of all, namely South West, we stand arraigned before the International Court and one international observer after the other tells us to our face that that is going to be the source of action against us. There are reports from all over about powers who are planning to commit large-scale aggression against us. To crown everything, one ally after the other has forsaken us and nobody who condemns the Government more strongly to-day than those very countries who, under other governments, were our staunchest allies. As a result of the Government the world stands united against South Africa. In respect of nothing else are they unanimous.

I challenge anybody to tell me in respect of issue other than this one the world is unanimous. It is only unanimous in its attitude towards the present Government. There are people who think a change is setting in. I hope that is true. The signs are, however, that if anything has changed it has been a change of tactics and not of intention. The appearance of China in Africa has indeed made our position more acute than ever before. Whether we want to hear it or not the simple reality with which we are faced is that under this Government the position as far as our relationship with the rest of humanity is concerned has collapsed. I know hon. members advance the plea that they do not have control over all the circumstances. I admit that, but what they cannot argue away is the fact that the actions of the Government, the manner in which it conducts its politics, have in every respect weakened and aggravated South Africa’s position. Obviously it is the duty of a patriotic opposition to attend to the position, to worry about it, and not to mince matters. I ask you: For 15 years our international position has deteriorated step by step and if it were to continue to deteriorate as it has deteriorated for 15 years what must the ultimate logical result be? Only one, and that is a head-on collision in which South Africa will go up in smoke. In the face of the tremendous dangers which confront us you have a Prime Minister who has only one answer to the problem. He says there is nothing he can do to the position, there is nothing wrong with his policy, there is not a single improvement he can effect; he can only hope for the best, because the whole world is sick, there is only one sensible man, only one healthy man amongst them all and that is he who is at the head of a section of a section of a section’s section in South Africa. I am sorry to have to say this, Mr. Speaker, but these words of the hon. the Prime Minister have gone into the whole world; it is this kind of ingenuousness which is making us the laughing stock of the world and which has made every leader of every country despise us. He says every leader in the world is sick except he. During my short life I have only heard of two national leaders who have said that, only two who have said the world is sick and they alone are right. The other man was a man with a moustache, and his philosophy ended in the destruction of his country and the enslavement of his nation for years.

I have pointed out the increasing dangers which are threatening us from outside and the utter failure on the part of the Government either to put an end to the deterioration or to effect a turn in the tide. What is the position internally?

Has the Government been more successful internally? I admit the Government has had party political success but that is not a particular achievement in politics. The political history of the world has already taught us that there is one recipe in politics which hardly ever fails, which always brings party political success when you follow it, and that is to exploit human prejudices and to encourage national selfishness. That is the recipe which was followed with surprising success in certain countries of Europe before the Second World War. That is the recipe which is today being followed with equal success by many Black leaders in the rest of Africa and that is the recipe which is being followed here too. That is why I say that that is no achievement. We too can follow it, very easily. But why do we refuse to do so? Because it has been proved over and over that one’s country usually pays a ghastly price for that kind of political success. What is the price we are paying? I have pointed out what price we have already paid overseas. What is the price we are paying locally? The longer the Government continues with its policy the more it must defend itself, the larger must be our Police Force, the more home guards and reserve forces must we have, the more must we encircle ourselves with border posts. Private people are already armed to the extent that every second adult in our country owns a firearm. The position here is that proportionately we have the largest goal population in the entire civilized world. Holland and Belgium which have approximately the same population as we have have between 2,000 to 3,000 people in goal per day. In South Africa the daily goal population is 67,000 every day of the year. And to crown everything we have to arm ourselves to the teeth and keep an army in readiness as though we are involved in a war. The Government accepts all this as obvious and calls it success. The more we entrench ourselves, the more we call it success. We regard it as tangible proof of the failure of the régime of the Government from the point of view of the interests of South Africa. Our lack of confidence is based on the fact that we know the position will deteriorate further. If we were to know that the position would improve there would be no grounds for our motion of no-confidence but it will deteriorate for the simple reason that the Government finds fault with everybody except itself. The main whipping boy to-day is the communists. South Africa is suddenly full of communists. There is even a group outside Parliament who want to organize a so-called national congress because they maintain that communists are even active in the highest circles of the Afrikaans Churches! What is the Government in effect saying to us? They say in effect to us: “Under our régime Communism has increased in South Africa.” We all know that Communism does not drop from the sky. We have always had communists in South Africa. We had one, Sam Kahn, in this Parliament but Communism never flourished under the previous government. In spite of Sam Kahn being in Parliament and a Communist Party which existed publicly they could never get the masses united behind them. Communism only flourishes where people have sound reasons to be dissatisfied and where they have many grievances. It is there that it flourishes. What does this Government tell us? It says: Under our régime Communism flourishes in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, if he is right, that by itself already justifies a motion of no-confidence in the Government.

