Unfortunately, I will not be able to fulfil my promise to the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) to give him a full reply to his charge, but I shall try to do so if I am given a suitable opportunity at a later stage. I think he merits a reply.

I want to conclude with a simple resume of what I said yesterday. A legislative instrument—call it a Parliament if you like—can only function successfully if its various components have so much in common with one another that the things that bind them together are more important than the things that divide them. As far as we are concerned, with our different races, with our different languages, our different kinds of civilization, the differences in our levels of civilization, the things that divide are of greater importance than the things that bind. I want to discuss only one point and that is the difference in values. When we look at the rest of Africa we can see living examples of these differences in values. It is unthinkable to us that a person who was an accessory to murder, who was accused of it and who was detained for that crime could ever become Prime Minister. Similarly if an Opposition becomes too much of a nuisance it is simply unthinkable that we would put that Opposition in gaol. We cannot imagine, as happened in Ghana, having a Deputy Speaker who was gaoled for counterfeiting. That does not surprise us. What does surprise us is that they made him Minister of Finance! And so we could go on along the same lines. Because of, these differences the prerequisites for a multi-racial Parliament are completely absent. In such a Parliament the races would stand together to protect the group. Blood remains thicker than water and where it cannot run, it crawls, and that would also be the case here. Those facts and those circumstances doom the multi-racial Parliament of the Opposition to failure. But the country can rest assured, the people can be comforted. The Opposition will never be given the opportunity of trying this experiment.

The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze), the Professor of Law, said yesterday at the beginning of his speech that we had no policy on this side and that we had no principles, in fact nothing. Well, most hon. members opposite, including the Prime Minister who spoke for about three hours, have been talking about our policies, so for three days they have been talking about nothing. I thank heaven that he was never my professor and that he is not my legal adviser. Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister told the House that he had the fullest confidence in his Minister of Justice; that he was a great Minister. I would point out that the hon. the Prime Minister said exactly the same thing only a year ago about Mr. Louw, and we know what happened to him.

What happened to him?

I give you two guesses. I do not want to discourage the hon. the Minister of Justice but he must remember and he must be warned what happened to Mr. Louw. Let me say this to the hon. the Minister of Justice: like when the Greeks bear gifts, beware of Prime Ministers who come bearing eulogies. It is very dangerous.

Sir, we all agree that South Africa’s economy is extremely sound and our currency one of the strongest in the world. It is only natural that the Government will take full credit for this state of affairs. I do not blame them, for that is politics, and perhaps if we were in power we might at a pinch do the same sort of thing if we were in the same difficulty in which they are in finding anything to get credit for. But the facts of the matter are, of course, that our country is so basically sound and blessed with such great natural resources of which I will mention a few in a minute, that in spite of the stupidity, in spite of the intransigent and crass follies which have been committed by the present Government, South Africa has been able to weather the storm and the world’s hostility and world isolation up to now. To mention but one folly—pursuing an extremism that has antagonized the whole world. Sir, I said I would mention a few of our natural resources which have kept our economy afloat, in spite of everything and in spite of this Government. The obvious one is gold, of which we are the world’s greatest producers. It is not only a vital world yardstick for valuing one currency in terms of another, it is not only the only means by which a country which has a deficiency in its balance of payment or its balance of trade can cover it by shipping gold (as long as the present form of world financing exists) but it is a commodity that is in short supply and therefore sold before it is mined. That is the real basis of our economic stability. But can the Government claim the credit for that? Are they responsible for our gold mines? Have they spent one sixpence or done a single thing to develop the gold mines? I merely mention this to show that my earlier remarks that the country is flourishing in spite of this Government was not merely a facile debating point.

Sir, I will not waste the time of the House by mentioning other natural resources which God has given us and which the present Government’s policy cannot destroy. Our most important asset, of course, is our people. We had the early settlers first from Holland, then from France and then the 1820 British settlers. They might not have been the rich and influential people of those nations but they were people of very strong, determined and firm character, not quick to compromise. They were people who were prepared to risk hardship, disease, danger and even death if necessary in an unknown country rather than put up, if I may use a vulgar expression, with being mucked about any longer by opposing religions, politics or economies of their mother lands. In short, they were people who preferred freedom to comfort. Sir, an amalgam of such blood forming a new nation would make for a people of great determination, slow to compromise and even stubborn and intransigent at times, and also a people who would admire such qualities, particularly in their leaders, for they are great qualities in times of danger. Like the British in general and the Londoners in particular in 1940 when they stood up against the greatest military might. We saw what happened in 1899 when two small republics fought the greatest Empire that ever existed. But, Sir, those are qualities that should not be used to meet small or petty situations which do not endanger the safety of the State. May I give a simple example. Take the father of a family who is a firm, strong, decent man who is determined that his family shall follow certain conventions and lines of integrity. If he finds that they like television, which he does not—it is not an important thing which is going to destroy the moral code of that family—then he takes the dog for a walk and he lets them have their way. In small things he does not force his will upon them. Now the Prime Minister, realizing that these qualities are admired by the people as a whole, has decided to cash in on it, and he has tried to create the granite image of himself, not realizing that courageous firmness in main essential problems must not be confused with mere stupid, intolerant obstinacy in matters that do not endanger the safety of his state. Sir, we know that large numbers of tombstones are made of granite. In fact next to marble it is the most popular material for the making of tombstones. They will stand there indefinitely, for hundreds or thousands of years, never moving forward to meet the changes of a changing world, but what good do they do bar marking the grave of people now dead? Sir, let the Nationalist Party realize that the granite image of the Prime Minister might finally mark the grave of a great and fine people, the South African people; it might finally mark the grave of our White civilization.

Let me clear the decks straight away so that there can be no misunderstanding. We on this side stand for the main principle of not handing the political power to the Bantu or other non-Europeans. This is one thing where we agree with the Government and here we differ completely from the Progressive Party whose policy, if carried out, must eventually mean just that. But, Sir, we agree also with the Government in one other great principle and that is ‘‘South Africa First”. But we do not agree with South Africa alone and isolated in the world, unless the world wants to force the issue over the first principle and force us to hand over power to the Bantu or the non-Europeans. If that becomes the issue then if necessary we must fight; for it is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. Because of this Government’s intransigence and moronic policies over, non-essentials and petty matters that do not endanger our Western civilization but which by the Government’s insistence on them must eventually bring that very White Western civilization into jeopardy, we say that this House cannot have confidence in the present Government.

Having said where we agree, let me enlarge on a few of the many obvious points on which we entirely repudiate the policies of the Government. They maintain that the non-European cannot be economically integrated in the Republic. We say that that is the case to-day. They want to put the clock back and have a White economy, a Coloured economy, an Indian economy and a Bantu economy. They go further and say that this is not a multi-racial state. Well, that has been touched on before and I do not want to be guilty of repetition. I think the best reply to that was given last year by the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) who, when he was challenged across the floor of the House, said “Go into the streets and see if this is a multi-racial state or not”.

The Government’s side maintain that the country must be divided into a White state, a Coloured state (within a White state) and Bantustans, with all the appalling dangers which such a policy must bring in its train. I do not want to enlarge upon this because it has been dealt with before, but it could mean that in future we might have a number of hostile Cubas on our borders. We see how practically every small or large ex-colonial Black state has gone or is going communist. Zanzibar is the latest and we see what has happened in Ghana; we see what has happened in Tanganyika a short while ago, and Uganda is practically going the same way. Now, Sir, to start with Bantustans will be merely to create colonies; they cannot be anything else until they get sovereign independence. In other words, South Africa is going to be in exactly the same position as Britain was 100 years ago when she was surrounded by a galaxy of colonies, some self-governing and some with Crown colony government. The Government is starting to create colonies at a time when the word “Colonialism” has become an international swearword. These colonies are being created with the knowledge that great powers like France and Britain and lesser powers like Belgium and Holland have not been able to hold their colonies in the face of world opinion. Yet our Government, with childish insistence, believes in the impossible. How can anyone with a soupçon of intelligence still have confidence in this Government? They say that the non-European shall have no representation in the Central Parliament. We say that whilst maintaining the political power in the hands of the Whites, the majority of the population must have some representation in the highest court of the land so that their voice can be heard and so that they can ventilate their grievances. That would be a safety valve. It would be not only in the interests of our non-Europeans but in the interests of the White ruler, because the White ruler should not live in a vacuum; he should know what is going on in the back of the minds of the majority of the people in this country. It is essential for the White ruler to know how those people are thinking.

Sir, I have spoken about the obstinate and granitelike behaviour of the Government over matters that do not endanger our Western civilization, and I will give just three examples to show what I mean. For instance, a White man and a Bantu are involved in a car accident and they are both bleeding to death in the street and a White ambulance or a Black ambulance comes along. It is essential to get those people to hospital as soon as possible, otherwise they will bleed to death. Is it going to endanger the State if that Black ambulance or that White ambulance takes both those people to their respective wards in the hospital to save their lives? Is that going to endanger our State? That is what I mean by petty apartheid. Sir, how can I endanger the State by buying a stamp standing next to a Coloured man, when my wife is in the kitchen standing next to a Coloured maid helping her to cook the dinner? Will the Prime Minister tell me how the safety of South Africa is jeopardized by my sitting in the back seat of a taxi which is being driven by a Coloured man? I do not want to touch on that because it was very eloquently put yesterday by the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg). But the amusing thing is this: If that same Coloured man loses his job through this policy of the Government and he becomes my private chauffeur, I do not have to sit in the back seat, I can sit in the front seat next to him. That does not endanger the safety of the State, but if I sit on the back seat in a taxi driven by a Coloured man then I endanger the safety of the State. Have you ever heard of anything so childish?

I could give hundreds of examples of what I mean by petty apartheid which hurts the pride, the feeling and the ego of the non-Europeans and makes the world our enemies. But what does it avail anybody to talk to obstinate closed minds, minds as dead as granite? Sir, the only way such minds can be opened is by this House, by hon. gentlemen opposite having the courage and the people outside having the courage to show that they have no confidence in the present Government.

Then we have the example of immigration, which has been dealt with fully by my Leader and referred to in detail by others. I do riot want to go into any details therefore I merely draw attention to it because I want to put forward an argument on that point. Tremendous publicity is being given to the number of immigrants coming to South Africa, and for that we congratulate the Government. We thank heaven that they are coming here. But has the Government ever thought of the 15 wasted years when we could have got the best skilled people from Europe? Had the United Party’s scheme been kept in operation over the last 15 years we would have had over 1,000,000 immigrants in this country. I think my hon. Leader was understating the position when he mentioned 1,000,000. I think we would have had very much more than 1,000,000 if the United Party’s immigration scheme had been kept going. Sir, let me tell you why. In 1948, after Britain had been bled white economically by war, and unemployment was rising rapidly; Germany was down and out; France, Belgium and Holland were also in the throes of a depression. Europe was expecting the Russians to march to the Channel or even to the Atlantic seaboard. I was in the Government at that time and I saw the secret files. That was the considered opinion of the greatest military experts in the world. They said that at any time towards the end of 1947 dr the beginning of 1948 the Russians could march right through Europe. The result was that millions from the West wanted to seek work and a new life in other countries. Millions did go to Canada; many millions went to Australia and millions went to other parts of the world, and during those 15 years South Africa got no immigrants through the stupidity of this Government. Sir, what is the position now? With the huge numbers who did go, the pressure in Europe was relieved so far as unemployment was concerned. Then a wave of prosperity struck Britain, which made for full employment. Britain also became a welfare state, in which every man knew that even if he was unemployed, his wife would not starve, he would have a roof over his head and his children would receive education. Germany got right back on her feet, so much so that within the last two months Germany has been saying that she is short of skilled workers, and to-day she is in the market bidding for skilled manpower against other countries. That is the position in Germany to-day whose unemployeds could be counted in millions in 1948. Sir, France has also prospered, and the same can be said of many other European countries. Now after 15 years which the locusts have eaten and there is a shortage of skilled manpower in Europe, this Government starts to do what they deliberately broke down in 1948. They are now closing the door after the horse has fled. Sir, how can any sensible person, how can anybody other than a bird-brain (and, Mr. Speaker, you can see who I am looking at), have confidence in this Government when it has such a record? It is obvious that if this country is going to continue to develop we must use our manpower to its full capacity. Let us start with our Coloured people. They are educated and highly skilled, splendid workers and artisans, but job reservation prevents their skill being used in many capacities, apart from the fact that this policy makes our names smell in the nostrils of the world and makes the Coloured man hate us if we go on frustrating him in this way. Sir, I was asked last session by some very intelligent young men, all of whom were strong supporters of the Government, “What can we do to improve the deteriorating race relations in South Africa?” I said to them, “You must make a gesture to the feelings of the non-Europeans; start with the Coloureds. They want to be our friends. They have shown themselves to be true South African patriots in every single war and every war they fight mainly in the interests of the White man.” The reply I got in all sincerity from these intelligent young men was this: “What more can we do? Look at the millions the Government is spending on housing and on education.” I said, “It is true, the Government is doing much in the line of education for the Coloured man, but what is the use of raising a man’s educational standard if when he has a trained brain he has in many cases to use that brain as an office boy or as an unskilled worker?” That is much more dangerous because you train that man up to a certain standard of education and then you leave him in the air with nothing to do. It is then that he becomes an agitator. Nothing that you can give the Coloured man materially—I am talking about the material benefits that you can give him—can soothe that hurt to his feelings which is being done every day by this Government; the touching of his ego; the touching of his personal pride which legislation passed at session after session keeps rubbing in. I was against General Hertzog’s policy in 1939 of remaining neutral, but I heard his speech here and it impressed me very greatly. On 4 September 1939 General Hertzog said: “This war is not being caused by Hitler; this war is being caused by Versailles and the humility which has been heaped on the German people.” Then he added: “I have been under a harrow; I know what humiliation means and I have seen what humiliation can do to a man and to a people.” I have never forgotten those words. How must the decent Coloured man feel when he sees me walking into the post office followed by my coloured dog, yet the Coloured chauffeur cannot follow me carrying a parcel! My own servant cannot follow me into the post office but my dog can! [Interjections.] Hon. members can jeer; but that is a fact. Let me give an example of what I mean by humiliation. In 1899 the British Government, unjustly, decided to eliminate two small republics for political reasons. They took possession of the country; they humiliated the people by forcing them to admit defeat; by forcing on them a foreign flag; by forcing on them a foreign Government. Then the British people in their wisdom chucked that Government out for 20 years and a new Government came in. That Government gave millions to rehabilitate those two republics; they gave them self-government; they gave them sovereign independence; they made it possible for three Boer generals to govern the whole of the Union and two old British colonies. They did all they could to placate the feelings of those people who had been humiliated and had been beaten in that war. Now, after 60 years, the descendants of some of those people are still, in some cases, fighting that old war. Why? Because their forebears were humiliated half a century ago. Do you think that anything we do to placate the Coloured man in years to come will make him forget what is happening today? Does anyone with a knowledge of human psychology and the reaction of people to a sense of grievance expect that any material thing that you can give the Coloureds will make up for that sense of wrong, frustration and resentment and humiliation? Can anyone have confidence in the Government who cannot see this and who continues creating this grievance? The situation is, as I say, that we must accept the Coloured man as part of Western civilization, and that is the policy of the United Party. That does not mean social integration; that does not mean handing over political power. I ask again: Can anyone have confidence in the Government which has not got the courage and the guts to admit it is wrong; a Government who were forced by economic circumstances to change its immigration policy?

Finally, the present policy of the Government in respect of the White small farmers has been dealt with. I shall only deal with it in passing because I want to develop an argument. That type of small farmer is the backbone and the stabilizing factor in any country in the world. Year by year the small landowner is leaving the countryside in increasing numbers. The hon. the Deputy Minister, so my Leader said, told us that 2,400 were leaving per year, and they are being replaced by the large landowner who is unable to live on all the farms he possesses. So what does he do? He gets Coloureds and Bantu to work those farms for him. In other words, the countryside is becoming less White day by day and more Coloured day by day. Sir, world history shows us that the human stock of the countryside has always fed the industrial cities with new sound blood and become a stabilizing factor. If that is destroyed that nation’s greatness is weakened. I am sure the hon. member for Cradock will agree with what I am about to say.

No, he will not.

“Dat daar sit die boerehater!” The policy of the Government is doing just that. Sir, there is another reason why this House can have no confidence in this Government. I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Transport is not in his place. In the two minutes that are left to me I just want to say that that great protagonist of public integrity, according to his own speech, has again repeated what I am supposed to have said in reply to a question put to me at a meeting some years ago, knowing full well that the newspaper report was taken out of context and gave a completely wrong impression of what I had said. On several occasions in this House I have explained the position absolutely. I do not propose to lower myself to go over the whole story again because I know that that will not stop him from repeating the same story next time he gets the chance. But, Sir, as usual the Minister of Railways is off the rails once more.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to react to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl). It was very clear that he himself did not have much faith in his arguments. In the second place he is a former Minister of Native Affairs and you can therefore say, Sir, that he and I belong to the same broederbond! Nor do I wish to react to the attacks that were made on our general policy. I think the replies which hon. members on this side of the House have given have been so devastating that it will not be fair of me to dwell on them. I merely want to avail myself of the opportunity to clear up a few misconceptions and misrepresentations which have become evident during the debate.

In the first place I want to deal for a moment with the election in the Transkei because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to it. I want to say at once that I am surprised that the Opposition has not uttered one word of appreciation of the way in which that election went off. When we compare that election with elections in other parts of Africa and even in other parts of the world, I really think South Africa has reason to-day to be proud of the way that election went off in the Transkei and also to be proud of the Bantu in the Transkei for the way in which they behaved themselves. But we have not had a word of appreciation of that from that side of the House. On the contrary, the old pattern was followed of not only reviling the National Party but even of belittling the Bantu of the Transkei still further. I wish to refer to the attitude of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). I want to say this at once—and I say this without any fear of contradiction—that the way the election went off in the Transkei has been a victory for the policy of the National Party. I challenge any member to compare that election with any election in any African state and in many parts of the Near East and even the East. There is no comparison. Mr. Speaker, do you remember the predictions we had when the Transkei legislation was introduced? We had a number of prophets of doom who predicted the most ghastly things. It is really interesting to read those speeches again to-day. What has happened to those prophets of doom? I think they have been put to shame. I say the way that election went off was a victory to the National Party. Sir, I want to ask you to think with what powers we had to contend there. In the first place we had organized attacks on the part of the larger section of the English-language Press. Those attacks were often of a nature that descended to the lowest moral level imaginable in South Africa. I am sorry that I have to say that about the English-language Press but that is the position. I really think that if there is one section of the Press which ought to hang its head in shame because of the predictions it made and the way in which it misjudged the whole situation, it is the largest section of the English-language Press. But we did not find that on the part of the Press alone. We also had to contend with other forces. We had organized attacks by communist elements. They hired people to go to the Transkei, people who infiltrated everywhere. We had organized attacks by liberal elements who did not hesitate to hire people to go there or to go there themselves. We had attacks by the Progressive Party which followed the same methods. We had attacks by certain persons who did not hesitate to bring the National Party and the policy of the Government in disfavour. We had attacks by certain ecclesiasts who, instead of teaching the Gospel, taught politics to the Bantu of the Transkei. I am not saying all of them, but some. We had attacks by certain traders. Now that the election is over, Sir, you will be surprised to know how many Bantu tell me that they were bribed to carry on with the fight. Not all the traders. In spite of that everything went off so well that we can only be thankful. I say these things because I have always adopted the standpoint that if a decent and honest White man was really sincere in acting decently and honestly towards the Bantu of South Africa, he should have showed that in a practical way in the Transkei, namely, by not meddling in the affairs of the Bantu of the Transkei. That was a golden opportunity to every White man to prove that he wanted to leave the Bantu of the Transkei to themselves to decide on their own affairs as far as the election was concerned. In spite of this we had those elements which did not hesitate to conduct an unholy agitation campaign.

Let me start with the registration. That was not an easy task. Just think of the campaign that was conducted particularly by the Press. I can assure the House that there were elements who exerted their utmost powers to dissuade the Bantu from registering, to stay away from the registration offices, so much so that certain newspapers predicted that registration would be negligible—the smallest percentage we have ever had in South Africa. That was what certain people and certain newspapers predicted. Fortunately, however, the Bantu of the Transkei did not pay any attention to that.

Give us an example.

I shall be pleased if the hon. member will just give me a chance of stating my case. I say that in spite of these facts we found that people flocked to the offices to have themselves registered. Subsequently when the results were made known it was suggested that the people did not know they had to register. These false rumours were spread not only in South Africa but throughout the whole world. Let me just give the figures in connection with the registration. There are altogether 650,000 registerable people in the Transkei. Mr. Speaker, do you know how many of these registered? Six hundred and thirty thousand or 97 per cent. To have seen the Transkei during that registration campaign was an eye-opener to more than one. At many places over 1,000 people stood in a queue. There was an enthusiasm hitherto unknown even in White constituencies. There was not less enthusiasm outside the Transkei. It has been estimated, and very thoroughly estimated, that there are approximately 500,000 voters outside the Transkei. We know they are spread throughout the country. Of those 500,000 altogether 250,000 registered, or 50 per cent. I can assure the House that had a 100 per cent intensive registration campaign been conducted that percentage would have been much higher. The average number who registered outside and inside the Transkei was a little over 74 per cent. That really does the people credit.

Let me deal for a moment with the election campaign. There too we had this propaganda. It was immediately stated that there would be no candidates; it was said that people would not stand as candidates because they did not know what remuneration they would get, etc., etc. In other words, the people were encouraged on a large scale not to make themselves available. There is something else. It also appeared prominently in the newspapers that Proclamation No. 400 was still hanging over the heads of the people and that it would not be possible for them to hold meetings. That was something which the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) also said. The result was that 180 persons offered themselves as candidates in those nine constituencies. Those people held meetings. I left Proclamation 400 at the request of the Bantu themselves. I have so often said in this House that it would not interfere at all with meetings because Proclamation 400 was intended, as I have so often said, for certain people like Patrick Duncan and others and their stooges, people who were creating mischief in Pondoland and other places. During that short period of the election, as I said to-day, 899 meetings were held altogether in the Transkei and a large number in Cape Town and Johannesburg and in practically all the big cities in the country. But we actually had the spectacle of hon. members getting up in this House and trying to make the world believe that Proclamation 400 was the reason why there was no freedom in the Transkei. Is that fair and reasonable towards South Africa? We always want to know why the world outside is besmirching South Africa the way it does. The reason is this type of untruth that is sent into the world. The people were at liberty to print their pamphlets and to distribute them as they liked and they did so. How did this election go off? It went off so orderly and smoothly that there was not a single incident at any place. Nowhere did anybody even get a black eye.

That is because there were no Nationalist Party organizers.

Those candidates behaved themselves in an exemplary way and what is more the voters of the Transkei showed that they were people with a sense of responsibility.

Let me also deal with the election itself for a moment. That election conformed to all the demands of a modern election—to all the highest demands.

One man one vote?

The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. I say it conformed to all the demands of a modern election. In the first place this election was to have been held in one day. I must admit that some of my colleagues had their doubts about that. They wondered whether that would be possible in view of what other states in Africa had done where the elections were held over a period of a week and longer. But it was a question of honour with South Africa; we wanted to show the world that we could hold this election in one day like a modern election. And that was done, Mr. Speaker, and it does South Africa credit. What is more, the election was conducted according to modern standards and methods. It was not necessary for us to have symbols.

How did they vote?

I am coming to that. I see the hon. member is as usual also a stranger in the Transkei. Mr. Speaker we did not have to have symbols; we did not have to have elephants and baboons. We had the candidates and the people voted for those candidates. There were many impartial people; a large number of overseas journalists were there to see what would happen. They expressed their admiration for the way in which the election was conducted. I am surprised at the hon. member for Transkeian Territories asking me how they voted.

How did they vote?

The hon. member ought to know. He could have gone to Umtata to see.…[Interjections.]

Order! I must appeal to hon. members not to be so frivolous. Do they not regard this motion as an important one?

There the Bantu again showed that he could behave in a way which really redounded to the credit of South Africa. During the whole of the election we did not have a single incident of any nature whatsoever either inside or outside the Transkei. What is more, you found a happy and cheerful nation round the polling booths. They joked; they sang, etc. There was no unruliness or fighting as in the other parts of Africa.