But there is another argument. Every time we point out how the position is deteriorating members opposite advance this peculiar argument: “Had you been in power it would have been worse.” I am surprised that a psychologist like the hon. the Prime Minister should advance such an argument because by implication that is an admission of guilt. He says: I admit everything is not so rosy, but you would have fared worse. That, of course, is purely speculation and is based on a wrong interpretation of the policy of the Opposition. Let me give one example. The story is, for example, that had the Opposition been in power the country would have been overrun by Black people. They conveniently forget how the ratio between the races would have improved as a result of our large-scale immigration policy. But we leave it at that. I want to ask this question: Who pleaded in this House with the Government to accept the basic recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission? It was the Opposition. Throughout the Opposition have adopted the attitude that all possible methods should be employed—White capital, the free flow of capital according to the freedom which our capital system affords—to bring about large-scale development in the Bantu areas in the economic, social and constitutional fields. We believe in large-scale development of the entire country on the basis of the existing system. Had the Opposition been in power and put its policy into operation and given effect to the basic recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission, what position would we have had or in what direction would we have developed? I shall tell you what position would have obtained in South Africa, Sir. We would have developed in this direction that there would have been areas predominantly Black and politically recognizable; there would have been areas predominantly White and politically recognizable; and there would have been areas predominantly White and Coloured and politically recognizable. You would then have had the basis for a federal arrangement in which the one national group would be unable to dominate the other; we would have been in a totally better position. Even Dr. Malan thought such a development was possible. Time will not permit me to enlarge on this specific point. I am sure there will be other opportunities to do so. Let me say this that the federal system can be applied in this country in such a way that the danger of the one race dominating the other is eliminated and that will give so much satisfaction to the majority of the non-Whites that the attacks from outside will automatically be neutralized. It is obvious that if you can satisfy your people inside your country the attacks from outside will fall away.

I am convinced that in respect of one issue more than anything else there is unanimity in South Africa and that is that we believe the control must remain in civilized hands and that civilized standards must at all costs be maintained in the country. When I say that I also say this that in order to maintain civilized standards you do not need the system of forced apartheid. The one step above all others we shall have to take in South Africa if we want to get out of our difficulties is that apartheid will have to disappear as a state ideology. We shall have to declare openly and honestly that apartheid has ceased to be the official state ideology of South Africa. Let me just say briefly what I mean when I talk about apartheid. In the formative years of the ideology of apartheid various people attached various meanings to it; there were different views about it. The most common concept of it was that it was really only a continuation of our traditional policy. That was how it was represented in any case. But according to the way in which it has developed there is a big difference between apartheid and the traditional habits that were observed. Our traditional policy was a free system, there was nothing totalitarian in our traditional policy. The position was one of birds of a feather, one of natural human relationships, one of self selection, and the principle was to limit legislation to the minimum and to abolish it as the various groups gradually developed. Everywhere in the world to-day you find cultural groups, language groups, racial groups, religious groups who, because of their inner strength, preserve their identity and who function as personal entities, often to the natural exclusion of others. That is something which exists and which is accepted all over the world, but that is not apartheid. Apartheid is the system which has introduced the element of absoluteness and of legal coercion. Its walls encircle an area much greater than the wall of Berlin. It is so totalitarian in its operation that human considerations are completely pushed aside when it is applied absolutely. That is why I say it is wrong to say that apartheid is the traditional policy of South Africa. That is not so. Apartheid means forced segregation. The opposite of forced segregation is forced integration and the world is equally opposed to both. Apartheid is resisted here and forced integration is resisted in other parts of the world. What causes that resistance? Not apartheid or integration, but the element of force. What surprises me is that a leading article appeared in the Burger some time ago on the question of the dangers of force and it said this, talking about America and forgetting about South Africa (the Burger, 2 October 1962)—