The United Party then revelled in one thing. They said there would be a large number of spoilt ballot papers. The newspapers also predicted that.

Who said that?

The newspapers. The one thing which absolutely surprised us was the fact that the percentage of spoilt papers was negligible. We have every reason therefore to be very proud and grateful for that as well. Let us look at the number of votes that were cast. In the Transkei 478,000 votes were cast or 77.7 per cent. They voted more dutifully than the United Party supporters, Mr. Speaker. Outside the Transkei 51.2 per cent votes were cast and in some place the voting was 100 per cent. Had it not been for the difficulty employers experienced and the difficulty of working hours, etc., this percentage would have been much higher.

The 100 per cent?

Here we have proof therefore that the Bantu of the Transkei and those outside the Transkei have not only accepted the policy of the National Party but have accepted it with enthusiasm. The important thing is that they have accepted with enthusiasm the idea of a united Transkei and that they are not prepared to divide it into two: they want to maintain that basis. That was one of the commendable things that became evident from that election.

Let me now deal with the election of the Chief Minister. In this case too the election went off equally well and orderly in spite of the real attempt on the part of the English-language Press to sow dissension among the Xhosa of the Transkei, something in which they perhaps succeeded in the case of certain people. In this case too the position was that everything went off smoothly. Here too certain elements did not hesitate to say who should be elected as Chief Minister. In this connection I again refer to certain ecclesiasts; I refer again to certain traders; I refer again to the reprehensible role played by certain sections of the Press; I refer again to certain people who did not hesitate to take an active part in it. I am going to mention one name—I mention the name of the big friend of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories, Mr. White. The afternoon when the results as to who was Chief Minister came out Mr. White nearly fainted; I believe his wife did faint. They had to take her home. That shows you, Sir, what an important part those people played in the election. One of the untruths that was sent into the world, particularly by the Press, was that the Transkei had now accepted the principle of multi-racialism. I wish I had had the time to deal with this at length but I trust I shall get the opportunity to do so at a later stage. The Transkei has not accepted the policy of multi-racialism. On the contrary 90 per cent or more of the people in the Transkei are against the policy of multi-racialism. I admit that Paramount Chief Victor Poto said that he was in favour of multi-racialism and he is a person for whom I have a very high regard; I know him very well. But when he was asked at meetings what he meant by multi-racialism his reply was: By that I do not mean at all that Whites should be allowed to sit in the Parliament of the Transkei; I do not mean at all that the Whites should have the right to acquire land in the Transkei; all I mean by that is that they should not be chased out of the Transkei. The other candidates gave the same reply. I know of candidates who declared openly that they were in favour of multi-racialism but when they came to the meetings and the voters asked them what they meant by multi-racialism they said, oh no, by multi-racialism they meant that the Bantu must ultimately possess the whole of the Transkei. These things were written down by people of my Department who were concerned in those matters. No clear picture was given of the real position. I trust, however, that an opportunity will present itself at a later stage for me to deal with this point at greater length and to produce the evidence. I can state today that the majority of the Bantu of the Transkei, inside and outside the Transkei, have accepted the policy of apartheid of the National Party with enthusiasm.

I just want to deal with another matter for a moment. Reference has been made to the increase in the number of Bantu in the White areas and it has been said that that number was nearly 1,000,000.

A little more.

The hon. the Prime Minister has already repeatedly pointed out that we continually warned that that would go on. I also want to refer hon. members to my own speeches in which I said every year that this flow would continue and that it would increase at times. It is only when the Bantu area has been properly developed that you can expect a reversal of the flow. Surely what hon. members have raised is nothing new. It is a miracle that over the period of ten years, a greater number of Bantu did not enter the White areas than did enter. Had it not been for the National Party with its control measures I want to know what South Africa would have looked like to-day. Had the National Party not come into power you would have had a second Zanzibar in South Africa because the policy of the United Party is nothing but a Zanzibar policy. I am firmly convinced of it when I say that. I wish I had had the time to go into detail but just take the percentage that entered between 1936 and 1946. It was 25.5 per cent and there is an annual growth of 2.4 per cent. In spite of this growth the increase from 1951 to 1960 was only 23.5 per cent. Then it must be borne in mind that there had been tremendous development in every sphere. Just think of the development in the mineral sphere, think of the gold fields in the Free State, think of the industrial development that has taken place over those ten years. All that development demands a terrific labour force. It was a miracle that we managed to put a stop to the uncontrolled flow of Bantu to South Africa. We put a stop to it. And the tide has already started to turn. The year before last 100,000 Bantu had already left the White areas. Do you know, Sir, that we have sent back a considerable number of foreign Bantu over the past two years, Bantu who have not returned to South Africa? Just think of the 2,000 Rhodesian Bantu whom I removed from the vicinity of Port Elizabeth. Approximately 20,000 foreign Bantu have passed through our border posts, Bantu who will not return to South Africa. As far as this is concerned there are many bodies who co-operate with us. Only last week I received a letter from a big sugar mill in Natal which for years has seen its way clear to repatriate hundreds of foreign Bantu. But last week they informed me that they had repatriated all their foreign Bantu employees. Bantu are daily returning to their own areas, not to be destitute there. They earn just as much if not more there than they did here. I want to give a few examples. You have the Mdontzani project near East London where 60,000 have been resettled in the Bantu area. We are busy with that; we shall shortly start in Pieters-burg; there are 180,000 at Durban who will shortly be settled in the Bantu area; Dalmeny 75,000; Pietermaritzburg 38,000; Rustenburg 9,000; Potgietersrust 6,000 (already settled); Newcastle over 12,000; Pretoria over 50,000. Just think of these few projects, and more are in the process of development. That will mean that within the following few years over 550,000 Bantu, from the White areas, will be settled in their own areas. And not only do the Bantu accept this, but they accept it enthusiastically. I wish hon. members would sometimes come and see what is happening.

However, I want to hurry on to another point, and that is the accusation which the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), in a typically United Party fashion, made when he said we had negotiated with the leaders in the Transkei to give them sections of the Republic.

Discussions.

Very well, discussions. He is not the only one to make such allegations. I am sorry the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) is not here, but I visited Wepener recently and I was told there that the hon. member held a meeting there and that he assured the people that it was merely a question of time before Wepener and that entire so-called conquered area would be transferred to Basutoland. Those allegations were made to such an extent there that the people asked me whether they could continue building houses, whether they should not put a stop to their building projects. Is it fair towards South Africa to spread these untruths? I know the United Party is bankrupt. I know it is a party which is a pastmaster at raising bogies and the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) is an expert in that field. As far as that is concerned he has no equal in the world. But I do not think it is fair towards South Africa. I want to assure the hon. member that there have never been discussions with the leaders of the Transkei in that connection. Where does he get that idea from? He has sucked it out of his thumb; it is a figment of his own imagination. I gave the assurance in this House that Wepener and Ficksburg and those places would never be handed over to Basutoland. The hon. member for Yeoville put that question to me in this House a few years ago and I assured him that that would not happen. Why do they spread such stories? [Time limit.]

We have just listened to a remarkable speech. The hon. Minister of Bantu Administration spent 20 minutes of his 30 minutes not defending the Government against attacks on the complete inflexibility of the policy of apartheid, but telling us how well the election went in the Transkei, and expressing surprise that we did not thank him and apparently the Government for the smooth and orderly way in which the election went there. Only towards the end did he try to meet some of our attacks on his policy. Mr. Speaker, we did not congratulate him on the smooth progress of the election in the Transkei because we were not very surprised. After all if you look at the whole of Africa, you find that the first elections in Ghana, in Nigeria, in Kenya, Northern Rhodesia, all passed very smoothly under the aegis of the departing imperial powers. What is more, in most of those countries they did not even need a Proclamation 400 to make certain that everything went orderly. So we really were not surprised at all. I do not know why the hon. Minister apparently was surprised that everything went so well. The figures that he has given us to show that apartheid has not been the total failure that we submit it has been, I will deal with later in my speech. As I said, his speech was a remarkable speech.

Hon. members on the other side claim that thanks to this Government South Africa is experiencing a remarkable economic growth and expansion. What are the facts? The facts are of course that for the past two years South Africa’s gross national production has increased in 1961-2 by 5 per cent and 1962-3 by 7½ per cent. This must be put in its proper context. This followed on a period of very slow economic growth, virtual stagnation, as hon. members themselves now admit. But by what test can this growth be regarded as remarkable? It is only remarkable by comparing it with the Congo, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) suggested yesterday. Surely your test must be: Is it remarkable in relation to South Africa’s potential growth? What is that potential growth? I would like to make some suggestions and then put some questions to hon. Ministers on the other side.

In the first place this growth during the last few years incidentally is the fastest growth (following on a period of stagnation) that we yet have had under this Government, and if we compare that growth with other countries, we find that that was the average rate of growth of the Common Market countries ever since the establishment of the Common Market. Does the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs or his deputy for one moment deny the fact that South Africa has a potential growth at least as great as the Common Market countries? I will give the reasons why that is so, if perhaps they differ. In the first place our natural resources are infinitely greater than those of any Common Market country. I think the hon. Minister will agree to that. Secondly, our rate of population growth, and therefore the increase in our labour force, is twice as fast as that of any Common Market country. Do hon. members agree to that? The third essential for that economic growth is our rate of saving. If you look at our rate of saving it is on a par with most Common Market countries; therefore our rate of investment should be as fast at least as in Common Market countries. If the hon. Minister differs from me, I hope he will tell me. If that is so, it is remarkable that if you look over the whole period that this Government has been in power, as my Leader pointed out a couple of days ago, our rate of economic growth has only been half of that of the Common Market countries. Surely that is the test. Surely that shows that under better government we would have had a much faster rate of economic growth. Why have we not grown to the maximum of our potential? My hon. Leader mentioned some of the reasons, and I want briefly to mention them again. In the first place it is because we have a Government that apparently does not comprehend what the educational requirements are of a modern industrial society in the twentieth century. I will not go into all the arguments again. My Leader gave those reasons. But if some admission on the part of the Government is still required for that we had it in that remarkable speech of the Minister of Education when he accused the youth of South Africa of being cultural paupers. What does your cultural level depend on? Surely it depends on the educational system of the country. This Government has been in power for 15 years and now they talk of the youth of our country as cultural paupers. Imagine, as my hon. Leader pointed out further, what a different country it would be if we had taken the 1,000,000 immigrants which did not come in as a result of this Government’s policy during the past few years. Can anybody imagine what an infinitely richer country ours would have been, how much greater our wealth would have been, what new industries we would have had, and on what bigger scale our industries would have operated, and how much bigger the market would have been for our farmers? It would not then have been necessary to tell the farmers that they must leave the land and depopulate the platteland as far as the Whites are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, the third is the unreal policies of this Government which are frightening away capital from South Africa. The remarkable thing is that even under the so-called boom conditions existing at the moment, private capital is still leaving the country. It is one of the most remarkable phenomena that private capital is flowing back. If the world had confidence in South Africa that would not be the case. If you look at the statistics, you will find that private capital is still flowing out of this country. Then of course there are a dozen other reasons. If this Government is really serious about separate development, then of course they should have a magnum programme of training the non-Whites and especially the Bantu in the skills that the modern world requires, in the skills that modern industrial society requires. How else are they going to be self-supporting in their homelands if they have not got the elementary skills. The Government has made a start on that, but it is so puny that by and large you cannot even start a single industry to-day based purely on Bantu technologists and Bantu skilled workers. In fact far from encouraging education among the Bantu, the Government has put restrictions in their way of obtaining skills, such as job reservation. It is for all these reasons that we are not growing up to the maximum of our potential, and it is because of this that we see that after two years of fairly rapid growth, there are already signs that we are going to run into wage inflation because of the shortage of skilled labour, and Ministers on the other side had to issue warnings already that steps will have to be taken to counteract that, because we are running out of a sufficient number of skilled workers, technologists and administrators, after two years of a rate of growth which is regarded as normal in Western Europe. Of course hon. members on the other side always say that we have to make economic sacrifices for apartheid, and this is one of the economic sacrifices we have to make, a slowing down of our rate of growth. They say that only in that way can we keep South Africa White.