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I have not the time now. The Burger says the difficulty in America is forced integration. The difficulty in our country is forced apartheid. Until such time as we discard both, until we discard forced integration and forced segregation, until we discard the extremes, therefore, and we reach the logical and right approach of self selection, of natural human relationships (which was the traditional policy of South Africa, a policy under which the Whites have maintained themselves for 300 years and whereby we have preserved our culture and identity and under which the Whites have grown and assumed great leadership) until we return to that policy and get away from the totalitarian concepts of forced segregation and forced integration, we shall never have peace in South Africa. I admit that we shall not be able to reach the ideal situation in one day. I also admit that we shall be faced with difficult situations, but we shall be able to overcome them. We shall have to find the right answers to some problems, but we can find them. The history of South Africa will force us to work together, and the sooner we put our feet on the road of co-operation, the sooner we move in that direction, the better it will be for everybody.

If you were to ask me what the practical result would be, Sir, I would say that we were democrats and that the main concept of democracy was the freedom of the individual. That obviously implies the freedom of the group; and instead of the State being the instrument of discrimination it should be the guardian of the group and of the individual so that he can conduct himself as he wishes and give expression to his own feelings. Every man in his relationship with other races, should be able to live his life the way he wants; and thus each group should have the right to organize itself, whether it be as far as his education is concerned or the place where he lives—he must enjoy the freedom which is inherent in democracy to make his own arrangements and to preserve his own identity without the State becoming the instrument of discrimination.

When I look back over the past 15 years I am confronted by the fact that apartheid has not solved anything. In all respects, inside and outside, the position has deteriorated and the reason for that is that in essence it is a system which is a permanent insult and a permanent affront to every man of colour all over the world. Mr. Speaker, what are the significant characteristics of apartheid? The most significant characteristic of apartheid today is the notice board and the prohibition. The notice board which says that the Coloured man is not good enough to enter through the same door as the White man, he is not good enough to buy a stamp at the same counter as the White man; the legal prohibition which says that even at a non-White university the White lecturers and non-White lecturers cannot come together (the law prohibits that) to discuss university matters. They believe in the fiction that if you abolish it it would cause friction. Wherever people come together voluntarily at high level, without friction, as in the case of scientific societies, it is the Government who breaks up those meetings. To prove how incorrect this fiction of friction is you need only walk down Parliament Street—there they practise apartheid in the post office, but in the shop just oh the other side of the street you find a free relationship and everybody buys at the same counter and what friction is there? More friction is caused than eliminated by apartheid. Just think of the uproar which is caused in Cape Town every now and then because of the lunatic idea of taxi apartheid. For generations the Coloureds have been driving cabs in Cape Town and driving taxis together with Whites. Nobody complains. But it is typical of the Government to create trouble wherever there is peace. The result is that shortly before Christmas a number of people were discharged, the food taken out of their mouths, were discharged because they were not White. Ours is the only Government in the world that will take the food out of a man’s mouth and forbid him to continue with the work he has always done simply because his skin is not White. When we come to group areas we find that people are chased out of their homes. What does that solve? Where else will you find such a Government? In every civilized country in the world the place of a wife and children is next to her husband. There is only one exception in the world and it is this Government which says it is for the Government to decide whether a wife and her children may live with her husband. So I can go on.

Only half truths.

No, these are not half truths. When Black leaders in Africa tell White people to leave their homes, their work and the area where they were born we call it barbarism but when White leaders do the same sort of thing here towards non-Whites we call it the Christian way of life. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) is a living example demonstrating why the United Party finds itself in the position in which it is. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) wanted to give the United Party the testimonial given to it by the Sunday Times. The hon. member made the following quotations from the Sunday Times—

This is what the hon. member for Ceres could say, but what he could not say is the following—

That is true. As I said, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is a living example of that. He can appreciate certain facts but cannot analyse them properly. He takes cognizance of certain facts and draws superficial conclusions, besmirches South Africa and basks in the publicity that he receives in the foreign Press. He has sold his political future and himself for a headline in the Sunday Times and he is now trying to sell South Africa for a half-column in The Observer, a British leftist newspaper. Those facts will be brought to light when the report of the Press Commission is tabled. I just want to give a few examples of the superficiality of the hon. member. He says that we have no friends in the world. That is not true. We are condemned because of our race policies but we have many other friends in many other spheres. The hon. the Prime Minister has already said this often enough. But the hon. member does not appreciate this; he sees only this one thing, this “racism”, and he says that this is the dominating and only factor in our country. But that is the most arrant nonsense. If we had no friends we would also have no trade. People would then not take the trouble to keep in touch with us. We would then have no representatives in foreign countries. There would be no foreign ambassadors in our country and we would not have our ambassadors throughout the world. These are things that he does not appreciate, and if he does appreciate them he cannot draw any valid conclusions from them.