Let us see in what way this slowing down in the rate of growth has assisted to keep this country White ever since the present Government has been in power. The hon. Minister of Bantu Administration said that if there had not been this slowing down, our cities would have been much blacker. But we had the answer yesterday from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout: Under a sensible Government we would have had 1,000,000 extra White people in this country to-day and our proportions of White to Black would have been far better than they are to-day. Let us see what in fact has happened despite this slowing down in the rate of growth. If we look at the population census figures we find that between 1951 and 1960 the urban population as far as Bantu are concerned increased by 45 per cent, Coloureds by 41 per cent, Indians by 39.5 per cent, and Whites by 23.6 per cent. That is what has happened in our cities. Have these economic sacrifices we have made made our cities any whiter? They get blacker and browner and yellower in the course of years and the percentage of our White people in the cities has been dropping constantly over this whole period. Of course in the days when hon. members opposite were in opposition they called this integration. They said that this influx of Bantu to the towns was integration and that it would lead to the downfall of the White man. Now the Prime Minister comes along and says: Of course this is not integration any more (as he said the other day). I cannot for the life of me see why it is not integration any more. Be cause if you look at it objectively it is exactly the same economic process that went on before they came into power—the drawing of Natives to the cities is still going on. The only difference is that we have had an accumulation of what people called “petty apartheid” these days—the fact that when Natives want to go to catch a train, they must enter through one door and the White people through another door, and then they mingle on the platform. How that makes our cities more White I cannot really see. As I say, the only difference has been an accumulation of petty grievances. Of course these petty grievances do not make the Natives less permanent in the cities; it does not reduce their numbers in any way; these grievances only make them more discontented. If it was integration before this Government came into power it is still integration to-day, with this difference that you are integrating a population that is far more discontented than it has ever been before. In any event, if the Prime Minister now says that it is not integration any more, thanks to the legislation that has been passed restricting the economic and other activities of the Bantu in the cities, then why does he want to go on with his border development scheme? Why does he want to go on talking about depressing the curve—I have never quite understood what this curve meant. Surely if it is not integration and they have found a solution, then everything is in order and our cities do not get blacker any more and there is no need to spend vast sums of money on the development of new industrial areas. In fact of course our Bantu population has not only become much greater than it ever was, but it has also become more permanent than it has ever been before. What is the proof of that? That in the same census years that I have quoted, the flow of Native women to the cities has been almost on a par with that of Native men. That surely is a sign of them becoming a more permanent population. In any event if we want further scientific proof I can only quote from a semi-Government publication, the C.S.I.R., its 1961 Annual Report which contains a report of the National Institute for Personal Research in respect of the Witwaters-rand. What do they say?—

Is any further proof really necessary that far from our cities becoming whiter, thanks to the apartheid policy, they in fact become blacker and that the permanent Native population is increasing? Of course we have already learned in this House how the hon. the Prime Minister if facts do not suit the Prime Minister’s case, he simply changes the facts. It is as simple as all that. Ordinary mortals have a harder task and must try to adapt their theories to the facts. In the end of course, I submit, apartheid will only make sense if the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government declare that from now on “black is white”, and that they are establishing a White state in South Africa by way of apartheid.

Mr. Speaker, the most interesting thing is that whilst the Government is ostensibly still fighting the apartheid battle in the cities, it has apparently given up the struggle on the platteland. We have had commissions on the depopulation of the platteland, but we never hear what steps have been taken to do anything about it. The hon. Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs says that this process of the flow of White people away from the platteland must last for another five years. The hon. Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing said recently when he opened the Congress of the Transvaal Agricultural Union, as reported in Merino—

That is the only answer he has. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, look what has happened already. They talk about apartheid to keep this country White, but what has happened already between 1951 and 1960 is the rural White population has decreased by 8.5 per cent, the Bantu population increased by 20.9 per cent. Keeping South Africa White! The hon. Minister apparently has given up the struggle completely. It is rather interesting also to pick on a particular district of special interest, a district like Heidelberg. In the magisterial district of Heidelberg (the Prime Minister’s seat) we find that Whites on the farms have declined from 5,399 to 4,425, a decrease of 1,000. We find that Blacks have increased from 32,000 to 39,000, by nearly 7,000. In the Prime Minister’s constituency the ratio of Blacks to Whites in the rural areas has increased from 7:1 to 9:1. One asks oneself: What is the point of trying to stem the flow of Bantu to your cities when you are losing the battle on the platteland anyway? What is the point of having in the end mixed cities with overwhelmingly Black rural areas? These figures of the population census show that thanks to our population growth and our economic growth and the great difference in skills between the various races in South Africa, separate development or apartheid has been shown to be a completely impracticable proposition. Believe me, if we could separate the races, I sincerely believe our political problems would become easier. But it is simply impossible in a situation such as we find in South Africa, for the reasons I have given. We on this side of the House are quite aware that a multi-racial society is a much more difficult society to govern than a homogeneous society, but if you have a multi-racial society, what is the point in shutting your eyes to the facts? Why not adjust your policy to realities? Because what are the realities of South Africa? We find that in the period 1951-60 the Republic’s population increased at the rate of nearly 370,000 per annum, of which the Bantu accounted for almost 260,000 and the Whites for 50,000. Now, Mr. Speaker, as a proposition of common sense, can anyone in his sound senses really believe that those 260,000 Bantu from now on or from some time in the future—let us take 1978, according to the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration—can we really believe that from now on or in 15 years’ time 13 per cent of the surface area of South Africa with limited natural resources and a primitive population with no industrial skill and no administrative skill will really be able to support a rate of growth of this order, and that the other 87 per cent can be reserved only for the Whites and for the Coloureds and the Indians? Surely it is nonsense. If you take into account the population growth, if you take into account the cultural differences between the various groups, especially as far as the Bantu are concerned, all they can do is to go to the cities, go to the farms, go to the shops and to the factories. There is no other way out. Surely any farmer with common sense knows that that is the only thing that can happen. Given the human realities, given the economic realities, it is absolute nonsense to talk of the separation of the races.

Mr. Speaker, in the next decade as in the past decade we will see that rapid economic development will mean a rapid influx of Blacks to the towns and cities. The flood is only stemmed in periods of slow economic growth. That is the great paradox of this Government. When there is rapid economic growth, they are very proud of it, and then you have a huge influx of Blacks to the towns, and the apartheid policy collapses. When they start having success with their apartheid policy and they stop the influx of Blacks to our industries and our farms and our mines, then the economic policy of the Government collapses. Economic success under this Government means political failure; political success means economic failure. Therefore I say that this is the most remarkable Government I have ever heard of. The more rapid South Africa develops economically, the more rapidly does apartheid become discredited. That is why we on this side, unlike gentlemen on the other side although we welcome the recent economic growth, say that apartheid is limiting such growth. The faster we grow economically, the quicker will apartheid become discredited completely. So that is the stupidity of countries who are in favour of economic boycotts. If they are earnest and serious in their desire to put an end to apartheid, they must say to their people: There you have one of the richest countries in the world with a rapidly growing population; go and invest your money there. That country has limitless resources, and the quickest way of destroying apartheid is to help the country economically. We welcome rapid economic development. We are just afraid that it might be slowed down again as a result of the Government’s policies. If we have five years of rapid economic development, the people will come to the realization that this big bluff that apartheid can keep South Africa White, that the establishment of great big Black states can keep South Africa White, is the most gigantic fraud that has ever been perpetrated on an electorate. They will realize that what we will get are eight Black independent sovereign states with all the implications which have been pointed out by other speakers on this side of the House, but on top of that we will still have a multi-racial society, we are still going to have a platteland overwhelmingly Black. We will still have a shrinking ratio of White people in our big White cities. We will have the worst of both worlds. There is no choice. Apparently some dupes fall for this pretence that if you have apartheid you can keep South Africa White. We have seen an example of that just recently of people falling for this fraud. But the fact of the matter is that we have no choice; we are a multi-racial society, and the longer we shut our eyes to that the longer will we postpone the solution to any pressing problems facing us. As I have already pointed out, apartheid has in no way kept South Africa White. All it has done is to weaken it economically and internationally. We are the loneliest state in the world, but are we any Whiter? No, we are much Blacker and we are not as strong economically as we could have been otherwise. We have forgone the stabilizing influence of having a million extra White people in this country. Not only will apartheid not keep South Africa White, but from what the Prime Minister said recently, and in previous debates, it will give South Africa the queerest constitution the world has ever seen. Hon. members opposite taunt us with our race federation. It is easy, if you take up a narrow attitude, to pick holes in our plans, but why do they not publish their constitution as it will look in the end? I have discussed this matter with constitutional lawyers and I asked them how you can have two Parliaments in one country, and they said they did not know how it could be done. We have heard of Parliaments within Parliaments and we have heard about Commonwealth consultative bodies. Why do they not commit all of that to paper so that we can have a look at it? We have had the spectacle here of the Prime Minister outlining a policy for the Indians, of which the Minister of Indian Affairs apparently himself is not aware yet. The Prime Minister will not only do us a great favour by publishing his constitution as he sees it, but he will do his own party a favour.

The other amazing thing about the constitution outlined by the Prime Minister is that in 1961 he claimed that apartheid is not a policy which contains discrimination, although he admitted, as we all admit, that in the transitional period a multi-racial society such as we have in South Africa must have discrimination in it. But he said ultimately discrimination would disappear and he did not know why UN attacks us because Nationalist policy has the same aims as UN policy—in other words, no discrimination between different racial groups and the development of every individual to his fullest dignity and freedom. If we consider the latest Commonwealth Consultative Council—I do not know what to call it—that the Prime Minister has mentioned here, it seems to me that discrimination is inherent in it for all time. Let us leave out of account for the moment that the Bantu will have their own homelands, but if you take the three communities, the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians, which hon. members opposite now admit are all part permanently of the multi-racial society in South Africa, although they still call it a White man’s country, it is only a question of time before the Indians and the Coloureds will outnumber the Whites. Let us consider this Consultative Council that the Prime Minister has now suggested. In it is inherent permanent discrimination, because the White man sits in this Parliament and will not tolerate any other race sitting here, except that the Coloureds can have four White representatives. The Indians apparently will also take part in that Council, but they will have no representation in Parliament. So there is a permanent basis of discrimination between the four groups. The whole thing is so illogical. It is inevitable that if you start on this road of unreality, as this Government has done, the constitutional development in the end must become completely unrealistic. I cannot understand what we solve by pretending that we are a White country when in fact we are a multi-racial country. I repeat that South Africa will only achieve the great destiny which I believe awaits it if we have realist policies and try to evolve a constitution which suits that multi-racial society, which I submit is the honest attempt we made in evolving our race federation plan.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in the beginning of this debate used our present manpower position as one of his attacks on the Government in asking that the House should express no confidence in the Government. Three years ago it was the question of unemployment which was used to attack the Government. In fact, that was the time, three years ago, when the Leader of the Opposition himself marched in a procession through the streets of Johannesburg like the leader of a carnival to protest against unemployment. Seeing that the hon. Leader looks at me in that way, I may just remind him of the large photograph of him which appeared on the front page of the Sunday Times. Perhaps that will refresh his memory.

We have now listened to the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje), who said in this House last year that our economy was just struggling along. As against that, we now hear the complaint that we have a manpower shortage in this country. Instead of that unemployment, about which such a big fuss was made two or three years ago, having increased, as was predicted by the Opposition, it has, judged by international standards, disappeared to such an extent to-day that South Africa, according to those standards, has virtually no unemployment. And because that is the position, and because we have a position of almost full employment, the Opposition has thought fit to grasp at this full employment, with its concomitant shortage in certain spheres of labour, in order to attack the Government. The Opposition has already on previous occasions shown that they grasp at such things, but in this respect they are not alone. It is the Opposition and the newspapers which support them which to-day ardently hope to use this position of full employment to force the Government to depart from its traditional policy of apartheid, particularly in the sphere of labour. In this respect they are in full agreement with the Press supporting them. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to a speech I made in Odendaalsrus. I made that speech with reference to a leading article which appeared in the Financial Mail of 11 October 1963, in which the following was said—

That is precisely what the hon. member for Jeppes, and also the Leader of the Opposition said. Then that same Financial Mail continued to say that they wanted to give advice to the Nordic and the Afro-Asian countries which sought to force South Africa to its knees by means of boycotts. They told them to forget about those boycotts if they wanted to force South Africa to its knees, and then they gave the following advice—

They continued to say that this would be the way in which this Government could be embarrassed. In this respect the United Party is in complete agreement with this advice given to the Afro-Asian countries. They base all their hope on the expectation that this position of full employment will force us to depart from our pattern. Therefore one must view this manpower story which was raised here against the background of this matter on which the United Party bases its hopes to bring us to a fall. In passing, I just want to say that I hope that this concern about our manpower shortage, the shortage of technicians and scientists, will at least continue until next week, because next week extra facilities for training technicians in this country will be discussed in this House, and then we shall see whether the United Party is serious enough in regard to this matter to support the establishment of the University of Port Elizabeth.