He has mentioned the position of Rhodesia. What is the position in Rhodesia? Rhodesia has made every concession possible to the Blacks and where has it got them? They are on the point of having a Black Government.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) asked why we did not object to it. But that is their own affair. If there are too few Whites to maintain their position in Kenya or in Tanganyika or in Rhodesia then the majority, the Black people, are going to govern there. The position here is no different. If we want to apply the same policy that those people applied, we will have the same results. It seems as though the United Party are unable to draw that conclusion. And that is why “they make no inroads into the Nationalists’ ranks”. Let me further analyse the arguments of the hon. member. He has given up hope for the Tomlinson Report. Does he not remember that when that report appeared, when Mr. Strauss heard about the millions that would have to be spent, he held meetings—I think at Moorreesburg—at which he immediately attacked the Government because of those millions that would have to be spent. But when the Opposition heard that we were not going to implement those recommendations, they attacked us because we did not want to do so. This means that if we had followed the recommendations in the Tomlinson Report, the Opposition would have opposed our actions. The Opposition have no inkling of the position at all. All they can do is to watch what the Nationalists are doing and then to oppose it because they have no principles.

I understand of course that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) feels very much at home in the United Party because he has never had any principles. Let me give these facts to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, facts which he does not even realize. We are to-day spending more, R2,000,000 more per annum, on the reserves than the Tomlinson Report recommended! If he knows the true facts then he is being dishonest because he paints a picture for overseas consumption which is not in line with the facts. And if he does not know the facts then he is worth nothing as a Member of Parliament, not even as member for Bezuidenhout.

This is not only the failing of that hon. member; it is also the failing of the whole of the United Party. They do not even take note of the elementary things of which a party should take note if and when it is faced with a situation such as we have here in South Africa. Indeed, I think that the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) was correct when he said that we should advise the United Party on how to make progress. It would indeed be a tragedy if, as a result of the fact that the Opposition liquidated themselves, we found ourselves without an Opposition!

Let me say this to the Opposition. The elementary, ethnological ideas which are peculiar to a particular race and which must be considered when one is dealing with the politics of a state containing a number of races, are ideas that they know nothing about. If they were to read an elementary book on anthropology and on the cultural configuration of various people in which the one influences the culture of the other, and the difficulties that arise because of this, not one of the hon. members opposite would say the nonsensical things said by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who compared our goal population with those of countries that are completely homogeneous. I say that they admit, and I am grateful for it—unlike the Progressive Party which does not want to admit that there are different races in our country—that we do have different races. There was a time when they thought along the same lines as the Progressives—that the Black people living here were simply a group of Europeans with the same trends of thought and values but who simply had Black skins. This is one of the greatest mistakes that one can make in trying to govern a multi-racial country.

I notice that for the last few years they have been speaking about a “multi-racial society” as though we have one society in South Africa. We have only one society in the sense that we all live within the same political borders, but beyond that we do not have one society; we have more than one society. If the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) will think for a moment, he will not speak of a “multi-racial society”; he will speak of “racially plural societies”. It is most important that he should take note of this because each of those different race groups has its own way of life, each is separate in its own cultural configuration. The terms used in this connection are ethnological terms and it is an elementary principle that one should appreciate the fact that there are separate ways of life. This brings us immediately into the political sphere in which attempts are made to regulate human relationships. There are also different values as far as those various cultural patterns are concerned. Every group has its own view in regard to what is good or bad, attractive or ugly, worth striving for or objectionable. We are trying to superimpose upon our Bantu people a sense of values which is not peculiar to them. Their ideas as to what is good or bad are not ours. The peace in this country is the peace of the White man; the quiet that pervades this country is the quiet of the White man. The Bantu have no share in it and that is why there are so many people in this country who cannot conform to the demands of and the norms set by the White group. We are simply called upon to undertake this task of civilizing them for the sake of peace and quiet in the whole country.