Mr. Speaker, it very soon became clear to me from the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that this attack in regard to our manpower is being used as a smokescreen behind which the real attack is being launched against something else, against one of the main pillars of our policy of apartheid and our labour policy, namely job reservation. But before saying something about that, I just want to mention the following in regard to the manpower position as it is at present. The Opposition and the House need not be concerned about the manpower position in South Africa to-day, because I think this Government does everything humanly possible to strengthen and improve our manpower position. We do so by means of this immigration policy, which is a great success. I may say that due to that immigration policy we have implemented our skilled manpower during the past calendar year in the sphere of the professional group and workers in the manufacturing and construction industries by 7,600 skilled people. But apart from that, during the past year and the previous one, we have done much to bring our own manpower in the country to the greatest degree of efficiency. In this regard I need only mention that to-day our technical schools train more than twice the number of students than they did some years ago. Apart from that, the improved conditions for apprentices is one of the most important measures to ensure our having improved manpower in future. The steps taken in the past to train adults at certain training centres in the country will be expanded during the next few months so that adults can be trained in our technical high schools and colleges. Therefore I want to express the conviction that in so far as our manpower position is concerned, South Africa need have no concern for the future. We can face the future with confidence. The available manpower is being implemented and trained to the maximum.

But what caused me concern in the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was not so much this question of the shortage of manpower about which he made such a fuss, but that once again it was used as something on which to base his attacks on job reservation. He is at liberty to attack it at all times, but what causes me concern is that it spoils the “image” of South Africa in the world, to use a word of which the United Party is so fond. They use these repeated misrepresentations in regard to job reservation in order to create the wrong image of South Africa overseas. It is a fact that job reservation has been depicted in a very bad light overseas, and that is one of the things which creates an unfavourable impression there, to the detriment of South Africa. Now it surprises one that a Leader of an Opposition who in season or out of it continually says how he wants to uphold the good name of South Africa overseas should have stigmatized job reservation as a sin at his Bloemfontein Congress in November, and as a measure applied by this Government to prevent people from using their God-given gifts and from improving themselves. I can only say that this is utter nonsense, apart from being libellous. If the Leader of the Opposition is so concerned about the image of South Africa and that this country should be depicted in the correct light overseas, particularly in regard to this matter in connection with which we are already in bad odour, I think it is his duty to state the true position in regard to job reservation, and then I want to tell him this. If the hon. the Leader is so concerned about South Africa’s image overseas, why does he not say here and on his public platforms that in the only industry to which a country-wide job reservation determination applies, viz. the clothing industry, the numbers of Coloureds in the Western Cape has increased by 4,000 since this job reservation determination came into effect in 1959? To-day 4,000 more Coloureds are employed in the clothing industry in the Western Cape than there were in 1959. Why does the hon. member not tell the world that? By means of this determination we succeeded in retaining in the industry the small group of Whites still employed in the clothing industry in the Cape. In 1959 they numbered 870, and that figure has now been increased to 950, and therefore it is only a very small group, but those people want to work there and we have given them the opportunity to remain there. Is it so indefensible, to use his term, for us to take steps to protect that small group of Whites, whilst also providing work for between 16,000 and 17,000 Coloureds in the clothing industry in the Cape? No, the actions of the Opposition in regard to job reservation definitely do not do South Africa any good; and if they now say that it is inhumane I want to ask them why they have never come to this House with a single substantiated case where a Coloured person or anyone else has been harmed by these job reservation measures? Why have we not had a single substantiated case from the Opposition in the seven years during which these measures have been applied of someone having been treated unfairly? Sir, we have not had it and we will no more have it in the case of the building industry, which was also mentioned in this debate, because in so far as the building industry is concerned the United Party and the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) create the impression, in season and out of it, that by means of job reservation we are depriving the Coloureds in the Western Cape of the opportunity of earning a living in the building industry. Sir, that is a scandalous misrepresentation. The fact is that the Coloureds retain the major proportion of the work in the building industry in the Western Cape. They constitute 85 per cent of the bricklayers and 65 per cent of the plumbers. Not a single one of them is prohibited from working in those industries. Most of the Coloureds in the building industry are not in the least affected by this determination. Why do those people, who are so concerned that the correct picture of South Africa should be painted, not tell the world that it is only a very small percentage of Whites in a negligible part of the building industry in the Cape which is actually affected by this determination, and that it actually affects only a small sub-division like stone-masonry? That is very hard work in which a small group of Whites are employed who asked us to protect them. Electrical wire-workers, of whom only 5 per cent in the Cape are Coloureds, are protected, and the Coloureds in that trade have not been kicked out. Is it a sin if a Government pays heed to the request of the Whites in that small section of the building industry and gives them the necessary protection? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the Government had lost its perspective, but I am afraid that not only has the United Party lost its perspective but it has also lost all sympathy for the White worker. They use the present shortage of apprentices in the building industry to prove that job reservation has had a harmful effect. One would at least have expected the Leader of the Opposition to know that three years ago, when there was a recession in the building industry, in regard to which he attacked the Government, the building industry was at such a low level that building workers deserted the industry, and they could not come back all at once because they were placed in other employment. Do the hon. members not know that the conditions of apprenticeship in the building industry in the past were very unattractive, but that thanks to the steps we took last year they will now be so attractive that they will come back again? But the most important reason for our not having enough White building workers in the Cape is simply because the White boy has seen what has happened in the building industry, that the Coloureds have taken it over, with the result that the Whites have got out. That is the main reason why not many Whites are employed in the building industry in the Cape. But now the Leader of the Opposition comes along with a new rate for the job solution.

The hon. Leader said that we should abolish job reservation and substitute for it the rate for the job, but this time he has amended his rate for the job. This time we have had a new kind of rate for the job from the Opposition, which firstly proves to me that the United Party has at last realized that their rate for the job cannot protect the White man in his employment. We told them year after year, and one report after the other dealing with the matter confirmed it, that this rate for the job is fixed so low that it undermines the standard of living of the Whites, and therefore the Whites have abandoned the industry. In other words, it is no protection for the White worker in any industry. Now that has eventually been realized by the Opposition, and now they come with an amended form of the rate for the job. The Leader of the Opposition advocates that a rate for the job should be determined—to use his own words—according to “the actual wages” paid in any industry, and not the wage fixed by any determination. Sir, I have never yet heard such an ill-considered proposition from the Leader of the Opposition. I should like to know from him and his labour advisers how he proposes to apply this rate for the job which he now suggests within the framework of collective bargaining? How can one have collective bargaining and at the same time lay down what the wages should be? Surely then there is no collective bargaining. Is the Government to step in when an industrial council, which consists of employees and employers, agree on a wage, and then veto that wage? Then, according to the hon. the Leader, the Government must ensure that once this agreement in regard to wages has been reached, a different wage should be determined which will apply to the White worker. Sir, have you ever heard such an ill-considered argument? Just imagine our interfering with this collective bargaining machinery in that way, and this suggestion comes from those people who seven years ago, when this Act was before the House, continually accused us of wanting to destroy collective bargaining! Now they say that we should, as it were, suspend collective bargaining and we must intervene and ourselves determine wages if those wages are not high enough for certain White workers. What does the Opposition think the Coloureds on the Industrial Council in the Cape would say if they were told: The wages you agreed on with your employers are too low; there must still be an extra higher wage for the Whites in the industry? If there is one thing which will completely destroy industrial peace in the Cape, it is the application of this new suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition.

But I want to come back to the “image”. I want to ask the United Party this. If they are so keen on having the image of South Africa in regard to job reservation set right, why do they not tell the world for the first time what excellent opportunities for employment for the Coloureds exist to-day? Why does the United Party not tell the world that to-day there are better opportunities of employment for the Coloureds than there were 10 or 15 years ago? The impression is continually being created that we do not want to allow the Coloureds to improve their position further. At their Bloemfontein Congress it was said that we do not want to allow them to use their talents and to improve their position. Sir, do you know what the position is in the Peninsula in regard to two of the most important industries? I want to mention the building industry first. Whilst to-day there are 190 White apprentices in the building industry in the Peninsula, there are no fewer than 450 Coloured apprentices. Does that seem as if we are depriving these people of the right to improve their position? We have the position not only of the garment industry or of the building industry, in which the Coloureds have made progress, but I also want to mention the furniture industry. In the furniture industry there are to-day only four White apprentices in the Peninsula, as against 117 Coloureds. Is that the way in which this Government is depriving the Coloureds of the right to be trained and to improve their position? Cannot the United Party, which is so concerned about South Africa’s good name, state the true position for a change? Cannot they say what is being done for these people?

But the impression is also being created that we do not want to give the Bantu the opportunity, as they say, “to improve their skills”. I wonder whether the Opposition knows that to-day in this country we have 3,600 registered Bantu building workers, thanks to the Act which was still introduced by Minister Schoeman, and that would never have been the position had it not been for those apartheid measures taken by this Government. But it was not only those people who were trained. We heard complaints again to-day that we do not train the Bantu. Do they not know that at the moment at East London we are training 400 Bantu a month to work in the new textile factory of Mr. Lord? There they will do semi-skilled work, and also advanced skilled work. And when these people create the impression that we do not want to allow the Bantu a place in the sun, I just want to say that they should really state the true position for a change, namely that these Bantu who are being trained in our border industries will be the nucleus of the workers in the industry which must be established in their own homelands. There they will become the kernel of their own industrial force, and in those areas the expression “The sky is the limit” will apply. Why cannot that also be said to the credit of South Africa? But the impression is created every time that we are inhuman and unreasonable and that it is a sin, as the Leader of the Opposition said. I want to express it as my conviction that if only one-quarter of the evils which the Opposition has been sucking out of its thumb over the years against job reservation were true, South Africa would to-day be in the stranglehold of a series of strikes. But instead of having strikes, South Africa has the greatest industrial peace any land can wish for, so much so that we are actually the envy of other Western countries. This industrial peace is to me the best and the final proof of the desirability and the wisdom of job reservation, because if job reservation in fact contains those evils and those demerits, we would to-day be seeing the results in the form of labour unrest and strikes in this country. No, there is nothing wrong with the essence of job reservation, because it is simply a means, conventional and statutory, of protecting the Whites’ standard of living. And in this respect we are no more peculiar than other countries. If the British public refuses that non-Whites should be appointed as “Bobbies” in London, if the British bus drivers refuse to have non-Whites as bus drivers in London, if the National Union of Seamen in Britain refuses to have Indians appointed as stewards on ships, that is not peculiar, nor do I blame them. They are trying to protect the White standard of living there, to protect the British way of life, and why should it be a sin in our case? Let me say this: If South Africa wants this development we have at the moment to continue, a development which is essential not only for the Whites but also essential for the further employment of non-Whites, whether in the border areas or elsewhere, then South Africa needs industrial peace, and in order to ensure that industrial peace and to maintain, it, it is necessary that the corner-stone of industrial peace, namely job reservation, should be maintained.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has done a lot of writing during this debate. It sometimes seemed to me as if he was under the impression that we have no Hansard in this House, and I trust that the hon. the Leader has made enough notes on matters put to him by hon. members on this side in regard to cardinal questions on which we would like to have replies. I am thinking, inter alia, of the question the hon. the Minister of Transport put to him yesterday, as to whether they are prepared to say that they will abolish the Colour bar in the mines. That was the first job reservation determination in South Africa and therefore, if they have the courage of their convictions, they must say that they will abolish it, but they will not be able to do so because that job reservation preserves industrial peace which is to the benefit of everybody.