I say that every group has its own ideas as to what is good and what is bad, what is attractive and what is ugly, what is worth striving for and what is objectionable, and if every hon. member opposite will just reflect for a moment, he will know how and where this difference in values must be expressed in our legislation. It is quite true that those differences do not exist in all spheres; there are certain things about which we have the same ideas and this creates a certain measure of unity. But the unity that is apparent there is so limited that we cannot progress when it comes to the question of governing the country together. The reason is this: The difference is not only a difference in culture, but it is also a difference in the level of civilization. What is more, the position is not as it is in other countries where they have a number of races living in the same State and where the people look more or less alike. In this country our appearance continually proclaims us as belonging to a particular cultural pattern—the texture of our hair, our skin, our colour and, in many cases, our religion. [Interjections.] The hon. member for East London (North) (Dr. Moolman) should really not make those remarks. In any case, this whole matter is beyond his comprehension!

Mr. Speaker, the State can only flourish and have a common legislative body if the things binding the people together are more important than the things which divide them.

That is the crux of the whole matter.

That is the crux of the whole thing—if the things that bind them together are more important than the things that divide them. I want to take an example of this from our history. What a struggle we had after we had obtained a democratic, a responsible government in 1906 in the various colonies—in 1906 in the Transvaal and very much earlier in the Cape. There was continual bickering and wrangling between the Boers and English from start to finish. I sat here in this House and watched the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) mentally packing this trunks and wanting to leave. He said so himself; he spoke about “marching.” Why? Because although he belongs to the same civilization as I do, his cultural pattern differs to such an extent from mine that sometimes he cannot agree with us. And why? The only reason why the Parliament of the Union and why this Parliament of the Republic has been a steadily increasing success is because the things that bind us together are of greater importance to us than the things that divide us. We have not yet outlived that historical composition; we have, however, agreed to differ. That is what happens where one has a Federal government.

That is the case in countries having plural cultures, such as the Federation of Canada and the Federation of Switzerland. They can only reach agreement on matters in which they feel that they are on common ground. Nowhere can one find a country in which apartheid is applied to a greater extent than in Switzerland because their population consists of Italians, French, Germans and Romans. They have four languages. One notices this soon enough when one moves from one part of the country to another. Apartheid is practised more intensively there than anywhere else. We do not have that territorial division in our country.

Hon. members opposite take note of these things but they deny that each race is entitled to his own cultural pattern in order to enable them to obtain those things which to them are the finest and the best. Experience teaches us that if we try to group those separate races together and if the one group tries to dictate to the other, nothing remains of the whole body that has been established to make the laws. That has been the experience in all these countries. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) said: “I look at the map of South America and I see nothing but multi-racial states”. Mr. Speaker, is he not ashamed of himself for saying things like that here? Is he not ashamed of himself for displaying his ignorance in this way? The people in South America speak either Spanish or Portuguese. The people who do not speak either one of these two languages are very much in the minority; they are small minorities who have not yet reached the stage where they push their nationalism to the fore. The force of nationalism is so strong that one simply cannot suppress it. There is only one group of people that can control that nationalism and that group is the nationalists themselves. That is why we recognize the Xhosa as a group. We are giving them self-government. We know that the pressure that will be exerted by that nationalism will be so strong that we will not be able to control it.

That is why we are canalizing it.

No, we are recognizing it now because we hope that by recognizing it now we will gain more goodwill than we would if that we were forced to grant that recognition. That has been the experience of other countries in the world. What happened in Eastern Europe? It will do the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. van der Byl) a great deal of good to read the books dealing with the minorities in Eastern Europe. The same thing happened in Czechoslovakia. The Slovaks, the Slovenes, the Czechs and the Germans simply could not make any progress together and, just as happened here, these groups requested foreign intervention. The Russians in Poland requested Russia to intervene and the Germans in Czechoslovakia requested Germany to intervene. The poor Yugoslavians simply murdered one another. They just could not make any progress.

May I ask a question?

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) knows that I believe that he is shallow; he must not try to put me off. The hon. member is obsessed with his race federation plan. I have read what he wrote. I just want to say this: The plan that they have submitted to us has more dark than bright spots when one comes to analyse it. There is more to be said against it than for it. Let me mention just one point—I do not want to discuss this whole question. I want the hon. member to listen to me. The hon. member omitted one point completely. Neither the hon. the Leader of the Opposition nor any other hon. member discussed it. The point is: Who is going to impose taxation and who is going to decide how that money should be spent?

What is happening in South West Africa?