I wish to conclude by expressing the hope that the Leader of the Opposition, in the light of the questions put from that side, will also give this House clear replies on the questions put to him, which are of great importance, because in this debate it was not the Government which was in the dock; it was the Opposition which stood in the dock, and it is they who must now account to the country and to the people for the consequences of their policy and their deeds. I therefore want to express the hope that the Leader of the Opposition will make use of this opportunity to answer the cardinal questions put to him not only from this side of the House but also by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Mr. Odell). I trust that we will not get ambiguous replies, just the vague replies we have had in the past. Because if the United Party wants to continue evading these cardinal questions by means of vaguenesses, the day is nigh that South Africa will be able to do without such an Opposition. South Africa needs an Opposition which has the courage of its convictions to say what it deems necessary in the interest of the country. We need an Opposition which has the courage to give straight replies to the cardinal questions put to it. As we have known this Opposition in the past, it has never had that courage, and such an Opposition is doomed to disappear, and the day that happens South Africa will shed no tears.

When one listens to the criticism from the Government benches with regard to the attacks made by the Opposition over the past few days one is reminded of the two reports or the comment which appeared on the same day in the same Nationalist Party organ here in Cape Town. The one dealt with the introductory speech which I made here and said that—

But in the same newspaper on the same day, on the same page of the newspaper, we find a report from the political correspondent of that newspaper with regard to the same speech—

Mr. Speaker, who is correct? This is the criticism of the Nationalist Party. It changes from day to day as its suits them and as the political winds happen to blow.

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Labour put up a serious defence of job reservation here to-day. He pointed out how fair it was towards the non-White workers. Sir, I have heard him on other occasions as well, and on those occasions the emphasis was placed on the protection of the White worker in South Africa. We were then told what a wonderful thing job reservation was to protect the White worker in South Africa.

All workers.

We were told nothing then about the standard of living of the non-White worker.

You were not listening then.

But what is so peculiar is this: Although he defended job reservation here to-day we were also told by the hon. gentleman that the job reservation provisions are not going to be applied in the border industries, and if they are not going to be applied, then if those industries can compete with the industries in the White areas, what protection is there then for the White worker under this policy which the hon. gentlemen defended here to-day? I shall deal with this matter in greater detail when I deal with the various points which I raised in the course of my speech and the replies on those points. This debate has been of particular interest to me because I raised certain important matters in my introductory speech, but in his reply the hon. the Prime Minister proceeded to raise a large number of other matters, dealt with them and destroyed his own case. He was like a batsman batting on a pitch without a bowler. He batted beautifully. He handled the bat beautifully but the ball was not there, because those matters were not raised by me, and some of them I did not raise because I felt that it was not in the interests of South African that they should be raised. I do not think the hon. the Prime Minister did South Africa a favour by raising some of those matters.

I propose first of all to deal with the matters which I myself raised. I stated in the first place that in my opinion this Government was not capable of adapting itself to the scientific developments in this modern world which is witnessing a scientific revolution.

That is Wilson’s speech.

I pointed out that a shortage of manpower had arisen in South Africa, particularly a shortage of trained manpower, and to-day we are told by the hon. the Deputy Minister that there is no shortage of manpower.

No, I said that there was a shortage, but we are going to train them in the future.

Well, it does not matter much. I just want to say that I know of no gathering of prominent industrialists or businessmen in South Africa during the past year where this matter has not been raised and where the fear has not been expressed that we shall not be able to provide the necessary manpower within the time it must be done in order to be able to keep up our present level of development. It went so far that one of the most important gatherings of industrialists in Johannesburg discussed this matter and asked whether it was not possible to try to meet that shortage by means of immigration. They expressed the opinion that that shortage was so serious that it would not be possible for them to make up the leeway even with an immigration programme at the rate at which it was being applied by the Government at the present moment.

They are always shouting “Wolf, wolf”

The hon. the Prime Minister said that the figures which I had mentioned were based on an immigration inflow of about 5,000 a year and that if the figure rose to 20,000 a year, then those figures would be meaningless. I just want to say, as far as the businessmen and the industrialists of South Africa are concerned, that this estimate was made last year when the figures in connection with the influx of immigrants during the past year were already available, and I have no reason to believe that they did not take that influx into account. But it seems to me that this Government is afraid to tackle this matter, or that it has neglected to tackle it because, as the Prime Minister said on one occasion, they have been too busy in the past with constitutional matters to give adequate attention to the training of the population of South Africa. It seems to me that what will happen is that they will take steps too late and take too few steps to make up the leeway and that the rate of development in South Africa will drop therefore and that the whole nation will suffer in consequence. We find already that the children are suffering because of the shortage of trained teachers. No member on the other side of the House has tried to deny that; no member has come forward with a plan indicating how they hope to cope with this situation. I made certain proposals to the hon. the Prime Minister and I must say in all honesty that he was courteous enough to repeat some of them. He said that they still had to be considered. But when are they going to be implemented? That is what the people and this country want to know, because there is not the slightest doubt that if we are going to lose technicians and scientists at the rate at which we are losing them at the moment, then South Africa has no hope of maintaining her present tempo of economic development.

I then went on to talk about job reservation. Here I feel that once again we are dealing with a matter where political considerations rule over and above the interests of the country, because the hon. the Deputy Minister repeatedly defended job reservation, just as his Prime Minister did, by trying to prove that it was in the interests of the White worker and for the protection of the White worker. To-day he is afraid of the image of South Africa overseas.

The picture which you paint there is that we are doing an injustice to the Coloureds here.

He says that this is the picture which we paint there, but it is his policy, and if there is one thing in the world which no traveller from South Africa can defend oversea then it is this policy of job reservation. Ask any businessman who goes overseas; ask any diplomatic representative of South Africa where he has managed successfully to defend job reservation before any oversea audience, and you will get the same reply. They cannot do it. I think the hon. the Prime Minister realizes this to a certain extent because in the course of a speech which I have already mentioned he talked about relaxations, and when the hon. gentleman replied he spoke of the possibilities for the various racial groups of doing skilled work in their own areas or amongst their own people. I wonder whether the hon. the Prime Minister realizes what he is saying there. He is now creating two markets; he is creating different markets for the same labour in one economy. Sooner or later those markets will inevitably compete, and unless he applies the “rate for the job” he will find himself in this difficulty that those races which have not reached the same standard of civilization are going to accept lower wages than the groups with a higher standard of living, and that there is going to be competition which will be unfair, competition which is going to jeopardize the whole position of the White worker in South Africa. That is already happening in the case of the border industries. The hon. the Prime Minister knows about the agitation which was set afoot as the result of what happened in certain border industries where non-Whites were allowed to do work which was being done by Whites in other areas at a higher remuneration. It seems to me that when one asks oneself which proposals will better protect the standard of civilization, the standard of living, of the White worker in South Africa—the proposals made by this side of the House or the proposals of that side of the House—the reply must be that the proposals of this side of the House are better: and when one asks oneself which of these proposals will lead to the greatest development and the most rapid growth in the economic sphere in South Africa, then it is clear that our proposals are the best, without the slightest doubt. I know that the hon. the Minister of Transport will ask me immediately what my attitude is towards the Work in Mines and Factories Act, and I am quite prepared to reply to it, as I have done repeatedly in the past. That legislation is a traditional piece of legislation and it would be extremely irresponsible on the part of any Government to amend that legislation so that the handling of explosives is placed in the hands of primitive Natives who come from every State in Africa, thus an-dangering the whole of the White race. I go further, Mr. Speaker. I say that the removal of that legislation can only be considered if there is unanimity between the employees’ associations and the employers’ associations.

Then it will never be removed.

Well, then we are both satisfied. Why all this scare-mongering then about the danger on the mines if the United Party comes into power? There we see the great character of the Minister; he says himself that his attack is worthless; it will never happen, and that danger no longer exists therefore.

I then went on to deal with the Government’s shortcomings as far as economic planning is concerned. I dealt with the proposal of Dr. van Eck and of this side of the House that certain benefits should be given to industries not only when they are established in border areas but also when they are established in rural areas where the White population is showing a tendency to decrease. The hon. the Prime Minister made an accusation against me in this connection. He said that I was complaining that the platteland was becoming Black and now I wanted to establish industries there and make the platteland Blacker. But the ratio of Black to White in the agricultural industry, as the Minister knows, is about eight Blacks to one White. In most industries it is 2½ to one or three to one. In other words, the effect of my proposals will be that the platteland will become Whiter, not Blacker. How can the hon. gentleman come along with such stories?

Are agricultural activities going to be discontinued then?

No, they will continue but as far as the ratio is concerned more Whites than non-Whites will come in and proportionally the ratio of White to non-White will become stronger in the platteland. That is the entire proposal, and it applies particularly to the hon. the Prime Minister’s own constituency. Here I have figures in respect of the magisterial district of Heidelberg. What do I find in respect of the period 1951-61? In the rural area of Heidelberg there were 974 fewer Whites and 7,207 more Natives at the end of that period, and in the urban area of the magisterial district of Heidelberg—I do not know whether it corresponds precisely with the constituency—during the same period 1,185 more Whites came in but 4,325 more Natives. In other words, taking the whole district we find that during those nine years there was an increase of 200 in the number of Whites but an increase of 11,500 in the number of Natives. In other words, in that magisterial district the number of Natives increased 57 times as rapidly as the number of Whites.

Are you including the mining industry?

We include everything. I took the figures for the magisterial district. But the hon. gentleman knows as well as I do that the ratio on the mines is more or less the same as the ratio on the farms. That does not apply to industry, however. If industries were established there the position would be quite different. I say therefore that the first shortcoming of this Government—its first failure to adapt itself—was in respect of skilled manpower. Its second shortcoming will prove to be lack of economic planning for the future of South Africa. But then I come to the third charge which I made against the Government, and that is that the economic boom in South Africa is not attributable to the success of the non-White policy of this Government but to the failure of that non-White policy. I pointed out that over the past ten years there had been an influx of at least 1,000,000 Natives in the White urban areas and that they were inextricably bound up with the growth of our industries in those areas. The hon. the Prime Minister has now reminded me of prophecies in the past that that influx will increase until about 1978, and then the stream will begin to move in the other direction. But the vast majority of these Natives who are in our urban areas to-day are employed in our industries, and when the stream begins to move in the opposite direction, what is to become of those industries? They need that labour. What becomes of those industries when the labour flows in the other direction?

They go in for a little mechanization.

The hon. gentleman says that they will go in for a little mechanization. I wonder whether he knows what it costs to go in for a little mechanization. I wonder whether he knows that in the U.S.A., in spite of an expenditure of millions of dollars, there are still more people employed in industry than there were before mechanization was introduced. What is going to happen? There is another alternative; of course; the industries themselves must be shifted; they must be shifted to the border areas, and that is precisely what I said. If the policy of this Government is applied then the profits will decline because of the enormous capitalization that is needed, or the costs will rise and the profits decline because of the necessity to shift those industries, and we will never retain the level of development and the level of prosperity that we have at the moment.

What I find interesting is this: The Prime Minister, when he talked about the Protectorates, said that he hoped to protect them from Communism by making them economically strong. I should also like to protect the Native from Communism by making him economically strong here in the Republic of South Africa, particularly in the urban areas, which are the dangerous areas, and in his own reserves, with the utilization of White capital, White ingenuity and White initiative, but it seems to me that the effect of the policy of the Prime Minister is going to be to retard development to such an extent that they will never enjoy that level of prosperity which is necessary to protect them from Communism. The hon.gentleman wants to make us believe that like the oxen with which we plough the Natives are not integrated on our farms or in our industries. In other words, he does not regard this labour force as one of the factors of production; he counts it amongst the capital assets of the industrialist to make sure that they will not be integrated. If that is the position then there is not the slightest doubt that it is going to cause friction which is going to create a fertile seed-bed for Communism.

I want to emphasize in particular that throughout this whole debate not a single speaker attempted to reply to the argument that little apartheid is one of the most harmful and offending institutions in South Africa as far as race relations are concerned, and that it is only being implemented by this Government because their great ideal of big apartheid cannot be implemented in practice. Repeated attacks were made upon them in this regard. Mr. Speaker, how far did we get? Not a single reply, not a single attempt to defend it, in spite of the harm which it does South Africa’s good name abroad. If there is one thing to which the hon. the Minister of Information ought to give his attention then it is the effect in the outside world of little apartheid.