South West Africa is a territorially demarcated area. We know where everyone lives and what their powers are. But he wants to establish a race federation because he does not know where everyone is going to live. That is my difficulty. I say that when one has a situation like the one we have in South Africa where we have Whites, Blacks and Yellow men and where each race has its own cultural pattern, a cultural pattern to which it is entitled, then there are only two alternatives. One of those alternatives is to establish a dictatorship—benign or otherwise—to accept the responsibility of government with all its disadvantages. That is what is happening in Ghana. In Ghana they also have different peoples. They are all Black but they are not homogeneous. They all have crinkly hair but that does not make them homogeneous. That is the mistake made by the outside world; because they are Black they are thought to be the same kind of people. That is what is going to happen in the Congo—there will either be a dictatorship or the country will be broken up. I expect a number of states to come into being in the Congo. I expect Katanga to stand alone because the people living there are people with different cultural patterns. I say therefore that the only form of government which will be suitable will be a dictatorship, or an oligarchy which resembles a dictatorship and which they have had up to the present, or else there will have to be a recognition of separate groups with a devolution of sovereignty which must follow in its wake.

The reason for this is obvious. The force of nationalism is so strong that if one tries to allow one group to dominate the other in the central Parliament, to prescribe a cultural pattern for the other group, it will simply not work. I accuse the Opposition of having no interest in the future of South Africa as such; they are interested in only one thing and that is to make things convenient for themselves so as to enable them to converse with the Xhosa, the Zulu and the Sotho in English. If those groups will accept the English pattern it will be so much more to the advantage of the English-speaking people. All of, them will then be Black English Europeans. That is the trouble.

I repeat that a central Parliament where there is no unity which is inherent to the people to be governed simply cannot function. That is an historical fact. That is what history is teaching us at the moment. That is what the future of South Africa would be if we were to establish such a Parliament.

What are we doing now? We admit that those people are entitled to their own separate cultural pattern. They must be allowed to do those things which they consider to be in their best interests. We are going to assist them in this. We are going to win for ourselves far more goodwill in this way than by any other means.

This brings me to the second point that I want to make in this debate. I want to come back to what the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) said yesterday. I have said that the United Party do not work things out to their logical conclusion. I think that they are behind in their thinking. The attack which the hon. member for Germiston (District) and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made on the 90-day clause was made because they knew that the Leader of the Progressive Party would give them no peace if they did not attack it. She has taken them in tow. The hon. member for Germiston (District) shakes his head but he knows that in principle they voted for that Act.

You know that we voted against that section.

I do not want to do the hon. member an injustice. He said that; that Act contained a number of principles; he said that he was in favour of some of them and opposed to others. He said that he had always made it quite clear that he was opposed to the principle of the 90-day detention. Mr. Speaker, if this is such an important principle, if they say: “To have this section is to blacken South Africa’s name abroad and to give her a bad reputation in all the chanceries of the world”, then they must vote against it if they want to be politically honest. I want to take the hon. member up on the morality of that section. The Act states specifically that it is only those people who can be accused of possibly breaking the law in connection with the suppression of Communism and the law governing unlawful organizations who are covered by its provisions. Nobody else is affected. When we have to deal with people who are in cahoots with Communism or organizations seeking to promote Communism, then we are quite entitled and acting within our traditions to take extraordinary steps.

I say “within our traditions”. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that less than 100 years ago we had the position in England and in Holland that if a man committed a crime against the State he was painted with a tarbrush. He was branded as a person who had been guilty of infamy—he was a dishonourable person. Such a person was deprived of all his rights, and he forfeited all his movable property to the State.

When a person is guilty of a crime against the State he is guilty of infamy. We said this last year: Those people who try to collude with the communists who are seeking to take our country away from us by force and to establish another order here, are not entitled to any rights. That is part of our tradition. When we go and take it out of the attic of the past, there is nothing wrong with it. We only use these things when we need them.

These are people who were convicted.

The point is not whether one has been convicted or not; the point is whether one colludes or not. If that is so, then certain specific measures must be imposed upon such people. We detain such a person for 90 days. As the hon. the Minister of Justice has told us, that man can be released within five minutes if he answers the questions put to him or if he satisfies the police that he has no knowledge of the matters in regard to which they want information from him. There is nothing wrong with that. Moreover, we still have the position that a man can be asked certain things which are within his knowledge, which he is capable of answering. It is part of our law of evidence that under certain circumstances a witness can be compelled to answer questions in respect of certain matters which are within the scope of his particular knowledge.

At 6.55 p.m. the business was interrupted by Mr. Speaker and the debate was adjourned.