The third matter that I raised was the administration of the hon. the Minister of Justice. The hon. the Minister of Justice reacted as though the complaints in regard to detainees under Section 17 of the General Law Amendment Act constituted the only charge against him. That was not the case at all. It was not the only charge, and possibly it was not the most important charge either. I am still awaiting a reply to another matter that I raised, a reply either from the hon. gentleman or from the hon. the Prime Minister himself, and that is in regard to the reaction of the Government in connection with the actions of Dr. Naude in Washington. I refer to his statement on this Section 17 of the General Law Amendment Act. Is there a modern state in this world in which a blunder has been committed such as that committed by a man who is possibly our most important Ambassador abroad and where the Government remains silent when this matter is raised in a no-confidence debate in the House? Nobody said a word about it. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister of Justice was responsible for the information that that unfortunate Ambassador received. I do not want to make that accusation against him. But the hon. the Prime Minister must know. There is no answer. What is the position? Must the news go out into the world that an important Ambassador representing South Africa in one of the most important Western countries was wrongly informed and thus gave wrong information to a most important newspaper with the largest circulation in the world and that no steps were taken in this regard, that no statement was made in this House either by the hon. the Prime Minister or any Minister of his Cabinet? What sort of impression does this create, Mr. Speaker? Does it create an impression of efficiency, of a competent Government that is upholding South Africa’s name in the outside world?

I come to the second matter, the use of not one but two—if I correctly understood the reply of the hon. the Minister—White female complainants as traps in a certain case.

You have once again misunderstood me completely. There was only one, but the White man who was found guilty procured two women.

I am grateful to the hon. the Minister. Mr. Speaker, there was one complainant and she was used as a decoy to trap a White man who, according to the hon. the Minister, tried to procure White women for an Indian. It appears to me that it would have been impossible to use her as a trap in order to prove this unless she was prepared to some extent to lend her body to that Indian. I take it that it was only an attempt, that act was not completed.

It was merely an attempt; there was no sexual intercourse.

Sexual intercourse did not take place but there was an attempt. And she had to lend her body to that Indian for him to make the attempt. Mr. Speaker, I regard this as a scandalous state of affairs here in South Africa. I want to repeat: I did my best to get the facts from the newspapers; I am now trying to take the matter further in the light of the reply of the hon. the Minister. I take it that even the judges were not acquainted with all the facts when they gave judgment but it still remains a disgrace that a woman should be used for those purposes here in South Africa.

I come now to the treatment of detainees under Section 17 of the General Law Amendment Act. When I introduced my motion I told the hon. the Minister that certain things had come out as a result of certain statements made to me at a post-mortem examination in the Transvaal and that there were indications that one detainee had become mentally unbalanced. I did not want to take the matter any further because I am not a detective. It is not my duty to prove these matters here. But it is my duty, if Press reports are published on such matters to try to protect South Africa’s good name by asking the hon. the Minister to have a judicial inquiry made in order to prove that that charge is or is not completely false and that South Africa is not afraid to take action against members of the Police Force who act in this way.

The witness Tlale gave evidence in the Looksmart post-mortem case. I understand that his evidence was made available to the hon. the Minister.

The case has not yet been finalized.

That has nothing to do with the matter; it is not sub judice. After all it is a post-mortem examination. Nobody is in danger. There is nothing to prevent the hon. the Minister from acting now and having an investigation made to find out what happened there. Nothing prevented his taking action on the day that report appeared in the newspaper. It was a report by a witness about torture. I myself read that evidence. I want to be quite fair and say that under cross-examination he was not very impressive. But the fact remains that this is the sort of thing that is sent overseas.

By whom?

By whom! By the international Press. After all right or wrong, it is news. Even if I or the hon. the Minister tried to stop it it would still be sent overseas. Why was an investigation not made immediately? A man was brought before the court in the same case to show that there were burns on his fingers, that his hands were black because he had allegedly been given electric shocks. There was nothing to prevent the hon. the Minister from having this investigated immediately. This happened quite some time ago. This man’s name was Ziphania Mo-thopeng. A report in this regard was also published. There was also the case in Cape Town in which one of the accused, Marcus Solomon, gave evidence that he had been tortured. The case concerned the admissibility of a specimen of handwriting by that particular accused person. The Judge did not admit it and he ruled accordingly because the State had not proved conclusively that that man had voluntarily given the specimen and that it had not been made as a result of the treatment which, according to him, had been meted out to him. Mr. Speaker, as far as that is concerned, the matter is closed: judgment has been given. The hon. the Minister could have had an investigation made. Why was it not done? Then there are the statements by eight detainees—I understand that these statements are already in the hands of the hon. the Minister—of whom at least five. I think, according to them, made complaints to the magistrates who visited them.

No charges were lodged by these people; all the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) gave me yesterday was their names.

Just their names.

Only eight names.

According to the statements that I have here …

I told you that Maj. Coetzee at Bellville had them.

According to the statements that I have here, which of course are available to the hon. the Minister, I think that at least five of them say that they did lodge complaints with the magistrates who visited them.

I was told yesterday …

I am not blaming the hon. the Minister; he had no knowledge of these matters. But those statements were made. They say that they lodged these complaints. They all complain about the same thing. They were beaten; they were given electric shocks and sacks were put over their heads so that they could not see who was administering the shocks. In each case the pattern was the same. They were manacled, in certain cases with their hands behind their backs and in other cases with their hands in front of a stick under their knees and over the elbows. Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether these facts are true or false. But what is of importance to South Africa is that the pattern is the same throughout; it is the same pattern that we had in the Looksmart case. It seems to me that there are two possible explanations in this regard. One is that these were trained wrongdoers who were all told to lodge the same sort of complaint if they were arrested …

That is part of their training in Russia.

The hon. member says that that is part of their training in Russia. Has he been there? Or, Mr. Speaker, this is a pattern of action on the part of the police. Human nature being what it is, every person will believe the explanation which he wants to believe. Is it not in the interests of South Africa that there should be a judicial inquiry into these matters so that we can have an end to this sort of story?

I go further. There is the case of Moffat Msingizane who was detained on 28 October. According to my information he was in goal then; he was then held as a detainee and no longer as a prisoner. The next day he was sent to the Robertson gaol. He was questioned on the 6th, he returned to Bellville on 8 November and on the 10th he landed in Valkenberg.

It looks like the Black Circuit (“Swarte Ommegang”).

These stories may be right or wrong but the man landed in Valkenberg and the hon. the Minister knows it.

Why did you not mention these cases when you made your introductory speech so that I could reply to them? You raise them now when I cannot reply to them.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I consider that to be extremely unfair on the part of the hon. the Minister. I did not want to disclose these facts; I told him that all the documents in my possession were at his disposal. What happened? I made my speech on the Tuesday and the next day the hon. the Minister jumped up to speak. Unfortunately we did not even discuss the matter. He had all the facts at his disposal. I have mentioned the case here of the man who landed in Valkenberg.

Will you tell this House what you showed me to-day for the first time?

Yes, of course, this afternoon I showed the hon. the Minister eight statements which I mentioned in my introductory speech.

One statement and eight names.

I beg your pardon. The eight statements were under the papers. I am sorry. They are available to the hon. the Minister. Here they are. I asked the hon. the Minister whether he had the statements made by these people and I understood that he had. [Interjection.] Mr. Speaker, what good will it do to beat about the bush in connection with this matter? I am trying to do my best in the interests of South Africa but it seems to me that the hon. the Minister does not want assistance. I also told the hon. the Minister in my introductory speech that I had an affidavit in my possession which could possibly result in litigation and that for that reason, although I would give the hon. the Minister the name and certain other information, I could not give him the affidavit itself. He told me this afternoon that he had that affidavit.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have certain proposals to make and I am following this course in the interests of South Africa. We do not want our good name to be sullied. But this hon. Minister in his irresponsibility and rashness took immediate action. He did not even discuss the matter further. He then challenged me to give him the facts here in this House or else I was not worth my salt. I draw a veil over some of the other statements. I think we will leave the matter there.

But there are other things in regard to which I am not satisfied. I am still not satisfied about this statement by Colonel van den Bergh and the so-called correction that appeared the next day because that correction contained comments in regard to the actions of Great Britain. As far as I have been able to discover, that correction was published in only one newspaper—the Rand Daily Mail.

Is that Colonel van den Bergh’s fault?

I do not know whose fault it is but if a man publishes a correction, to whom does he give it? To one newspaper or to all of them? Mr. Speaker, what I want to know is this: Since when has a police official had the right to make statements in regard to international matters, in regard to South Africa’s relationships with her nearest neighbours and particularly as far as one of her most important friends is concerned? I am not going to trouble the hon. the Minister any further in regard to Goldreich and Wolpe. But I do resent his comparing two such people with an hon. Senator and an hon. member of this House. (Laughter.) Apparently hon. members do not support me in this. I do not think that that is being fair. I think the hon. the Minister ought to be ashamed of himself for acting in this way in South Africa. But perhaps the hon. the Minister has information that I do not have.

Lastly, in connection with the continued operation of the Act, the hon. gentleman has told us that there is peace and quiet in South Africa but that the Act is still necessary. He was not impressed by the statement of those doctors and psychiatrists; he said that this was all part of a conspiracy for which Mr. Hamilton Russell was responsible. Mr. Russell said that he was not responsible for it. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, but having regard to the effect of this legislation upon South Africa, would it not be advisable to seriously consider the question of not re-proclaiming this measure? That is the request of this side of the House. After all, they do have the right to re-proclaim it if danger threatens again. If there is one thing that will create a good impression it will be a refusal on the part of this hon. Minister to re-proclaim this Act because he is satisfied to-day that there is peace and quiet in South Africa.

My third reason for attacking the Government is the attitude of this Government in regard to the Broederbond and the attitude of the hon. the Minister in this regard. I listened with great interest to the explanation of the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to tell him quite frankly that I do not doubt his word. I accept that that has been his experience. But we have the opinions of two former Prime Ministers in regard to this organization. Mention was made of the possibility that General Hertzog changed his opinion immediately after he had had his interview with Professor van Rooy on this matter in 1935 and shortly after he had made that speech at Smithfield. Yet in 1939 we had an open letter from the hon. gentleman to his son Albert, the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in the following terms (translation)—

This book has the following comment to make—

The letter goes on to say (translation)—

I do not think there is any doubt that the Albert Hertzog Committees which were appointed at the time and set up by the hon. gentleman throughout the country had very close ties with the Broederbond. It is said that General Smuts caused no investigation to be instituted. He had the opportunity. If I understand his statements and his remarks correctly, he did not consider an investigation to be necessary. He was convinced already. Then there is the possibility that the Broederbond itself has undergone a change. In that case we are faced with the circular of September 1962, a photostatic copy of which appeared in the Sunday Times and which makes it clear that their idea of national unity is that the English-speaking section should be assimilated by the Afrikaans-speaking section.

May we know what you are quoting from?

I quoted from a letter to Albert Hertzog, as published in Trollip’s book, “The South African Opposition, 1939 to 1945”. The fact remains that this is a secret organization in our public life with recognized political aims, one of which is the Afrikanerization of our public life and quite possibly the application of organized nepotism in certain cases in order to achieve this end. I therefore welcome the proposal of the hon. the Prime Minister that an inquiry be instituted. He was good enough to say that he would consult me in regard to its terms of reference if he decides to appoint a commission of this nature.

I said that you should propose it.

I do so now, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased. I just want to be sure that we understand each other. Are you proposing a judicial commission to inquire into any subversive acts which may be done by the Broederbond, the Freemasons and any other body which may possibly interfere in politics secretly? Is that your proposal?

The hon. the Prime Minister has practically formulated the terms of reference now. As far as I am concerned, my proposal is that an investigation be instituted into the actions of the Broederbond itself. If the hon. the Prime Minister considers it necessary to have any other alliance, organization, company or body investigated, then I am satisfied.

You must propose it.

I want an investigation into the Broederbond. If the hon. the Prime Minister wants to make certain conditions, if the hon. the Prime Minister wants to include other associations or other secret organizations in that inquiry it will not deter me at all.

I think that the whole inquiry is unnecessary and I challenge you to propose that the Freemasons, the Broederbond and other bodies be investigated.

I move accordingly as far as the Broederbond is concerned as well as any other secret organizations which the hon. the Prime Minister wishes to include. [Interjections.] I do not want to restrict it. The hon. the Prime Minister says that he considers it to be completely unnecessary. I regard it as necessary as far as the Broederbond is concerned. I think a prima facie case has been made out in this regard. I cannot say that a prima facie case has been made out as far as the Freemasons or the Sons of England are concerned. I do not have sufficient information to pass judgment on Anglo-American. I leave that to the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Finance. I just want to say this. I understand, as far as the Freemasons are concerned, that there are 38 books on Freemasonry in our Library. I understand that the hon. gentleman can visit a bookshop here in Parliament Street, Carmichael and Evans, and there he will find the calendar of the meetings of the Freemasons, of their various lodges, for the year. I looked in vain for something of this kind in connection with the Broederbond. But I think that there are four things on which we must agree. I think we must agree on the commissioners; I think we must agree on the commissioners’ terms of reference; I think the right must be given to hear evidence under oath and I think the investigation should be a public one.

You must move that the Broederbond, the Freemasons and other secret organizations be investigated.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter which the hon. the Prime Minister and I should try to unravel.

You dare not do it!

May I ask a question? Is it not true that in the course of his speech the hon. the Prime Minister challenged the Leader of the Opposition to move that a judicial inquiry be instituted to investigate the Broederbond, the Freemasons and any other secret organization? That was the challenge of the hon. the Prime Minister. And is it not correct that he said that if the Leader of the Opposition accepted that challenge as issued by the hon. the Prime Minister he must say so and not beat about the bush?

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the hon. the Minister of Transport is becoming so afraid and why he tries to help the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister is quite capable of putting his case and defending it. I am quite prepared to thrash the matter out with him.

Then accept the challenge publicly as I issued it. It was a challenge. You are only accepting half …

I welcome an investigation into any secret organization on which the hon. the Prime Minister and I can agree.

I challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition again to propose that an inquiry be instituted in respect of certain points on which we can come to an agreement, to investigate the Broederbond and the Freemasons and any other secret organization. The onus must rest on him to include the Freemasons in his proposal.

I must say that I never thought I would find myself in this position with the hon. the Prime Minister. My accusations are against the Broederbond. His accusations are against the Freemasons.

Accept my challenge.

I think that I have already accepted the challenge. As far as I am concerned I am prepared to propose now that a commission of inquiry be appointed, under certain conditions, to investigate the Broederbond and any other …

No…

That was not my challenge.

… and any other secret organization which the hon. the Prime Minister cares to mention.

No, you must accept my challenge … [Interjections.]

Order! I appeal to hon. members, particularly the front-benchers, to assist the Chair to maintain order.

I do not think that I can take the matter any further.

Why do you refuse to mention the Freemasons?

It seems to me that this is a matter that the hon. the Prime Minister and I will have to resolve. I shall take it further, but I think that this is one further example, as a result of the attitude of that side of the House …

Discrimination.

Quite correct, discrimination. Well, that is my attitude; I have put it quite clearly.

I want to deal now with matters that were raised by the hon. the Prime Minister himself. His first point dealt with South Africa’s foreign policy. The only comment I want to make in this regard is that I still remember the days when Turkey was referred to as “the sick man of Europe”. I did not think I would live to see the day when the Prime Minister of South Africa would say that South Africa was the healthy man of the West and that every country with the exception of South Africa was sick. In other words, what the world regards as a failure, he considers to be a complete success. The hon. the Prime Minister regards the fact that we are completely isolated from the rest of the world as a complete success because in that way he avoids becoming contaminated by the other countries of the world; he avoids the necessity of sharing their sick bed with them. What actually is this disease? According to the hon. gentleman, the disease is multi-racialism as understood and interpreted by the hon. the Prime Minister. What is the remedy? The remedy, as explained by the hon. the Prime Minister—I made a careful note of his words—is the following (translation)—

Where in the Republic, Mr. Speaker, do we find the area of the Coloureds and the Indians? They have never had their own areas. What then is the solution, the remedy, as far as the Republic is concerned? Are these areas still to be demarcated? Are they still going to go so far at some stage as to apply this remedy to South Africa? As far as that is concerned the hon. the Prime Minister still owes us a reply, and I think this underlines the great difference between the hon. the Prime Minister and myself. I regard South Africa as a multi-racial country; the world considers it to be a multi-racial country; the hon. the Prime Minister does not see it in that light. He is like a man whose body has already been infected with a disease but because of his powers of imagination his brain is not allowed to admit it. Who says that we stand firmly in our own area when in every province, outside of the reserves, in the so-called White areas, there are more non-Whites than there are Whites? If the interpretation of the hon. the Prime Minister is that multi-racialism will only materialize when the non-Whites have representation in the Central Parliament of the country, then we will remain multi-racial, because the Coloured has representation in this House.

The hon. gentleman is inclined to ask: Where in the world is there a multi-racial country where the non-Whites have political rights in the same area as the Whites and where a solution to their problems has been found? I think the question should be worded somewhat differently: Which multi-racial state has found a solution to its problems by the application of apartheid and by changing the whole nature of the state? I think the hon. gentleman can only mention one state and that is India and Pakistan. But it cost 3,000,000 lives and there is still friction, particularly in Kashmir, because it was applied half-heartedly, just as will be the case here if the proposals of the hon. the Prime Minister are implemented.

The hon. gentleman also raised the question of Cyprus. He said that I cited Cyprus as the model of a race federation. Sir, it certainly does have certain of the characteristics of a race federation, and I have always said that because of the activities of Communism, it would be exposed to tremendous handicaps. And what is happening to-day? In that country the majority is trying to subvert the constitution in order to oppress the minority because up to the present the constitution has remained inviolate; the race federation has survived and the minority has been protected. One might just as well say that the Constitution of South Africa was a failure because during the war years the Ossewabrandwag wanted another kind of government here, a National-Socialist government or something of that nature, and that for that reason they cut telegraph wires and blew up post offices. Did this mean that the Constitution was a failure? No, that is no reasonable representation of the position.

The hon. the Prime Minister went so far as to say that we must compare the advantages and dangers of his policy with the advantages and dangers of our policy. In all fairness to the hon. gentleman I want to try to equate those dangers. I want to compare the one group of dangers that is bound up inextricably with the implementation of the hon. the Prime Minister’s policy with the group of dangers with which we would have to contend if the policy of the United Party were applied here. When that comparison is drawn we find that since under the policy of the United Party South Africa will be kept as one integral whole we will avoid numbers of the dangers which constitute the greatest dangers under the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister. The first danger that we will avoid will be that our labour forces will not consist of foreigners, of subjects of a foreign state; they will be South African citizens with a common loyalty to the Republic of South Africa. The second advantage that we will enjoy will be that our urban Bantu will not be the cast-off citizens of a foreign state, a state which most of them have never seen, but they will be citizens of the Republic with security of tenure and a realization of the function that they have to fulfil in the community itself, because of the administrative and executive powers that will be given to them by their people, and they will be conscious of their function because of the fact that they will also have representation in their own common councils and in the Parliament that decides their fate, no matter how limited that representation may be. Instead of the whole strategic concept of our defence system being undermined by the breaking up, the fragmention of South Africa, our defence strategy will be based upon our natural borders and that will enable us to offer maximum resistance to Communism and to the nationalism and aggression of the Africa states. There will be no artificially established Bantustans offering footholds to aggressive countries seeking to attack South Africa, no springboards for the propagation of foreign ideologies as far as the Republic is concerned. Nor will there be Bantustans offering a haven to saboteurs or spies trying to escape from South Africa. We will avoid the danger of artificially established foreign states, carved out of South Africa, states that will make use of every opportunity to give assistance to their brothers here in the Republic whom they regard as oppressed subjects. But above all, because we regard South Africa as being one integral whole, we will not be providing a foothold for Black nationalism, Black nationalism assisted by Communism which has so rapidly and easily swallowed up the newly established Africa states and which is hostile to us and which seeks the destruction of South Africa, not only because it forms the basis of Western civilization here in Africa but because it is the basis of White civilization.

We would derive a second benefit. As against pan-Africanism and Communism we could offer something which the hon. the Prime Minister cannot offer, and that is a common loyalty to one Republic on the part of all our citizens in South Africa. We could establish a broad South African nationalism which is magnanimous enough to give consideration to the differences that exist between the various sections of our population.

I do not think it is necessary to take this comparison any further. The hon. the Prime Minister has of course, expressed certain criticism of our plan. He says: “You are prepared to give the Bantu eight representatives in the House of Assembly; they will never be satisfied with that. How will you avoid increasing this number until we are eventually swallowed up?” That criticism eminates from a gentleman who has given the Coloureds four representatives in this House. Are they satisfied with that? Are they agitating for increased representation? Our Nationalist friends say, “They are on a separate roll, the position is quite safe.” This holds good for the Coloureds but when it comes to the Bantu then they say that it does not apply to the Bantu. The hon. the Prime Minister also says that he prefers a small White South Africa to a large mixed South Africa. Since when has this small South Africa been White? Even under his policy where every conceivable thing is being done, we still have the position that there are more non-Whites than Whites in the so-called White areas in every province; that this will remain the position and that their numbers will increase more rapidly than those of the Whites.

The hon. gentleman has also said that the danger exists that in time to come the representatives of the Bantu in this House will be Black. I have stated repeatedly that it is the policy of the United Party that those representatives will be White. But we realize, and we are not afraid of being attacked in this regard, that we cannot deprive them of the right indefinitely of being represented by their own people, particularly in view of the development in the Bantustan areas of the hon. the Prime Minister. I have also said repeatedly that if I have to choose between eight Black representatives in this House and eight Bantustans, I would choose the eight Black representatives every time. I direct these remarks particularly to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Mr. Odell) who made such a half-hearted speech here yesterday and who does not realize what the policy of our party is.

There was also an attempt on the part of the hon. the Minister of Transport and the hon. the Prime Minister to say that the protection that we would provide by way of a referendum before there will be any increase in political rights is of no value, because if the number of the electorate increases, those who participate in the referendum will also increase in number.

Who would vote in the referendum?

I have said repeatedly in this House and outside that all those who are on the Common Voters’ Roll would vote in that referendum and because I realize that when the Bantu are given the franchise on a separate roll this will no longer afford any protection in a general election, I have had the provision included in that pamphlet that once the first stage has been passed—which we define in that pamphlet—a protective provision will be inserted in the constitution which will be just as effective as the provision by means of which we are protecting our voters at the moment. Various guarantees are given. It will be far easier in a referendum than at an election. An election will not provide that protection when we have Bantu representatives in this House. That is why I say that once that stage is reached protective measures will be taken which will be just as effective as those which protect the electorate at the moment.

The hon. the Prime Minister also said that I was prepared to put the Coloureds on the Common Voters’ Roll and that I was prepared to allow Coloureds to take their seats in this House. He said that because I had made this statement I would not be able to prevent an Indian from sitting here. Mr. Speaker, how do we prevent a Coloured from taking the place of a representative of the Coloured in this House? If the hon. the Prime Minister can do it, why cannot this side of the House do it? It is silly to argue in that way.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to be criticized and attacked in regard to the policy as it stands, but I am not prepared to be attacked when interpretations are given to that policy which are entirely incorrect. I have said that the policy of the United Party is a safer policy as far as the Bantu are concerned and when I ask myself who has the best chance of retaining the friendship and the goodwill of the Indian and the Coloured in South Africa, then there is not the slightest doubt that the United Party with its policy has the better chance and not the hon. the Prime Minister with his policy.

I have one last remark to make. What is this new consultative organization that the hon. the Prime Minister wants to establish? It is a new consultative body in which even the Indians and the Coloureds will be represented although they do not form independent states! Will they receive equal treatment; will they be given the same rights as the Bantu? Is this not merely an attempt to try to steal the race federation plan of the United Party without including all its good points? Mr. Speaker, my time has expired.

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

Upon which the House divided: