House of Assembly: Vol106 - MONDAY 23 JANUARY 1961

MONDAY, 23 JANUARY 1961

Mr. SPEAKER took the Chair at 2.20 p.m.

BILLS TO BE INTRODUCED IN THE SENATE The PRIME MINISTER:

In accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Senate Act, 1960, I wish to announce that the under-mentioned Bills are to be introduced in the Senate during the current session of Parliament:

Kimberley Leasehold Conversion to Freehold Bill.

  • Vyfhoek Management Amendment Bill.
  • State-owned Land Disposal Bill.
  • Deeds Registries Amendment Bill.
  • National Parks Amendment Bill.
  • Building Societies Act Amendment Bill.
  • Coloured Persons Communal Reserves Bill.
  • Census Act Amendment Bill.
  • Aliens Act Amendment Bill.
  • Public Service Amendment Bill.

Group Areas and Development of Group Areas Amendment Bill.

  • Universities Amendment Bill.
  • Anatomy Amendment Bill.
  • Industrial Conciliation Amendment Bill.
  • Precious and Base Metals Amendment Bill.
  • Atomic Energy Amendment Bill.
  • Foundation Seed Bill.
  • Seed Bill.
  • Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act Amendment Bill.
  • Post Mortem Examinations and Removal of Human Tissues Act Amendment Bill.
  • Public Health Amendment Bill.
  • Marketing Act Amendment Bill.
  • Dairy Industry Acts Amendment and Consolidation Bill.
PRINTING COMMITTEE

Mr. SPEAKER appointed the Prime Minister and Sir de Villiers Graaff a Committee to assist Mr. Speaker in regard to the printing of the House.

COMMITTEE ON STANDING RULES AND ORDERS

Mr. SPEAKER appointed the following members to constitute with Mr. Speaker the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, viz.: The Prime Minister, the Minister of Lands, the Minister of External Affairs, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Education, Arts and Science, Sir de Villiers Graaff, Dr. A. I. Malan, Mr. J. E. Potgieter, Mr. Higgerty, Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Bloomberg.

STATEMENT ON TALKS WITH THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS The PRIME MINISTER:

Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House, I should like to make the following statement:

The Secretary-General of the United Nations visited the Union of South Africa at the invitation of the Government. It was felt that much misunderstanding might be avoided if the chief official of this world organization could acquaint himself personally with at least certain major aspects of the South African scene, and could talk with the Government on matters falling within the authority conferred on the Secretary-General under the Charter of the United Nations.

It was made clear that no infringement on the sovereign independence of the Union, or intervention in its domestic affairs, or any action implying accountability to the United Nations for its policies or their implementation, could be implied or countenanced. On this basis a frank exchange of views over a whole range of matters concerning the world at large and South Africa in particular could take place between the Prime Minister and the Secretary-General. A spirit of understanding and goodwill existed throughout the talks, even though, as could be expected, most divergent points of view had at times to be put on both sides.

The curtailment of the Secretary-General’s visit for similar reasons to those which unfortunately prevented a visit last year, necessarily upset the programme arranged, but not seriously. Perhaps it should be stated publicly once again that suggestions for the programme, and afterwards the final draft, were submitted to the Secretary-General and his officials, and that the Prime Minister invited him to make any alterations or alternative suggestions he wished.

The Prime Minister also endorsed the arrangements made by the Minister of External Affairs on behalf of the Government during the preliminary talks with the Secretary-General in London last year, that the latter would be quite free to meet whomsoever he wished among all races. Any co-operation he requested to make this possible was granted. No obstacles whatsoever were placed in his way. That the huge number of requests for interviews which reached him could not be granted by him within the very limited time available, can be readily understood.

Much time was given to the main objectives of his visit, as set by the Secretary-General himself, namely the discussions with the Prime Minister. Officials of the United Nations Secretariat and the Department of External Affairs were present throughout.

The talks, the content of which has now been conveyed to the Government by the Prime Minister, dealt with international relations, South Africa’s interest in the United Nations, her relations with other states, the misunderstanding of the Union’s policies which tends to militate against harmonious relations, and the extent and manner that difficulties arising therefrom might be overcome.

While the Government must guard against South Africa becoming involved in any form of accountability, just as other member nations are not subjected to it, they are convinced that the personal contact established is of considerable value, and, having found the talks with the Secretary-General useful and constructive, they have decided to invite him, at an appropriate time, or times, to visit the Union again in order that the present contact may be continued.

This decision has already been conveyed to the Secretary-General in New York.

Mr. RUSSELL:

Was an opportunity given to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to have discussions with Mr. Dag Hammarsjkoeld?

CONSTITUTION BILL The PRIME MINISTER:

I move—

That leave be granted to introduce a Bill to constitute the Republic of South Africa and to provide for matters incidental thereto.
Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

I second.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I move, as an amendment—

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “this House declines to grant leave for the introduction of legislation providing for a republican form of constitution for South Africa unless and until—
  1. (a) it is unequivocally established that the proposed republic will remain in the Commonwealth; and
  2. (b) the Government gives an assurance that provision is or will be made in such legislation for guaranteeing such basic rights as will advance national unity in South Africa.”.

That amendment, Mr. Speaker, has two legs. I propose to deal with the second first because it will be dealt with in greater detail by the seconder of my amendment.

You will know, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members opposite will know that throughout the referendum national unity was the theme, was given as the objective of the republic. Now, Sir, a large section of the English-speaking section in South Africa have stated their wishes and desires and have asked the hon. the Prime Minister in a spirit of true South Africanism to consider certain of their fears and hopes for the future, and they have asked him to consider whether he is prepared to introduce certain guarantees into the legislation before us. What has happened? By the very fact that the hon. gentleman has introduced this legislation in a sitting of this House instead of at a Joint Sitting of the Senate and the House of Assembly, he has made it clear that in so far as we understand constitutional procedure at the present time, he is not making any provision for any guarantees or entrenchments of any kind in the Bill which he is introducing to-day. I know I shall be told that there is a guarantee for the language rights, but he knows as well as I do that the sitting of this House alone as a bicameral legislature, cannot affect a guarantee which already exists one way or another, cannot add to it or subtract from it. So the hon. gentleman has shown that he has not only turned down any suggestion of guarantees in the Constitution, but, Sir, he has made it clear that he is not prepared to consider any guarantees of any kind. In other words, Sir, national unity is to be national unity on his terms and he is prepared to consider no other terms. All the propaganda made during the referendum has been forgotten overnight.

There is another point. Throughout the referendum we were told that it was the earnest desire of this Government that the republic when formed should remain within the Commonwealth. Now I want to be fair and state that the hon. the Prime Minister in one speech, I think at Lichtenburg, made it perfectly clear that even if we were not to remain in the Commonwealth, he would regard any majority which he obtained in that referendum as a mandate for a republic, even if it were outside the Commonwealth. He was one of very few Ministers who did that.

An HON. MEMBER:

We all said so.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

The hon. member says “We all said so I can only say, judging from the Press, that very few said that. Certain hon. Ministers on the other side were at pains to show not only that it was a certainty that we would remain within the Commonwealth—Sir, the Minister of Finance found that it was conventional that we should apply and that it was a convention that it should be accepted. And what did the hon. the Minister of the Interior say? He said “We just give notice”, and they did their level best, Sir, to leave the public under the impression that our future membership of the Commonwealth was assured. I have no doubt, and I know they have no doubt when they search their hearts, and the public have no doubt, that the overwhelming majority of people who voted for this republic, voted either in the hope or in the belief that that republic would be within the Commonwealth of Nations, and they were left with that hope and left in that belief by the propaganda made by hon. gentlemen opposite. And now, Mr. Speaker, what has happened since the referendum? What steps have been taken by this Government to ensure that South Africa will remain within the Commonwealth? You know, Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister has made a statement that he has indicated to the British Prime Minister as chairman of the Conference of Prime Ministers that he will attend the conference and that he will make that application. But surely the hon. Prime Minister knows, as every sensible person in this House knows, that what those Prime Ministers decide is going to be affected by what their Press and their public believe in respect of South Africa’s future membership of the Commonwealth! What steps have been taken by this Government to see that South Africa’s case is put before those members of the public and the Press in other Commonwealth countries? He knows, or ought to know, that our future membership is not a certainty. He knows, too, Sir, that many believe that the ground for exclusion is to be as was quoted in a letter by Sir Clifford Heathcote-Smith in the Daily Telegraph in London on Wednesday, 30 November—

The honour of the Commonwealth demands it in view of the South African Government’s apartheid policy, its denial of political rights to the Blacks, the Coloureds, and Indians and its racial discrimination and restrictive policies, reinforced by its determination not to budge an inch.

Sir, that is the case against it, and clearly the hon. the Prime Minister could meet that case, this Government could meet that case by producing evidence that the so-called oppressed peoples of the Union of South Africa—the Natives, the Coloured people and the Indians— wish South Africa to remain in the Commonwealth as is pointed out by Sir Clifford. Surely the hon. gentleman and his Government are aware of this sort of propaganda that is being made against us. What steps has he taken to ascertain the views of those people? What steps has he taken to be able to go to the Prime Ministers’ Conference and say “These people also wish to remain within the Commonwealth”? Now, Sir, the Coloured people have three representatives in this House. I believe they will be able to say on behalf of the Cape Coloured people that their constituents wish to remain within the Commonwealth.

Mr. B. COETZEE:

The fourth representative, the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) apparently no longer represents the Coloured people.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

There is one representative of the Coloured people who is a member of this party, and I know that their views are the same as those of members of this party. But I go further. The hon. the Prime Minister has removed from this House the representatives of the Native people who might have been able to express their views. [Time limit.]

Mr. MITCHELL:

I second the amendment. Mr. Speaker, because of the nature of this debate, under the rules, I have a very limited time in which to say much which I would wish to say on an occasion such as this. May I therefore commence at once by saying that I don’t seek to make this an opportunity for the ordinary kind of constitutional wrangle in Parliament which must of necessity arise from time to time in considering our constitutional position. I seek to make this an opportunity for another appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government to hearken to us in terms of sub-section (b) of this amendment to the Prime Minister’s motion, and to ask for some security to be given us in regard to the new Constitution, the republican constitution, which is being proposed. Now, Sir, in the past, after the referendum, quite constitutionally we have approached the Government and asked them for those guarantees. To-day we come again with another request, and I know that there are many people, probably many thousands of people, who will say “What is the use of approaching the Government with requests? Surely, Douglas Mitchell, by now you know that they are unable to listen to anything you are going to say which may divert them from the particular course which they have set for themselves. It will be a complete waste of time.” Mr. Speaker, that may be a very widely held view, and I believe it is. Nevertheless I believe that it is incumbent upon us, those who do not share the views of the Nationalist Party, South Africans who do not agree with the Nationalist Party, to use any constitutional endeavour to bring home to the Government the necessity, if there is to be national unity in this country, of giving some kind of security, some kind of guarantee to those people who do not agree with the Government in regard to this particular matter.

I want to go for a moment to an appreciation of that point of view which was raised some five years ago by the late Mr. Strydom. The late Mr. Strydom, on 10 October 1955— he was then Prime Minister—said this—

As far as the survival of the White race and its rule here is concerned, it is necessary that the Whites should have with regard to it the greatest possible unity of purpose and policy, and that they should guarantee and grant to each other everything that belongs to each, whether it is his language, his culture or any other possession.

It is that guarantee that I am referring to this afternoon. I believe that the late Mr. Strydom was right and that if we are going to get national unity, we can only achieve that on the basis of guaranteeing to each other and entrenching in the Constitution those things that belong to each other.

My hon. Leader has dealt with the question of the Commonwealth membership. Sir, that is naturally the overriding consideration at the moment. I want to say quite frankly, and I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will accept it as a sincere expression of opinion, that I think that I voice the view of hundreds of thousands of people in this country when I say that they believe that he does not want to stay in the Commonwealth as a permanent arrangement at all. He probably wishes to stay for the time being in the Commonwealth if for no other reason than because of the assurances that were given by his Ministers and other people, the Minister of Finance, for instance, who tried to make out that it was just a formality this application for membership of the Commonwealth, and so on. For their own political reasons at this moment, the Government may desire to remain in the Commonwealth. I have no doubt whatever that they don’t intend that to be a permanent arrangement, the more so, Sir, if there is to be any question of not having guarantees. Now, Sir, I think it is going to be an extremely dangerous thing for South Africa to go into a republic without guarantees for those people who do not feel and think politically the same as the Nationalist Party. Let us be quite clear, Sir, that the passing of a law does not make us change our sentiments, does not make us change our feelings, does not make us change our views on fundamental issues in South Africa. The passing of laws and the changing of laws does not change the feelings of men and women and if we do not take into account the feelings of men and women in this country, what will become of the basis for unity, the unity which I think the Prime Minister meant when he made that appeal in the course of the referendum campaign, on which the greatest doubt is being cast to-day? The question is being asked to-day whether he meant anything of the sort. That appeal for unity, Sir, seems to be to-day not an appeal for unity on the terms that the Prime Minister laid down, but unity in terms of membership of the Nationalist Party—that there is to be no unity on terms outside the Nationalist Party, but that there is to be unity only if you are a member of the Nationalist Party. Sir, that is entirely unacceptable to us. I hope, Sir, it will never be necessary for us in this country to say that we are being governed now by force, not by consent at all, that we look upon ourselves as governed by a Government which is inimical to us, hostile to us, and governs us by force. I hope that that will never arise. That is why I make this appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister. The truth of the matter is that utterances by the hon. the Prime Minister and members of his Cabinet—and I am not going to elaborate on the recent speeches of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and will refer to that only in passing, but I say that when you get that kind of speech being made at a time like this, we can be forgiven if those of us who are opposed to the Nationalist Party feel that the time has come for us to say that we are sick and tired of being pushed around by this Government. [Laughter.] Hon. members may interrupt and may laugh and they may make provocative interjections while I am speaking, but that cuts no ice. There is nobody outside this Honourable House listening to these trivialities to-day. The people are sick and tired of being pushed around by this Government. We are making now again a constitutional appeal to get South Africa on a proper basis, not on a basis where those who are opposed to the Government will love the republic; we won’t; of course we won’t; but where we will be able to ask the people who think as we do to make a new start, to try and forget the past and to get down to it in the belief that it may yet be possible to hammer out a future for us in a united South Africa—not on the basis of ramming down our throats a number of political concepts— that is nonsense, that is ridiculous! But on the basis that the future of our people in this country demands that we settle these things and see whether we cannot get together. But, Sir, the basic principle on which we can get together is, as the late Mr. Strydom put it: “Upon guaranteeing to one another those things that belong to each.” My honourable Leader has said that the hon. the Prime Minister would have come with a Joint Sitting if he had intended any entrenchments at all. The very fact that he has come with a bicameral sitting of Parliament indicates that he does not intend to entrench anything. He is immovable, he is granite-like. But we must still make this appeal. We ask that the views of people who do not agree with the Nationalist Party shall be taken into account, that there shall be statesmanship as distinct from leadership of a political party. I know, Sir, where the hon. the Prime Minister will go if he is going to be under the pressure of the hon. members behind him on the back benches. They will drive him so far—it might be a good thing for South Africa that they drive South Africa to a catastrophe much quicker than would otherwise be the case; but the hon. the Prime Minister may be able to hold his wild men. I see that even the Chief Whip on the opposite side laughs. He knows who the wild men are on his side. Sir, that is why I am making this appeal. [Time limit.]

*The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Mr. Speaker, I think that the mere fact that the official Opposition are using an occasion such as this and are trying while the great majority of the White voters …

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

What great majority?

*The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

While the great majority of the White voters have voted in favour of a republic hon. members opposite are now trying to swim against the stream and this convinces me more than ever of the old saying: Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.

I want to raise two points. In the first place I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that when he makes statements here, he should be very sure of his facts. There was not a single meeting which I addressed during the referendum campaign at which I did not state quite definitely and clearly that if we won this referendum, we would go ahead—we would go ahead with the establishment of a republic, whether or not we were then expelled from the Commonwealth. I went on to give reasons for that attitude and I stated that if we did not say so at this stage we would be placing a weapon in the hands of our enemies both at home and abroad. We would be giving Ghana, Malaya and all those countries which according to the Leader of the Opposition have the individual right of veto the means whereby they could prevent us becoming a republic for all time to come. Then we would be calling them in as arbiters over our system of government, not only to-day but in the future as well. I used the simile that it would be like the first payment which one makes to a blackmailer; once one has given in for the first time, one will have to give in again and again. Once we conceded that principle, even if we were eventually to gain a 100 per cent majority of the voters of South Africa in favour of a republic, one country such as Ghana or Malaya, according to the constitutional viewpoint of the Leader of the Opposition (with which I do not agree), could exercise its veto and make it impossible for us to establish a republic. We have always said what we intend doing. I said so at every meeting with the utmost emphasis and I also gave the reasons. I said that I was not prepared to hand ourselves over bound hand and foot into the hands of the enemies of South Africa, into the hand of those people who would like to expel us from the Commonwealth. That is why I adopted this attitude.

The fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now come forward with this amendment merely represents a continuation of the attitude he adopted throughout the entire referendum campaign. The question I want to ask is whether the United Party are genuinely in earnest in saying that we should remain a member of the Commonwealth. Because his behaviour during the referendum campaign and his behaviour here to-day is not that of someone who wishes us to remain a member of the Commonwealth, but the behaviour of someone who is prepared to play into the hands of those who do not want us to remain a member. I therefore now wish to put this question to the hon. member. Does he want to help South Africa retain her membership of the Commonwealth, yes or no? If he is in earnest and if he does want to help, then he must immediately withdraw this amendment of his. And if he is in earnest that we should make an attempt to retain our membership of the Commonwealth, then this motion of his is calculated to have the opposite effect to that which he wishes.

I do not want to devote much time to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell). He referred to statements which were made during the referendum campaign. I think that if there is anyone in South Africa who is saddled with statements he made during that campaign, it is the hon. member for South Coast. He said many things during the referendum campaign; and now the chickens are coming home to roost. To-day he has difficulty in his own province where he made those statements. Now he must try to calm where previously he incited. His amendment represents nothing but “saving face”. He must now try to rehabilitate himself somewhat. I only want to say these few words about the substance of what he has said. The position is quite clear. For our part we have said that all we intend by this Bill is the acceptance of the South Africa Act as a basis, with the one change that the President replaces the Queen and the Governor-General. They have said that they do not believe it. They have said that we have all sorts of things up our sleeve. They did not believe that this was the only change we envisaged. They have demanded that there should be no changes. Now that the Bill has been published, now that they have seen that we have kept our word, now it is they who do not want to accept the South Africa Act. Now they are saying that we should write a whole number of provisions into this Bill—provisions which the South Africa Act never contained. I say that we shall still have many opportunities to discuss the constitutional arguments. Here we have the two fundamental points which I have mentioned. Mr. Speaker, you will forgive me if I repeat myself and if I close where I began: It is this type of behaviour on the part of the official Opposition which leads me to believe that it is really true that those whom God would destroy he first sends mad.

Dr. STEYTLER:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move as a further amendment—

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “this House declines to grant leave for the introduction of legislation establishing a republic in South Africa unless and until the Government gives assurances that it will contain provisions, inter alia
  1. (a) for a rigid constitution and the protection of minority rights;
  2. (b) for adequate decentralization of powers to the provinces; and
  3. (c) for the participation of all responsible citizens in the government of the country irrespective of race or colour.

In moving this amendment it is not my intention to cover the entire field, the entire basis of our opposition to the establishment of a republic in South Africa. That we made quite clear during the referendum campaign. It is also not my intention to be unrealistic. We accept that the Government is going to proceed with the mandate that they have received from the electorate of South Africa, to establish a republic. We would have liked to have seen that mandate more representative than it is. That, too, we made quite clear during the campaign, that we would have liked to have seen all responsible citizens of South Africa, irrespective of what particular race they might belong to, have a say in this fundamental change envisaged in our country. But we do accept that the Government must execute its mandate which they have received from the European electorate of South Africa. And in the execution of that mandate we realize that there are certain dangers for South Africa.

Mention has been made here, this afternoon, of some of those dangers. I think, however, it is a matter that needs further analysis in order that we may determine the basis of the harm that might be done, and to determine the basis of the criticism. It is easy to say that we are being criticized; that we are being harmed, that we are being rejected. Why? Because we in South Africa believe in racial discrimination. It is also true that very many people in South Africa have fears for the future. I am not saying that those fears are legitimate or not legitimate; but those fears are there and unless we can remove things like that, and unless we can remove the reasons for the attacks on South Africa and for the damage being done to this country I therefore think it is unwise for the Government not to accept the amendment now moved by me. I move.

Mr. WILLIAMS:

I second.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

Mr. Speaker, these two motions have one point in common. It is that notwithstanding all the pious suggestions that the movers accept the mandate given by the electorate, but that they just want to set certain conditions before allowing the Bill to be debated, these statements are meaningless. They in fact in so doing intimate that they are going to oppose our becoming a republic. They do not want the republic, and now they make certain demands which they know to be impossible. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat wants to state as a condition for co-operation in the establishment of a republic, i.e. the implementation of the mandate given by the electorate, that it must be a multi-racial republic with a constitution which provides for a multi-racial government. He knows that that is what the public does not want and what this House does not want. He knows that that is what only the small party sitting behind him wants. In other words, he should not get up here and say that they accept that there is a mandate as if they are co-operating in its implementation. In actual fact, they want to frustrate the will of the people. The amendment of the official Opposition commences with a very clear statement. It is that we must give an unequivocal guarantee that the Union will remain within the Commonwealth. Unless we give that guarantee, they oppose the establishment of a republic, in spite of the fact that the mandate asked is quite clear.

*An HON. MEMBER:

What was the mandate?

*The PRIME MINISTER:

The mandate was this, that South Africa, when it becomes a republic, wants to remain a member of the Commonwealth. That is the first point. I gave the assurance that I would do my best, notwithstanding all the doubt in the minds of hon. members, to keep our word to try to achieve that. And if we succeed we will continue, as we said in all honesty, to remain a member of the Commonwealth as long as the Commonwealth remains what it is. If in future the Commonwealth should change its character and become a body which tries to interfere in the domestic affairs of member states, then for the same reasons why otherwise we would not become a member, we would then not be able to remain a member. Everybody understands that. As long as the Commonwealth remains what it is we stand by our firm undertaking to co-operate to the best of our ability with a Commonwealth which does not interfere in the affairs of member countries. Now the honesty of that standpoint is being unjustifiably doubted.

But there was a second leg to our standpoint, viz. this. If the Commonwealth should refuse us membership, or if we should be granted membership only subject to humiliating conditions which would reflect on the honour of our country, we will still become a republic, but not a member of the Commonwealth. Those who voted for a republic also voted for this second aspect of our standpoint.

Now I want to tell the hon. member this also. If he puts this question to us, as he does in the amendment, then all that is necessary to negative the decision of the electorate is that at the next Commonwealth Conference there should be a refusal for us to remain a member. If I give the guarantees he asks for the establishment of the republic would be destroyed. And who prepared the smoothest path for a refusal of membership, if only we want to make this concession, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself? Before the election on 5 October, he allowed the impression to be created overseas that if only they are firm enough in preventing us from becoming a member of the Commonwealth their opposition would eventually triumph.

The hon. member now says: “Voters voted in the belief that we would remain a member.” That is an admission on his part of the absolute failure of his propaganda. His propaganda was that we would not be able to remain a member and he wanted people to vote against because they believed it. We said that we believed we would be able to remain a member. He now admits that the electorate did not believe him, but in fact believed us! If hon. members are honest in saying that they want us to remain a member of the Commonwealth, they would not have continued with the propaganda which is being made to-day; then they would not have forced us into another debate about membership in this way. I therefore doubt whether hon. members opposite are honest in their express desire that we should remain a member of the Commonwealth, I think they have the idea at the back of their minds that if we are expelled that will provide nicely troubled waters for them in which to fish. It seems to me that that is their desire, because unless that is so they are now adopting a foolish course.

In regard to the second argument used by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I just want to say this. He quoted what was said by a person who does not want us as a member of the Commonwealth. All that person voiced was criticism on the internal policy of South Africa itself. Still the Leader of the Opposition wanted us to propagandize those other states to negative that type of attack. Let me tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this, that we shall certainly not go and plead for our membership of the Commonwealth by going to the other member states and delivering pleas to them in support of our policy, as if they are allowed to interfere and thinking that this will convert them to supporting our point of view. The basic principle on which we shall and can become a member is the old principle of non-interference in each other’s affairs, but co-operation in respect of matters of common interest.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also advanced another argument, namely this: We must now go to the various other population groups here and seek their support in order to remain a member. Does the hon. member now want us to hold a referendum for each of them? Or does he want us to consult those leaders who we say are the leaders of the Bantu but who they always say are not the leaders? Or does he want us to approach the subversive groups amongst the Bantu and get the opinion of their leaders? Of what value are the opinions of these various individuals? That is not the way of testing a racial group if one wants to test it and if it is correct in principle to make such a test. The Opposition know as well as I do that from all the various groups unsolicited statements have been made that they would like South Africa to remain a member. In other words, their own express opinion is clear enough. Why does the Leader of the Opposition not rather say that practically everybody in the country wants us to remain a member, and clear the way in that manner? Instead of doing that he still at this date casts doubt on what the feeling of the people is and whether it has been properly expressed.

Therefore I say that this is nothing else but an attempt to obstruct our becoming a republic and the Leader of the Opposition will be held responsible by the country for adopting this attitude after having suffered such a severe defeat on that point on 5 October.

*Mr. HORAK:

Where was this severe defeat?

*The PRIME MINISTER:

Hon. members ask where the severe defeat was. They were so afraid that we would win by a majority of one or two. They then said that if there was a majority of 40,000 or 50,000 they would accept it. And then it was 75,000!

*Mr. HORAK:

Two per cent.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

The fact is that the first point in the amendment is nothing else but an attempt to stop us becoming a republic or otherwise to make it as difficult for us to become a member of the Commonwealth. [Time limit.]

Mr. BLOOMBERG:

I have listened to the hon. the Prime Minister very attentively, and before I deal with what I propose to say in this debate I want to pose a question to the hon. the Prime Minister; a question that occurs to me as a result of what he has just said. I would ask this: What does he regard as more important for South Africa, that we should have a republic by 31 May 1961, or that we should take steps to safeguard the stability of our country and our economic future by remaining a member of the Commonwealth? I ask that question in all seriousness. That, to my mind, is the very crisp issue involved in the motion presently before this hon. House. I will develop that argument in a few moments, but I think it is important that I should present to this House the attitude of the leaders of the Coloured people of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I should like, at the very outset, to confirm the statement made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that the vast majority of the Coloured people of South Africa are overwhelmingly in favour of their country remaining a member of the Commonwealth. And I use the term “their country” advisedly, because this is their only country. They have no other home; they have no other allegiance but their allegiance to South Africa.

An HON. MEMBER:

What is your allegiance?

Mr. BLOOMBERG:

Do not be personal. I do not know which hon. member made that interjection but I should like to say that I have as much allegiance to South Africa as he has.

The Government proceeded with this referendum on the question of a republic disregarding entirely the wishes of the Coloured people on this very important issue. As a result of this action taken by the Government enforcing the referendum on the Coloured people, and leaving them absolutely voiceless in the matter, they have been deprived of any say in the destiny of their country. But at least, to-day, we are entitled to be heard as the voice of the Coloured people of this country. It is for that reason that I want to avail myself of this very early opportunity of saying, without doubt, that the overwhelming majority of Coloured people of South Africa are desirous of the country remaining a member of the Commonwealth.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

We all want that.

Mr. BLOOMBERG:

I want the Coloured viewpoint to be put quite clearly before this House because I think it may help the hon. the Prime Minister in his deliberations overseas. The Government has, unfortunately, already demonstrated to the Coloured people —and, indeed to all our non-White population amounting to nearly 11,000,000 of our population—that in the Government’s view they have no common stake with the White man of South Africa. The very fact that our non-White population of South Africa was excluded from having any say whatsoever in the referendum to decide upon the republic was a clear indication—if any were needed—to the entire non-White population of this country and, indeed, to the outside world, that the Government had no intention whatsoever of paying any heed to the wishes of the non-Whites.

This unfortunate decision on the part of the Government has indicated to our 11,000,000 non-Whites that in the view of this Government their only function in South Africa is to fulfil our labour requirements. It is a clear indication that the non-Whites are to be kept in a subservient position and are not to have any voice in the proposed …

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! I do not think the hon. member should wander too far afield.

Mr. BLOOMBERG:

No, Mr. Speaker, I am merely advancing reasons as to why this permission should not be granted.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! I do not think the hon. member should go into too much detail.

Mr. BLOOMBERG:

Very well, Sir, I will not go into detail.

Speaking on behalf of the Coloured people of this country, at the time of the referendum we asked the Government not to exclude the Coloureds from having a say in the destiny of their own country. I pointed out on that occasion, and my colleagues did likewise, that this would mean forfeiting our rights to require from the Coloureds national loyalty and national unity. But no heed was paid by the Government to that warning. All moral considerations dealing with the fundamental rights of citizenship of a large section of our population were entirely ignored. We were then told by spokesmen on behalf of the Government, in terms, that the Coloured people, through their representatives, would have the right to debate in this House any republican legislation which was forthcoming as a result of the referendum, although they could take no part in the referendum itself. It is for that reason that to-day, at this early stage, when permission is sought for the introduction of this legislation, we as the mouthpieces of the Coloured community find it necessary to make their position perfectly clear. And I say that their position is that they wish it to be known to this House and to the world at large that they are desirous of this country remaining a member of the Commonwealth. The Coloured community also wishes to make it clear that they want to retain the friendship and the co-operation and the understanding and other links with the Western world.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

We all do.

Mr. BLOOMBERG:

I know we all do, but unfortunately the outside world may not listen to hon. members on the Government side of the House, for reasons which I do not wish to discuss now. But I conscientiously believe that they will pay heed to these 11,000,000 voices, to these people whose only method of announcing their wishes in this House is through the mouthpiece of my colleagues and myself.

Whilst the Government may remain complacent about South Africa’s position in this changing Continent, the Coloured people do realize what lies in wait for them if South Africa is excluded from the Commonwealth; what dangers lie ahead. They realize only too well that the international and the internal repercussions which are likely to take place if we are to be isolated in this unfriendly world are serious indeed. South Africa’s isolation from the rest of the Commonwealth can only lead to economic isolation with most disturbing results for the entire population.

For those reasons we feel that there should be a prerequisite to any legislation dealing with the establishment of a republic. That prerequisite should be an assurance that South Africa will be permitted to remain within the Commonwealth. As the hon. the Prime Minister pointed out, it is impossible for him to give any such assurance at this stage. But I want to say this to the hon. the Prime Minister, and to the Government, that for us to go forward blindly with a republican constitution against the wishes of nearly 50 per cent of the White population of this country and against the wishes of our entire non-White population …

HON. MEMBERS:

How do you know that?

Mr. BLOOMBERG:

Well, why did you not test that issue then? Why did the Government not say that the non-White population could have a say in the referendum?

I say that for us to go forward in this way against the wishes of nearly 50 per cent of our White population and against the wishes of the entire non-White population of this country can only be termed suicidal on the part of the Government. Surely the sensible thing to do in the present circumstances is for us to ensure, beyond doubt, that we can remain within the Commonwealth before proceeding with this irrevocable step of changing our constitution. I consider that the hon. the Prime Minister should proceed to attend the Prime Ministers’ Conference as contemplated. I feel that in London the Prime Minister should explore, personally, and not through the means of his colleagues in the Cabinet, what prospects there are of our remaining within the Commonwealth. He should make every endeavour to obtain a favourable decision in that regard, and in the light of the answers and the information which he personally will glean at that Conference we should proceed to decide whether we will go ahead with this republican constitution or not. Surely we should not take an irrevocable step of this nature without knowing what the future holds for us.

Mr. Speaker, I repeat: What is more important for the hon. the Prime Minister, that we should have the republic before 31 May 1961 or that we should take reasonable steps to ensure the safety and the economic future of our country? To my mind, until our position in the Commonwealth is ensured this republican legislation should be held in abeyance. I ask the hon. the Prime Minister in all seriousness, what urgency is there for pressing the issue at this particular time? We all know that South Africa is short of investment capital; we all know that our country is, unfortunately, under a cloud throughout the world. Trade boycotts have been threatened against us. We are presently involved in a very serious issue before the World Court with regard to South West Africa. Very rapid changes are taking place in this African Continent all of which affect us. [Time limit.]

*The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

While the hon. the Prime Minister was speaking, I really began to feel sorry for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. His customary smile gradually changed into a grimace. I must say that he is really becoming a pathetic figure in the public life of this country. He is no longer providing leadership; he is now leading from behind. He has now allowed the small group of Natal diehards to take him in tow. I am sure that if he had used his common sense and had followed his own wishes, he would never have moved this stupid (onnosele) amendment to-day. But he cannot do otherwise. He is obliged to do so, and to prove this submission we need only refer to the history of this matter.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Transport has used the word “stupid” (onnosel). I should like to know whether it is parliamentary? On a previous occasion I was asked to withdraw the word “dom” when I said that an hon. member was stupid (dom). I should now like to know whether the word “onnosel” is permissible, but not the word “dom”?

*Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

*The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

The hon. member is very fortunate that I was not referring to him when I used the word “stupid”. I was only referring to the amendment. Allow me to return to the reasons which have given rise to this amendment. There was a time during the referendum campaign when, as is his wont, the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) let his tongue run away with him. I remember the evening when he held a meeting in front of the Durban City Hall, and the hon. member for South Coast called out to his people: “If you are called on to march again, will you march again?” They then shouted in their thousands: “We will march again.” But at that stage they never expected to lose the referendum. But after the result of 5 October, the Natal diehards went to the hon. member for South Coast and said: “We want to march again.” The hon. member was left high and dry and he did not know where they should march. The only “march” he could then undertake was to Pretoria to see the Prime Minister. After his return from that visit, they met him at the airport and they asked him: “But when are we going to march again?” and, Mr. Speaker, then he wanted to hear nothing more of “marching”. But I must say I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. member for South Coast. When the difficulties arose after the referendum result, he sought assistance. He sought help and he looked for his leader who should give him guidance in solving the difficulties in Natal which had arisen after he had let his tongue run completely away with him. The great Leader of the United Party, instead of coming to the aid of his lieutenant in Natal, decided to go overseas. “He went on a belly-crawling trip overseas.” He crawled on his stomach to implore that South Africa should please be allowed to remain a member of the Commonwealth. Mr. Speaker, the strange aspect is that, instead of going to Ghana to beg Nkrumah to give us permission to remain a member of the Commonwealth, he went to England and Canada. Now he has returned and by implication he is saying here that we have done nothing to ensure South Africa’s membership of the Commonwealth. He says he has done everything. I say the poor member for South Coast was left in the lurch by his great leader. He had to clear up the mess there and his great leader went overseas to go crawl on his stomach. Of course, as we expect of the Natal diehards, they then adopted the most stupid resolutions. They wanted certain guarantees from the Prime Minister. What the hon. Leader of the Opposition is asking to-day is exactly what the hon. member for South Coast and the Natal Provincial Council have asked, namely for certain guarantees. What are the guarantees they want? How can those guarantees be given? How can they be embodied in the Constitution? After all, he is supposed to be a lawyer, but he is now asking for entrenched provisions in the Constitution which he knows in his own heart are quite impossible, merely to save the skin of the hon. member for South Coast.

*HON. MEMBERS:

But you also have an entrenched provision, the language rights.

*The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

The hon. member for South Coast has let his tongue run away with him and now the Leader of the Opposition is following from behind and leading from behind in order to save the position. How can we take any notice of this amendment? As the Prime Minister has said, prior to the referendum they prophesied that we would not remain a member of the Commonwealth if we became a republic. Now they pretend that they want us to remain a member of the Commonwealth. They are merely paying lip service. They believe that if we are not a member of the Commonwealth, they can fish in troubled waters and they will then stand a much better chance of returning to power. Their behaviour to-day will have the effect of hindering South Africa’s application for membership. The whole debate and all their speeches are aimed at hindering South Africa’s application for membership and it seems that they will be very pleased if that application is refused, because they consider that they will be able to make a great deal of political capital out of such a refusal. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member claims that no one has said that, even if membership is refused, we shall still establish a republic; but every one of us has said so. Every one of us has repeatedly stated that if we are given the mandate and membership is refused, South Africa will nevertheless become a republic, and we repeat it again to-day. That is what will happen too. I do not for one moment expect that membership will be refused, but if it is refused, South Africa will become a republic on 31 May. If the hon. member wants sound advice, I want to tell him that his behaviour at the second reading should be quite different to his behaviour during this debate if he is in earnest in wishing South Africa to remain a member of the Commonwealth. That is the only possible way in which he can give the Government any assistance in respect of this matter. This trip overseas which he made was of no importance because no one took any notice of him. Let him now try to adopt new methods to assist the Government in retaining our membership.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Mr. Speaker, the difference between us and the Government was made quite clear by the speech of the hon. the Minister of Transport. While the hon. the Minister was playing at politics, we are concerned about the future of South Africa. All the Ministers have now suddenly told us that during the referendum campaign they made it quite clear that, if South Africa could not remain in the Commonwealth, they would continue with the establishment of a republic. Mr. Speaker, those of us who read the newspapers only found one passing reference to that matter in all the newspapers and that was in the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister at Lichtenburg. Sir, every citizen of the country received a personal letter as a “dear friend” from the Prime Minister. In that letter the Prime Minister addressed every citizen of the country personally. There was no suggestion of such an attitude in this letter. If this point is so important, if it is of such significance, why did the Prime Minister not say so in his personal communication to every citizen of the country? I received six copies of this letter and the only reference in the letter to this question which we are now discussing was this phrase—“a democratic republic within the Commonwealth …”.

On the conclusion of the period of one hour allotted for the debate on the motion for leave to introduce the Bill, the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 161.

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

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—91: Badenhorst, F. H.; Basson, J. D. du P; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I., Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Pisanie, J.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; du Plessis, P. W.; Erasmus, F. C.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fourie, I. S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Riche, R.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Martins, H. E.; Mentz, F. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rust, H. A.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scholtz, D. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Strydom, G. H. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. von S. von Moltke.

NOES—52: Basson, J. A. L.; Bloomberg, A.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Butcher, R. R.; Connan, J. M.; Cope, J. P.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Beer, Z. J.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Eglin, C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Frielinghaus, H. O.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Horak, J. L.; Lawrence, H. G.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Lewis, J.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Shearer, O. L.; Smit, D. L.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Steytler, J. van A.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Swart, R. A. F.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Williams, T. O.

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

Questioned affirmed and the amendments dropped.

Original motion accordingly agreed to.

The PRIME MINISTER thereupon brought up the Constitution Bill and moved—

That the Bill be now read a first time.
Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

I second.

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—91: Badenhorst, F. H.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I., Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Pisanie, J.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; du Plessis, P. W.; Erasmus, F. C.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fourie, I. S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Riche, R.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Martins, H. E.; Mentz, F. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rust, H. A.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J.C.B.; Scholtz, D. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Strydom, G. H. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. von S. von Moltke.

NOES—52: Basson, J. A. L.; Bloomberg, A.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Butcher, R. R.; Connan, J. M.; Cope, J. P.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Beer, Z. J.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Eglin, C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Frielinghaus, H. O.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Horak, J. L.; Lawrence, H. G.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Lewis, J.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Shearer, O. L.; Smit, D. L.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Steytler, J. van A.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Swart, R. A. F.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Williams, T. O.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Bill to be read a second time on 30 January.

FIRST READING OF BILLS

The following Bills were read a first time:

Part Appropriation Bill.

Unemployment Insurance Amendment Bill.

Workmen’s Compensation Amendment Bill.

SELECT COMMITTEES

The following Select Committees were appointed:

Select Committee on Internal Arrangements.

Select Committee on State-owned Land.

Select Committee on Public Accounts.

Select Committee on Railways and Harbours.

Select Committee on Library of Parliament.

Select Committee on Pensions.

Select Committee on Irrigation Matters.

DEPUTY-SPEAKER AND CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: APPOINTMENT Mr. SCHOLTZ:

I move—

That Dr. Avril Ire Malan be appointed Deputy-Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole House.
Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

I second.

Agreed to.

The House adjourned at 3.59 p.m.

TUESDAY, 24 JANUARY 1961

Mr. SPEAKER took the Chair at 2.20 p.m.

QUESTIONS

For oral reply:

Persons to Accompany the Prime Minister to London Conference *I. Mr. HIGGERTY

asked the Prime Minister:

Whether he intends to attend the forthcoming Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in London; and, if so, which (a) members of the Cabinet, (b) State officials and (c) other persons will accompany him.

The PRIME MINISTER:

Yes.

  1. (a) The Minister of External Affairs.
  2. (b) The Secretary for External Affairs; one senior officer of the Department of External Affairs; two Private Secretaries; two Shorthand Typists; and one Security Officer.
  3. (c) Mrs. H. F. Verwoerd.
*II. Dr. D. L. SMIT

—Reply standing over.

Union Representation in the European Economic Community *III. Mr. PLEWMAN

asked the Minister of External Affairs:

  1. (a) Under what statutory provision, treaty obligation or other authority was the Union’s Ambassador in Brussels accredited as the representative of the Union of South Africa to the European Economic Community;
  2. (b) what are his functions in that regard; and
  3. (c) to which Union Department of State is he responsible in the discharge of such functions.
The PRIME MINISTER:
  1. (a) The Ambassador is accredited in terms of a Cabinet decision. The Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, makes provision for the acreditation of representatives of countries which are not members of the Community.
  2. (b) To obtain and transmit information of interest and value to the Union in its trade with countries members of the Community.
  3. (c) To the Department of External Affairs.
No Union Representation in the European Free Trade Association *IV. Mr. PLEWMAN

asked the Minister of External Affairs:

Whether a representative of the Union of South Africa is to be accredited to the European Free Trade Association; if so,

  1. (a) when and
  2. (b) in what centre; and, if not, why not.
The PRIME MINISTER:

The European Free Trade Association has no substantial central organization to which representatives of countries which are not members could be accredited, (a) and (b) therefore fall away.

No Complete Nationalization of Reserve Bank *V. Mr. WATERSON

asked the Minister of Finance:

  1. (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to a recent report of a statement by the chairman of a commercial bank advocating the complete nationalization of the South African Reserve Bank; and
  2. (2) whether it is the intention of the Government to accept this proposal.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE:
  1. (1) Yes.
  2. (2) No change in the control of the South African Reserve Bank is being considered.
Loans Maturing during the Current Financial Year *VI. Mr. WATERSON

asked the Minister of Finance:

What is the total amount of maturing loans to be refinanced during the financial year ending on 31 March 1961.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

£25,077,000.

Work Reservation Applicable to Coloured Persons *VII. Mr. S. J. M. STEYN

asked the Minister of Labour:

  1. (1) Whether the job reservation provisions of Section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act have been applied to Cape Coloured workers; if so, in what respects; and
  2. (2) whether there has been any modification in the application of these provisions since the last session of Parliament; if so, in what respect.
The MINISTER OF LABOUR:
  1. (1) Yes. The hon. member is referred to the terms of the relevant work reservation determinations as published in the Government Gazette. These determinations are—
    1. (a) Determination No. 3, published under Government Notice No. 1066 in the Gazette of 25 July 1958, in connection with the manufacture of window or door metal surrounds, “Cliscoe” windows and “Airlite” louvres in the Iron, Steel, Engineering and Metallurgical Industries;
    2. (b) Determination No. 4, published under Government Notice No. 1659 in the Gazette of 7 November 1958, in respect of traffic police, ambulance drivers/attendants and firemen in the employ of the Cape Town City Council;
    3. (c) Determination No. 7, published under Government Notice No. 1771 in the Gazette of 30 October 1959, in connection with the manufacture, etc., of refrigerators, electric stoves, electric geysers, etc., in the Iron, Steel, Engineering and Metallurgical Industries;
    4. (d) Determination No. 8 relating to the Clothing Industry and published under Government Notice No. 651 in the Gazette of 6 May 1960.
  2. (2) No, except that the operation of Determinations Nos. 3 and 7 has, for reasons explained by me in a Press statement published on 10 December last, been suspended for the duration of the new wage agreement recently negotiated by the parties to the National Industrial Council for the Iron, Steel, Engineering and Metallurgical Industries.
Wage Increases in Post Office *VIII. Mrs. S. M. VAN NIEKERK

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

  1. (1) Whether any increases in the scales of salaries and wages paid in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs are contemplated; and, if not,
  2. (2) whether such increases will be considered; if not, why not.
The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:
  1. (1) The scales of salaries and wages paid in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs are determined by the Public Service Commission. As far as is known, no general increases are contemplated at this stage; and
  2. (2) yes, as and when justified.
Union Message of Congratulation to Nigeria and the inauguration of the Republic of South Africa *IX. Mr. H. G. LAWRENCE

asked the Prime Minister:

  1. (1) Whether the Union was invited to send representatives to the Nigerian independence celebrations held last year; if so, why was the Union not represented at these celebrations; and
  2. (2) whether he intends to invite representatives of African states and territories to the ceremonies inaugurating the Republic of South Africa; if so, which states and territories.
The PRIME MINISTER:
  1. (1) Yes. On 23 September 1960, I issued a statement to the Press explaining why the Union would not be represented at the Nigerian independence celebrations. The statement read:
    • “The Union Government has decided to congratulate the Government of the Federation of Nigeria on the celebration of the independence of Nigeria by telegram. It has been explained to the Government of the Federation of Nigeria that, as has been announced, the referendum which will determine whether the Union will be a Republic or not will take place on 5 October 1960, and members of the Government will be fully occupied in connection with it. In the circumstances it will not be possible for a Cabinet Minister to attend the celebration personally as would otherwise have been the case. Another form of representation on this occasion would not be suitable. The message of congratulation and good wishes will be sent on behalf of the Government by the Prime Minister to the Government of the Federation of Nigeria.”
  2. (2) No invitations will be sent to states in connection with the ceremonies on 31 May 1961, and no decisions on details concerning the festivities of 1962 have as yet been taken.
Union’s Attitude to Scientific Council for Africa *X. Mr. LAWRENCE

asked the Prime Minister:

  1. (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to statements made by the Minister of External Affairs in August 1960, in a message to the Scientific Council for Africa South of the Sahara when meeting in Cape Town (a) that the Union might be forced by the political actions of some African states to withdraw from membership of the Commission for Technical Co-operation in Africa and (b) that the Government might not allow representatives of statutory bodies or of organizations or bodies financially aided by the Government, to attend meetings of the Council and Commission for Technical Co-operation in Africa in those African states or territories which disapproved of South Africa’s domestic policies; and if so,
  2. (2) whether these statements represent approved Cabinet policy.
The PRIME MINISTER:

(1) and (2) The hon. member’s question appears to be based on incomplete and possibly distorted Press reports.

If the hon. member wishes to have a copy of the full message of the hon. Minister of External Affairs it is suggested that he obtains it from his Department.
Railways: Request for Commission of Inquiry into Artisans’ Waes *XI. Mr. LAWRENCE

asked the Minister of Transport:

  1. (1) Whether the Railways and Harbours Artisan Staff Association last year made representations to him in connection with their conditions of employment; if so, what was (a) the nature and (b) the result of these representations; if not,
  2. (2) whether he intends to appoint a commission to inquire into the matter; and
  3. (3) whether any request has been made to him in this regard; if so, what was the nature of the request.
The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:
  1. (1) Yes;
    1. (a) that the wages of artisans and operatives be increased by 9d. per hour, with a reduction of £57 per annum in the cost-of-living allowance, and that a working week of 44 hours, without loss of emoluments, be guaranteed.
    2. (b) The request could not be acceded to.
  2. (2) No; the appointment of a commission is the prerogative of the Governor-General.
  3. (3) Yes; a petition was submitted in terms of Section 28 (3) of the Railways and Harbours Service Act, 1960 (Act No. 22 of 1960) requesting the appointment of a commission.
*XII. Mr. COPE

—Reply standing over.

*XIII. Mr. VAN RYNEVELD

—Reply standing over.

For written reply:

Regular Foot Patrol by Police and Decrease in Crime I. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Justice:

  1. (1) What is the practice of his Department in regard to the use of policemen on regular foot patrol in the municipal area of Johannesburg in respect of (a) numbers used, (b) carrying of arms and (c) use of arms; and
  2. (2) whether there has been a decrease in crime as the result of such practice; if so, to what extent.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:
  1. (1) It is the policy and practice of the Department to make available as many members of the force as possible for foot patrol duties in the municipal area of Johannesburg.
    1. (a) Over the period 1 January 1960 to 31 December 1960 an average of 60 European and 273 non-European members of the force were so employed on eight-hourly shifts.
    2. (b) Europeans are armed with service revolvers and batons and non-European with batons and bayonets.
    3. (c) The use of firearms and other weapons is governed by the Common Law Principles of necessity and self-defence, the provisions of Section 37 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act and the relative South African Police Standing Orders.
  2. (2) Yes; but it is not possible to determine exactly to what extent.
International Report on Rule of Law in South Africa II. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Justice:

  1. (1) Whether the report of the International Commission of Jurists on the rule of law in South Africa has been brought to his attention; and
  2. (2) whether the Government intends to (a) reply to any of the criticisms raised and (b) take steps to meet any of the criticism; if so, what steps.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:
  1. (1) Yes, also a Newsletter of the Commission. Their report is at present being examined by my Department.
  2. (2) Falls away.
*III. Mr. E. G. MALAN

—Reply standing over.

Immigrtaion to and Emigration from the Union IV. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of the Interior:

How many persons (a) immigrated to and (b) emigrated from the Union (i) during the period January to August 1960 and (ii) during subsequent months for which preliminary or official figures are available.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:
  1. (a) During the period January to August 1960 and the months September and October 1960 respectively, 5,660, 981 and 924 persons immigrated to the Union; whilst
  2. (b) during the corresponding period and months, respectively, 8,008, 1,255 and 1,042 persons emigrated from the Union.
FIRST READING OF BILLS

The following Bills were read a first time:

South African Reserve Bank Amendment Bill.

Banking Amendment Bill.

Diplomatic Mission in United Kingdom Service Bill.

Perishable Agricultural Products Sales Bill.

Defence Amendment Bill.

NO-CONFIDENCE Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I move—

That this House is of the opinion that the policies of this Government have failed—
  1. (a) to promote the racial harmony, the internal peace and the degree of prosperity needed to solve the problems of our nation; and
  2. (b) to maintain South Africa’s good name overseas;
and therefore requests the Government to resign forthwith.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first major debate since the hon. the Prime Minister has been back in this House after his regrettable accident last year, and I should like to offer him our sincere congratulations, from this side of the House, on his escape and on his very complete recovery. Secondly, since notice of this motion was originally given, there has been placed upon the Order Paper the details of a Bill which is to change South Africa’s constitutional position into a republic. That means that the republican issue and the allied issue of Commonwealth membership cannot be mentioned in this debate, and quite rightly so, Mr. Speaker. But that republic will probably solve none of our problems, and this motion has been designed to draw attention to certain of the more pressing of our South African problems at the present time.

Hon. members opposite, fresh from the somewhat minor triumph in the referendum, smile at the situation, but I wonder whether they have considered the background against which this motion is being introduced at the present time. It is being introduced at a time when South Africa is more isolated than any nation in the world has ever been before. It is being introduced at a time when there has been seething unrest amongst large sections of the population in the past year which has resulted in a state of emergency being declared on two occasions—on one occasion for roughly half the magisterial districts of the Union of South Africa; it is being introduced, Sir, at a time when Government policies are having a restrictive effect upon our development, upon our prosperity and upon our industrial expansion, and that is evidenced by the findings in many statements and reports of authoritative bodies in commerce and industry. Fourthly, while there is the possibility that this change in our Constitution may lead to us losing our membership of the one reliable international organization that does exist to-day and of which we are a member, there is as yet no sign whatever that this change will in any way improve the relationship between Europeans and non-Europeans in South Africa.

Sir, let us look at the international situation in which South Africa finds itself at the present time. We find that after 12 years of rule by this Government, South Africa has lost the proud place amongst the nations of the world which it enjoyed when this Government took over 12 years ago, and last year so much happened that we enter this year, possibly one of the most fateful years in our history, a little punch-drunk as the result of the effects of certain events in South Africa.

Mr. B. COETZEE:

You certainly look somewhat punch-drunk, a punch-drunk fighter.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I thought that that would come from the non-fighters on the other side, Sir. It is always the gentlemen who sit in the cheap seats who speak about punch-drunk fighters. What has happened? We have had riots in Cato Manor, Sharpeville, at Langa, difficulties in Nyanga, and they led to accounts in print of what had happened in South Africa amongst every little country virtually in the world to-day, and the world caught up as it is in an ideological war between East and West, passed judgement on the apparent failure of the race policies of South Africa, passed judgement upon police action in suppressing the rioting at Sharpeville, on their subsequent action to restore law and order, on the manner in which the Government administered its emergency regulations, and we found that South Africa was condemned unequivocally by a very large section of the nations of the world. The United States of America took the lead in a sharp statement from the State Department. This is what they said—

The United States deplores violence in all its forms and hopes that the African people of South Africa will be able to obtain redress for legitimate grievances by peaceful means.

They went further—

While the United States, as a matter of practice, does not ordinarily comment upon the internal affairs of governments with which it enjoys normal relations, it cannot help but regret the tragic loss of life resulting from the measures taken against the demonstrators in South Africa.
Mr. VON MOLTKE:

What about their own Southern States?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

The United States of America is one of our friends. But there was also a joint resolution in the House of Commons in Great Britain deploring South Africa’s race policies. Mr. Cuthbert Alport, Minister for Commonwealth Relations, a man with a very deep understanding of the situation in South Africa and Africa, said in the course of that debate—

No one who has lived or worked in Africa or shared the hopes and expectations of seeing there the spread of order, tolerance and freedom, can fail to be heartbroken by the events which had occurred there during these last weeks.

Thirdly, you had a resolution by the Security Council, quite possibly in breach of Article 2 (7) of the Charter of the United Nations, deploring South Africa’s race policies and blaming the policies followed by the Government for those riots. Their General Secretary, Mr. Hammarskjoeld, was instructed to go to South Africa to discuss these race policies with the Union Government. Now, Sir, the hon. gentleman’s mission to South Africa got a very different reception from his mission to Budapest. He was welcomed by the Minister of External Affairs, and the Opposition indicated its agreement that it was right that we should invite him to come here and let him see for himself. Well, Sir, Mr. Hammerskjoeld has come and has gone, and the outcome of his visit is not yet known, save for a statement this morning which would seem to indicate that he believes that it has not finally failed. Sir, I attach very little value to a fleeting visit of that kind in so far as it has to do with fact findings. I have no doubt that it was of value in respect of his discussions with the hon. the Prime Minister. It seems to me the only impression of significance with which the hon. gentleman could have been left with was whether the Union Government had anything to hide or not, and I must express the hope that the Government created no such impression upon Mr. Hammarskjoeld.

Those are three worrying aspects of our international position. [Interjections.] But there is one further aspect indicating our isolation internationally, and that is a situation that has developed in respect of South Africa as the mandatory power administering the territory of South West Africa. In respect of comments on our own affairs by the United Nations Organization, or members of that organization, we could take the line with a sense of justice, feeling that we had law behind us, that we could rely upon Article 2 (7) and contend that people had no right to interfere. But in respect of South West Africa there is the judgement of the International Court which has made it clear that it is still in a peculiar international position, that it has a peculiar international status, and that we have certain international responsibilities in carrying out that mandate because it is not a sovereign independent state. And, Sir, the countries most critical of South Africa have seized on that position to try and exploit it and use it as a club with which to beat South Africa. They have no right to interfere in our internal affairs because we are a sovereign independent state, but they are doing their level best to interfere in South West Africa. [Interjections.] I can understand the hon. member interjecting over there, because I think the members representing South West Africa realize what may happen. Their success cannot be denied. Look what happened at the United Nations in respect of the voting in the Fourth Committee on a motion for the postponement of the discussion of whether South West Africa should be put under a trusteeship agreement or not. For the first time in our history, South Africa stood utterly alone amongst nearly 100 nations represented on that committee.

Mr. B. COETZEE:

Did you agree with the 100 nations?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

What happened? The position is even more alarming when you realize under what circumstances that motion was introduced. Liberia and Ethiopia preferred a case against South Africa in respect of our administration of the mandate before the International Court of Justice and on that count the Union took up the view that the matter was sub judice and should not be considered by the Fourth Committee of the United Nations. Nevertheless, that contention was rejected by 67 votes to one, with 11 abstentions. And, Mr. Speaker, the best the old friends of ours could do, people like the United States of America, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, was to join China and Spain in abstaining. That is why I say that South Africa is more bleakly isolated in the world to-day than has ever been the case in respect of any modern nation in so far as I know. I wonder if hon. gentlemen opposite know what the position will be if the case preferred by Ethiopia and Liberia before the International Court in respect of South West Africa is successful. I wonder if they realize what may happen if that court holds that we are not administering South West Africa in accordance with the terms of our mandate. [Interjections.] I hear these hon. noisy gentlemen interjecting, but do they realize that if there is a judgement under the International Court, to whose jurisdiction we apparently are submitting, then under Clause 94 of the Charter of the United Nations, the Security Council becomes the sheriff of the court and they are charged with the duty of carrying out the judgement. These are the gentlemen opposite who during the last war did not want us to go and assist South Africans in South West Africa. They were going to leave that quite happily alone. They did not want to know about fighting then! What are they going to do if the Security Council seeks to enforce a judgement of the International Court in respect of this mandate?

Mr. G. F. H. BEKKER:

What are you going to do?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

What is their position going to be, Mr. Speaker, if there is no veto at the Security Council? Do they realize what steps might be taken? We all of us know many of the weaknesses of the United Nations Organization, but we also that, despite the stresses and the strains and despite the many weaknesses, there have been occasions when that organization acted very drastically indeed, especially when it was assured of support in the General Assembly. I want to remind hon. members opposite that last year when the Minister of External Affairs was going to the United Nations Organization, he made a statement of his intentions and stated that he had been consulting with Mr. Niehaus, Leader of the Opposition Party in South West Africa. I suggested publicly that he should consult with the official Opposition in South Africa so that we should try and hammer out a common approach. What happened, Sir? Within 24 hours the hon. Minister virtually pooh-poohed the idea in an interview with the Burger. He said that he had done enough consulting and that he consulted with the people who were most interested, particularly Mr. Niehaus in South West Africa. Ten days later, Sir, before the Nationalist Congress, he suddenly came with the story that he paid no attention to my offer because I had not written officially to the Prime Minister. Well, now, Mr. Speaker, if he wants it that way, if the Government want it that way, they can have it that way. But they must carry the responsibility for what has happened and what is going to happen, and they must carry the responsibility if this judgement goes against us and the Security Council starts talking about sanctions, and they must carry the responsibility if the Security Council starts trying to force a trusteeship agreement upon the Union of South Africa, and they must carry the responsibility if they find, Mr. Speaker, after their behaviour …

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Why prejudge?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I say that they will have to carry the responsibility if African nationalism suddenly leapfrogs over the Portuguese territories and you find it on your doorsteps in South West Africa.

That is the background against which this motion is being introduced, and I say this: The reasons for the isolation in which we find ourselves to-day are not simple, are not clear-cut. World opinion against us had been formed by good and bad influences and our race policies which are the cause of world antagonism are regarded as not only being out of step with the world but as being entirely unreasonable, reckless and stupid, even by our friends. And in the world, as we know it to-day, where our very existence is threatened by this new policy of self-determination at all costs, South Africa’s position would have been difficult anyway, would have been difficult in any circumstances. I am the first to admit that. But the attitude of this Government and its policies have doubled the difficulties which we have had to face. Because this is a world where co-operation and co-existence are essential if we are to survive. But the manner in which this Government is administering its race policies is regarded as completely unjustifiable, even by our friends, and it is no good hon. members opposite trying to blame the predicament in which we find ourselves upon wrong Press reports and distorted reports. I know just how distorted some of those reports are. I have seen a great many of them.

An HON. MEMBER:

What did vou do about it?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I even found myself defending this Government, but I also found that there were many well-informed kindly disposed people, kindly disposed towards South Africa who knew what the facts were and who could put their finger on the sore spots in our domestic life and make it most uncomfortable. We have to accept that those critics have no right to interfere at all in our domestic affairs, and they have no right to interfere upon the presumption that we have no moral, no historical and no commonsense reasons for the actions which we take in the interests of maintaining civilized standards in South Africa. But my charge against this Government is of a different kind. The gravamen of my charge is that they have been inept, they have been neglectful, they have been downright neglectful in defending South Africa’s good name overseas and giving our friends a chance to defend us. Secondly, by their action, and especially by their inaction, they have destroyed the entire moral content of the policy of apartheid which they are trying to apply in South Africa. Let me give some examples of what I mean. Last year there were disturbances, there were shootings, there were killings at Langa and at Sharpeville. At the request of the Opposition judicial commissions were appointed to investigate those shootings. Quite rightly. One report was in the hands of the Government in July last year, one in September. Now these reports, Sir, were available yesterday for the first time and it was not possible to study them thoroughly as yet. They may well exonerate the police completely or they may not do so. I can’t judge at the moment. But even if they do not exonerate the police completely, then what a fine impression would it make in the world if we could say: Our Government has got the courage to say that mistakes have been made; here is the result of the judicial commissions, here are the facts. And if they did exonerate them completely, then why did we go on being besmirched before the world when there are facts which would place us in a better position? What has happened? While the hon. the Minister was delaying, was sitting on the reports, Bishop Reeves got in. He has written a book on Sharpeville. He has got in first with his story of what has happened. The Government has banned the book, but it is in this library. Hon. members should read that book.

And it is not banned overseas. And if hon. members will read that book they will gain a very shrewd idea of what impression it has been making overseas. But there is no reply from us at all. That book gets immediate publicity because of what has happened to the Bishop, but here in South Africa our good name is besmirched while that hon. Minister is sitting on the two reports and not publishing them. Is that the way to defend South Africa’s good name overseas? Would it not have been of enormous value overseas if last July it had been made known that, apparently, the Judge inquiring into the Langa riots had thought that the police were justified in firing? Would it not have been of enormous use if last year it had been known that the Judge inquiring into the position at Sharpeville discounted any possibilities of the use of dumdum bullets? Would it not have been of enormous use to anyone defending South Africa overseas if they could have told of certain of the events prior to the Sharpeville shooting, events which are recorded in that report? But no; this Government, by its ineptness, by its neglect of what its plain duty should be to South Africa has sat on the reports, has allowed our name to be besmirched; has allowed people to spread propaganda about us overseas. And what have they done about it? Even the Government organ, the Burger had something to say about it this morning. Here it what they say—

Net jammer dat dit uiteraard moet kom nadat soveel skade deur propaganda klaar gedaan is, en in hierdie geval boonop darem besonder lank ná die gebeurtenis. Hierdie verslae kon groter doeltreffendheid en nut gehad het, veral in die buiteland, as hulle vroeër al beskikbaar gestel kon geword het.

There you have it. Even their organ cannot defend them. They voice exactly the same critcism that I have voiced here this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, let me give you another example of the neglect of this Government to care for South Africa’s good name overseas. Last year when we had these riots others felt, and I felt, that they were symptoms of a situation which was widespread through the country. And because of that we asked the Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry; a Commission of Inquiry into the surrounding circumstances, with broad based terms of reference, to give a true picture of the situation in South Africa.

An HON. MEMBER:

Why?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Because we want to know what is wrong before we can remedy it. We are not like that hon. gentleman who just takes a chance. He just browns the covey; he does not know what is wrong. He just sits there and makes interjections. He has not the faintest idea what was wrong last year, and the overwhelming majority of hon. members sitting on the Government benches each have their own opinions. Nobody has ever told them the facts.

The Government refused to give ear to our suggestion, but by the very concessions which they themselves made, by the very comments that were made by responsible representatives of commerce and industry and other organizations controlling over 1,000,000 Native labourers in South Africa, it is quite clear that a difficult situation had arisen. The concessions that the Government made are themselves a tacit admission that a difficult situation had arisen. This was strikingly borne out by the speech of the hon. the Minister of Lands at Humansdorp. But what has happened?

The hon. the Prime Minister’s attitude was that commerce and industry were well-meaning but, of course, they did not have the knowledge of the facts which would enable them to give a judgement. Even yesterday we had another example of that when the Federale Raad of the Nationalist Party published a statement indicating that the Government had all the answers about everything and that the advice of outside groups is redundant. The Government has all the answers!

Let me now come back to Sharpeville and the allied events. Nobody yet knows what the true situation was in South Africa last year. We have never been taken into the confidence of the Cabinet or the confidence of the Prime Minister. Everyone will give his own explanation, and in the resultant confusion South Africa’s good name suffers. There is a third example at the same time. At the time of the riots last year many thousands of people were detained. The hon. the Minister of Justice told us that charges would be laid against all those against whom the evidence was found to be satisfactory.

An HON. MEMBER:

What is wrong with that?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

He did that in answer to a question raised in this hon. House. But what happened? Many thousands were detained, some of them for weeks and for months. Only an infinitesimal portion of them were charged. Is the world wrong when it assumes that a very large percentage of those people who were arrested were arrested without any proper evidence whatever? If the Government had the evidence why did it not charge them? [Interjections.]

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order!

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

You see, Sir, those hon. gentlemen over there are getting so used to dictatorship that this is quite a normal thing for them. That is the way they believe a Government should be run.

What reply are we to give overseas when that charge is made against us again? Is the answer to be silence once again? Is there to be no reply with which to defend South Africa’s good name; is another black mark to be marked against us in international affairs?

Here is a fourth illustration. Look what is happening at the present time; there have been difficulties in Pondoland. No one will deny that they exist. There are various views as to what is happening, as to what the cause of the trouble is—but my seconder will deal with that is due course. But in the absence of an authoritative statement, with the imposition of a cloak of secrecy, the willingness of the Government to take us into their confidence, the world Press has been left speculating. What did I read in a newspaper overseas? I read that the South African Navy was patrolling the Pondoland coast. That may or may not be true, but imagine what conclusions the world starts drawing when that is what it reads in the Press and there is no authoritative statement from this Government as to what the position in Pondoland is at the present time.

Mr. B. COETZEE:

[Inaudible.]

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

If the Government has a good case why do they not make that case? Why leave it to the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) who would make a mess of it even if they had a good case? Why do they not come out with that case and let us know what is happening?

I think I have said quite enough to show … [Interjections.]

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order!

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

… quite enough, as is indicated by these hon. gentlemen’s irritation—quite enough to show that this Government has been neglectful, that it has been inept and that it has failed to maintain and protect South Africa’s good name overseas. But I go further: I say that the action and the inaction of this Government has been such that it is making nonsense of the moral content of the apartheid policy which they apply. I have said many times that if apartheid was applied fairly, was applied justly and applied completely then its moral content was unassailable.

HON. MEMBERS:

When?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I have said that here in this House on many occasions. I have said it overseas to defend those hon. gentlemen who could not defend themselves. But what has been happening under this Government? In practice we know that complete separation is impossible; that too little has been done to justify the belief that the South African Government is really serious about separate development. As a result the negative aspects of separation, the dos and the don’ts of the daily life of the Bantu have shown up like a boil on the end of a nose. The result is that despite a quite commendable record in respect of the advance of our Native peoples in South Africa, quite a commendable record in respect of Native housing, in respect of school attendance, health services and the like —a position in which we are far in advance of the Bantu in other territories in Africa, and that advance has been maintained over the last ten years—despite that, what has happened? We are rightly angered when other states whose records are not as good as ours criticize us. But our trouble is that under this hon. Prime Minister we have dogmatic adherence to a system, to an obstinate intransigent policy; a policy of granite which is being applied to men of flesh and blood.

The whole world knows the facts just as well as we do. The one glaring fact is that we shall never, never, never put every Native back into the reserves. To-day they say it is no longer their policy. The position is that in our five biggest urban centres the Native populations, as indicated by the last census, are growing roughly twice as fast as the European populations. After 12 years of “eiesoortige ontwikkeling” that is the position. And for that reason we can never justify a policy of applying more restrictions to these people in the only areas they know, and not giving them representation in the Central Government of our country.

We still have friends in the world. I was amazed and delighted when I was overseas to find how many we have. But the fact is that in the face of the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister, the policy of granite, they can do little more than express their sympathy and understanding in the corridors and the lounges of the United Nations Organization. But they are very careful not to commit themselves by voting for us when it matters most. That is the situation in which we have landed.

I go further. That policy has failed, and it has failed also in other respects. It has failed because this Government not only has failed to maintain our good name overseas but its policies have failed to promote racial harmony in the Union of South Africa. When I speak of racial harmony I can speak of racial harmony between White and White. I do not think I shall do that this afternoon. I think I should confine myself to the question of racial harmony between European and non-European. But I would say this, that if the hon. the Prime Minister really wanted racial harmony between European and European then he might have remonstrated with the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs when he was temporarily allowed off the leash after the referendum. Does he believe that statements of the kind made by that hon. gentleman are going to produce racial harmony in South Africa? And he must remember that there is such a thing as joint Cabinet responsibility for certain of the things that that hon. gentleman has been saying. But let us leave it at that. Let us go on to the question of racial harmony between European and non-European.

I need hardly remind you, Mr. Speaker, that there has not been harmony in the past year, when we have twice had to have a state of emergency; once for a period of approximately five months. From that it is quite clear that harmony has been sadly lacking. Nor do I believe that harmony will ever be re-established under the policy of this hon. Prime Minister. Are we ever going to have harmony with the Asiatic population when the official policy of the governing party is still repatriation? And in the meantime they are applying the Group Areas Act to them in such a way that they are destroying their means of livelihood in many areas, so that virtually every single Church in South Africa has protested about the way it has been applied. Does that bode well for future racial harmony in South Africa?

What is the position in respect of the Cape Coloured community? I know that the hon. the Deputy Minister for Internal Affairs, who has the Department of Coloured Affairs under his control, is continually making claims that the relationship between Europeans and Coloureds has improved as a result of the policy of his party. I can only say that it seems to me that he can only be in contact with a small portion of the Coloured people who have decided to co-operate with the Government because they have no alternative whatsoever. But even he must be aware of the unhappiness and the bitterness engendered amongst the Cape Coloured people as a result of applying to them, amongst other apartheid measures, job reservation and the Group Areas Act. He must know what a legacy he is building up for the future. And this is what they are doing to a people who have stood by the Europeans throughout all the difficult times we have had in the history of South Africa. What I find so strange is that no hope is held out to this section of the community, a section which has always been so closely allied to the European population. The hon. the Prime Minister has finally turned his face against their being represented by their own people in Parliament, even on a separate roll. He sees no future expansion of their political rights. He uses words and phrases which lead one to believe that at the back of his mind there is a policy of “Colouredstans” in areas as yet undefined and even more nebulous than the Bantustans for which the Native people have been waiting for so long. The Coloured people were not consulted over the republic; they are apparently not going to be consulted over our future membership of the Commonwealth. Does he really expect their loyalty and support in the future as he has had it in the past? Does he expect it after actions of that kind? From people who have stood by us in all the Kaffir Wars, in two world wars, in all the difficulties we had last year? And then they speak about harmony between Europeans and non-Europeans in South Africa!

This racial disharmony has manifested itself also, in the disruption of the internal peace in South Africa; in a disruption of the internal peace and good order over the last year. It is very difficult to estimate to what extent different factors have played a part. In the absence of a proper judicial inquiry which only the Government can undertake, no one can state exactly what caused that disruption of internal peace. But I feel I am entitled to say that there is not the slightest doubt that Government policies played their part in causing that disruption of internal peace last year.

An HON. MEMBER:

That is not so.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

There you have an hon. gentleman sitting back and saying it is not so. Why does he not go to the Prime Minister and tell him to appoint a Commission of Inquiry and let him have the truth so that when next he gets up to make a speech he will know that he is speaking to the facts and not just guessing. Because that is all that he is doing, he is just guessing.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

What are you doing?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I am going to show that Government policies have contributed to this state of affairs. And I should like to have a Commission of Inquiry. I challenge the hon. the Minister again. Let him appoint a Commission of Inquiry and I will support it at once.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

What is the necessity if you know all the answers?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

The hon. gentleman says that I know all the answers— I wish I did …

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

No, I said “What is the necessity if you know all the answers?”

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I do know this, that the Government policies are responsible for part of these disturbances. And if the hon. the Minister was so sure that Government policies were not the cause of the trouble he would be only too pleased to appoint a Commission of Inquiry. It is because he knows what the results will be that he is so careful.

Mr. MITCHELL:

He is scared.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

No one can say where riots stop and the disruption of internal peace begins, but everyone will agree that there was disruption of internal peace last year in the emergency. Cato Manor may have been just an incident, but what is happening in Pondoland to-day shows a clear breakdown of the ordinary forces of law and order, as instanced by the exceptional measures which the Government has had to take. And now, in addition, there are signs of trouble in the rest of the Transkei and in parts of Zululand.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

Did you write out that speech last year?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

The hon. gentleman asks whether I wrote out this speech last year. No, I am acting on information I got last week, and I got it from people who have been to those areas, not from gentlemen who live in a fairyland of make-believe like that hon. gentleman.

Sir, other hon. members will expand on the reasons, and the Government will no doubt have its explanations as to the root causes behind these disturbances. But I want to say this, that when the Government brings that explanation we want to tell it that we are going to be mindful of the fact that we have not forgotten what happened at Zeerust, what happened at Sekukuniland and other areas, and in the absence of an adequate explanation from the Government, of proper facts and proper findings, we can only come to the conclusion that these disturbances, these disruptions, are due to greater or lesser extent to Government policy. And while they arrogantly refuse to give any explanation the responsibility rests squarely on their shoulders. One thing is quite certain: While the Government is busy creating a number of nations in the Union, some without any geographical basis at all, they are making the development of a common South African patriotism very difficult indeed. They are making it wellnigh impossible. And in the case of the Natives they are encouraging the emergence of Black nationalism, which experience in other parts of South Africa shows can so easily become anti-White. That is the danger.

Dr. VAN NIEROP:

Are you now blaming the Government for the Congo?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

No, I am blaming the Government because it is not learning the lessons of what is happening in Africa. I am blaming this Government because it has disturbance after disturbance and it never tells us what the reasons are. And I am blaming that hon. member, whom I have always credited with a little intelligence, for continuing to support them when they are letting South Africa down so badly.

I say that the Government policy has other dangers as well, because in our urban areas they are creating a proletariat with no interest in the maintenance of law and order. And that proletariat with no stake in the ground, with no stake in the maintenance of law and order, can only be controlled by a degree of force. Perhaps that is why it is that the developments in our Defence Force seem to be going more in the direction of an internal Police Force than for our protection against external attacks.

In the reserves there is a policy in which the Government is attempting to return the entire population to an archaic and rigid tribal system; an impossible policy because every school and every contact with civilization, every contact with modern industry undermines that policy and makes it clear that it is impossible for it to be carried out. It is no wonder that the imposition of that policy is creating impossible stresses and strains at the present time which are manifesting themselves in the sort of disturbances we are seeing. In that respect the Government has failed. And I do not believe that these policies can succeed. But even wrong policies can be tolerated for a time where people are prosperous. But where there is want, where the standard of development starts slowing down, then the stresses and strains begin to show themselves. And it is quite clear that this policy can only be applied in a period in which there is real prosperity and an expanding economy in South Africa. In other words, for the Government to apply its Bantustan policy you want unprecedented prosperity. You want a tremendous rate of expansion, and you want far more capital available than we have ever before had available in the history of South Africa.

An HON. MEMBER:

Your brother does not think so.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

My brother does not believe in your policy. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, development of the reserves under the Bantustan policy becomes a pipe dream; otherwise industries on the borders of the reserves become a pipe dream. And the trouble is that South Africa is a young and developing country, and in present circumstances much of that capital must be the result of the confidence and faith of overseas investors in the policy of the Government and in the future of South Africa. We know we save a great deal of capital annually. There is a great deal of capital formation. We know we save enough from our own resources for much of our own development. But to finance the grandiose schemes of this Government is going to need far vaster sums than have been available from our own resources up to the present. Instead of capital flowing into the country for that purpose, what has happened? In the first three-quarters of last year the net outflow of private capital was £79,000,000. Now an outflow of capital continued at such a rate and at that volume can impose stresses and strains on our capital position so that even our present rate of development will have to be halted, because a large part of the capital we are saving at the moment is substitute capital. It is being used to buy back our securities overseas; it is not taking the place of a new inflow of capital. And all this is happening at a time when advancing standards of living depend upon our economic expansion. The indications are that that expansion is not keeping pace with the rate of growth of our population.

This becomes particularly evident when one looks at the last census report. Then one begins to see that we are certainly not keeping pace. And when one has regard to the fact that they have suddenly found that there are close on 1,000,000 more Natives than they thought there were in the estimates, then one realizes that the real income per head of population has probably been falling and not increasing as we have been led to believe by hon. members on the Government side of the House. And there are few countries in the world that need economic expansion as badly as does South Africa, to raise the standards of living of our poor people, the overwhelming majority of whom are Africans.

I cannot stress too strongly, Mr. Speaker, that for the policy of this Government to succeed we need vast supplies of new capital. We need more than ordinary prosperity. We need great confidence from overseas. But at the present time none of these ingredients are present to the full. It is for that reason that this Government’s policy has not the slightest hope of success. There is yet another means in which this Government has failed South Africa. In the circumstances one is constrained to ask “What alternative policy should be applied?” I think it is clear, in the light of the present world situation, in the light of the situation of the African Continent, in the light of the difficulties with which we are faced at the present time, that the first prerequisite is a real development of national unity in South Africa. But national unity is not something we get out of the air; it is not something that is suddenly seen to have arrived; it must be based on certain generally accepted objects and principles.

I think there are three things which the moderate-minded South African is anxious to see at the present time. The first is to protect the influence of Western civilization in South Africa.

*HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

The second is to do justice to the Natives—now say “Hoor, hoor!” again. They are coming right slowly. And the third is united and urgent action to achieve those ends, in the knowledge that time for South Africa is running short and that time for the White man is running short unless proper steps are taken. And the major prerequisite of such action is that you must face the facts as they exist and not as you would like them to exist. One of my major criticisms of the hon. the Prime Minister is that he ignores the facts as they exist and that he bases his policies on the facts as he would like them to exist. One of the cardinal facts with which he is faced is that you cannot successfully govern people, you cannot successfully advance them unless they feel that they themselves participate in the process of government and in the process of advancement.

I was very struck by a passage in a book by Stuart Chase on Roads to Agreement, about the development of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Here is what he said—

Twice the money and twice the engineering talent could not have reversed the downward trend in the Tennessee Valley, except briefly. The people of the valley had to see a vision and see themselves as a part of that vision and had to go to work themselves to make it come true.

As opposed to that, what do we have in South Africa? Here is what Mr. Hammerskjoeld is alleged to have said—it is alleged to be a misquote but it is a quote that is so apt that I cannot help quoting it—

I admire the spirit in which you do your utmost to help your friends the Bantu achieve the goal which you have set for yourselves.

In other words, they are not part of the development, they must help us to achieve the goal which we have set for ourselves. They are not to share in that vision. And to achieve that sense of participation the first essential is consultation, and consultation must be with the elected representatives of the people whom you wish to consult, and not people whom you have appointed because you believe they represent your views. And it must take place, also, at the highest level. It must take place in the highest forum of the land, in this Parliament. Because the present system is nothing more nor less than despotism. And no one who examines it can call it anything else, whether they are here in South Africa or overseas.

The second thing which the hon. the Prime Minister ignores is the fact that all our Native population does not consist of primitive reserve Natives. There is a very big section of that population which is permanently settled outside of the reserves, and a large section of whom has severed their ties with the reserves. To suggest that the permanently urbanized Native problem can be solved by pretending that he is domiciled in the reserves is to stretch the bounds of credibility far too far. I would therefore say that the first requirement for a sensible policy in South Africa is to restore to the Native people representation on a separate roll by Europeans in this House and to re-create the machinery for consultation at all levels, that machinery which has been systematically destroyed by this Government over the last 12 years. That machinery must be created at all levels of our political and economic organization. For the urban Native in particular we should amend those laws which cause justifiable distress amongst the people and offend against their dignity as human beings. That is the fundamental thing, Sir. We must get rid of those laws which cause distress.

The next step with regard to the urban Native is the vast importance of a real improvement in their living standards. Here I would like to express my appreciation of those many private employers in South Africa who are giving these people advances well in excess of the minimum standards laid down by the Government. Much remains to be done and in a recent book by Mr. Spooner, who claims to have been an economic adviser to the Government, he makes it clear that if the African had increased his living standards at the same rate as the European he would have been enjoying an income of £80,000,000 a year more than he is doing at present. It is quite clear that there is a great deficiency which has to be made up, but it is quite clear also that it will never be made up unless the productivity of the people who earn the wages is increased as well. At present there are forces acting against that increase in productivity, and one of them is the vicious application of the policy of job reservation by the Minister of Labour. I am satisfied that that policy must go. I am satisfied that it must be replaced by a policy of the rate for the job and that under the protection of that policy the African must be trained to do more productive work which will make him fit to earn better wages and to make a greater contribution to our national economy. It is at the incalculable cost to our economic process that we are making ourselves guilty of a gross abuse of the economic and production potential of our non-Europeans.

Sir, I am touching only on the main points, but something must be done as well about the Native in the reserves. Time and again we have said that we would support this Government in a proper policy for the development and rehabilitation of the reserves, a speedy policy. We have difficulty in agreeing with this Government upon the method. I have indicated also that politically the problem of the Native in the reserves may differ very much from that of the Native settled in the urban areas, and I have suggested that they could be given a degree of self-government in those areas. Under the Prime Minister’s policy they are being given self-administration, but in my opinion that is a wrongly directed policy, because it is based on the straitjacket of the tribal system and archaic institutions which are unable to cope with the stresses and strains of the modern world. We must face the fact that the Native peoples to-day have been led to expect advances in a particular direction in the reserves by the Prime Minister, advances which the Prime Minister will not be able to give them because that system will break down. Sir, the trouble is that a future Government will not be able to disregard those promises and will certainly not be able to disregard the expectations which have been created in the Native mind. The United Party will never accept that policy which will lead to the dismemberment of South Africa into a number of Native states with all the problems and the dangers which that must bring in its wake. We see the political future of South Africa in a different way. That is that there will always be areas predominantly Black and areas predominantly White, but that the Natives in the predominantly Black areas will develop institutions of local government which in time will make it possible to give a geographical content to the policy of racial federation which we have accepted in this party, as I indicated in this House two years ago. I can see in future a South African Parliament retaining full control over major policy, but delegating as of right certain powers and functions to local institutions which may have certain federal elements.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

Is that a new policy again?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

The hon. the Minister has been asleep for two years. I am not surprised because he cannot keep up even with a goods train, never mind the losses on his Railways.

I do not propose, Sir, to make much reference to the Cape Coloured people. Our policy is to accept them as part of the Western group. I think that makes it unnecessary to say much more on that subject, except that it is quite clear that the economic discrimination of the job reservation kind should definitely not be applied to them, and we believe it should also not be applied to the Native people. But I believe that they should have the right to represent their own people here in Parliament, whether on a separate roll or whether on a common roll, elected by the common electorate. [Interjections.] Yes, that is a step forward just as the hon. the Prime Minister made a step backward last year when he announced his Bantustan policy. Sir, I have suggested a step forward for this party and I am happy to say that I have the unanimous support of my entire caucus.

HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I say again that what we want is a far cry from the granite wall mentality of the Prime Minister and hon. members opposite. [Interjections.] We stand for their return to the Common Roll and in any case if you propose to-morrow, as I feel the hon. member will—he only has to go overseas once or twice and I believe he will come back with that proposal—that Coloureds even on a separate roll should be represented by Coloureds—I will support that, but my policy is still that they should be returned to the Common Roll. [Interjections.] Sir, for any policy to succeed, you need enthusiasm. What have you had from this Nationalist Party in respect of its Bantustan policy? You have had indifference and open hostility. If you did not have indifference and open hostility, many millions of pounds more would have been spent on developing the reserves. There would have been vast rehabilitation schemes. Steps would have been taken to make it clear that this policy has a positive content. The fact is that the autocratic leadership which that side of the House is offering the country has become an anachronism. I believe that what people are looking for in South Africa is distributive leadership. By that I mean consultation at all levels. Until our Nationalist friends appreciate that, they will never revive South Africa’s good name overseas. They will never get proper racial harmony. They will never have real peace in South Africa and they will never succeed in getting the prosperity necessary to apply the policies which they so hope will solve our problems.

Now I know that I shall be criticized by hon. members opposite for suggesting so soon after the referendum that the Government should resign forthwith, but I believe that it is later in South Africa than we think; much later for the future of the White man, and that if we continue with the policies of this Government we may reach a point of no return far sooner than we realize and we will not be able to save anything from the disaster which they will bring upon South Africa.

Mr. HUGHES:

I second. My Leader’s motion and his speech have drawn attention to our race relations and he gave a damning indictment of this Government’s policy. I think it is admitted by all that the antagonism towards us abroad is so violent to-day that a change of attitude is necessary. It is very difficult for any ambassador of this country to state a case for us abroad while this Government’s policy continues. Last year was disastrous for us in that we also had the incident at Cato Manor and then at Sharpeville and Langa, and finally the Pondoland crisis. The Pondoland disturbances have been particularly unfortunate because the Transkei, the largest of our Native reserves, has always been free of revolution and provocative actions in defiance of authority. There has always been a certain amount of crime and lawlessness and faction fighting, but no serious disturbances like this against the authority has taken place for 50 years. Then, suddenly without warning, the picture was changed and in Pondoland, where because of the nature of the Pondos one would least have expected it, there came a revolt. It started at first over a land complaint early during the last session of Parliament, and after several months of apparent inactivity by the Government while the situation worsened, the Navy, the Army and the Air Force have now all been called in to help the police to restore order. A virtual state of emergency has been declared in four districts, admittedly not all in Poland proper, but in neighbouring districts, and these very harsh measures, with the exception of the restriction of entry into those four districts, have been applied to the whole of the Transkei.

Now, what is happening there, Sir? Government officials and court trials have confirmed that hundreds of huts have been destroyed by fire, that headmen and chiefs have been butchered, that police and tribesmen have clashed, and that a number have been shot, the number of the dead being uncertain. Illegal courts have been established and lawabiding Bantu have been fined and intimidated. It is rumoured that even European traders are being fined, with the threat of the complete boycott of their businesses if they do not pay the fines. The village of Bizana has been totally boycotted with serious financial loss to its inhabitants, and the Government authorities have been defied. Now why has all this happened? To the outsider who does not live in the reserves the position is very confused. We have reports and official statements that the matter was of trivial importance; there were tribal faction fights, small land disputes, and then the Press came with allegations of open revolt. This was at first denied by the officials, but this can no longer be denied. The Government appointed a Departmental Committee to go into the question, and this Committee has found directly opposite to the statements which have been issued by this Minister and by the Commissioner-General. The chief magistrate of the Transkei has admitted that there is criticism of Government policy in establishing Bantu authorities. The Departmental Inquiry found that one of the complaints was that the people were not properly consulted about the Bantu authorities and that it was forced on the people. Now it does not avail the Government to assert any more that the trouble was not caused by its policy of establishing Bantu authorities. While the Minister and the Commissioner-General and the Information Officer in Pretoria were denying that there was any opposition to Government policy, Natives were being tried in the courts at Bizana and Flagstaff for acts committed on 9 March, when it was alleged, reading from the indictment, that the said offences committed were those of assault and disturbances at meetings by way of protest or in support of “a campaign for the repeal or modification of any law or the application or administration of any law, to wit, the Bantu Tribal Authorities Act”. Sir, that was in March, during last session. They were being tried already for opposing the Bantu authorities, but for months and months afterwards we had denials from the Minister and the Commissioner-General and the Information Officer, Mr. Prinsloo, that tribal authorities was the cause of the trouble. Naturally the Government is very loath to admit that there is opposition to its policy, because this policy of Bantu authorities or Bantustans is the keystone of their solution for the racial problem.

An HON. MEMBER:

That is what you think.

Mr. HUGHES:

But surely it is the keystone? What else can it be? I would like the Minister or the Prime Minister or the Information Office or the Commissioner-General in Umtata to tell us, if it is not, what has been given to the Native in the place of his political representation. What political rights does he have if he does not exercise them in these Bantu authorities? That is the basis of the policy. Sir, the old Bunga system was working satisfactorily and could easily have been adapted to the policy of giving the Bantu more powers to control their own affairs. But that did not fall into the pattern of the Government’s policy. The Prime Minister did not want it; he wanted the country to accept his Bantu authorities. And when the Bantu authorities were first proposed, the Bunga passed a resoultion asking an assurance from the Prime Minister that he would not apply Bantu authorities to the Transkei, and this assurance was given by the Prime Minister, who was then Minister of Native Affairs. But then the officials got to work, especially the information officers, and all their endeavours were to get the chiefs and the headmen to accept the Bantu authorities; and the Minister made a speech at King William’s Town in the Ciskei promising great things to those who accepted Bantu and territorial authorities. The chiefs and the headmen were taking over the reins of government. They saw themselves taking over all the plums and the reins of government, and amidst great rejoicing here in Parliament the then Minister of Native Affairs, now the Prime Minister, announced that the Transkei Bantu had accepted his policy of Native authorities and had asked for the system to be applied there. Sir, from the outset there was trouble, particularly in Tembuland, and the people there objected, saying that they had not been consulted. They said the councillors and headmen and the chiefs and the Bunga had accepted without consulting the tribesmen or explaining the position to them. The only portion of the Transkei which appeared to accept the policy with enthusiasm was Eastern Pondoland, and the spokesman for that area was Chief Botha Sicgau. He had become a chief supporting the Government and it was he who sent telegrams of congratulation to the Minister. He welcomed the takeover of Fort Hare and he asked for the Native parliamentary representation to be abolished, and he welcomed the appointment of the Commissioner-General. He welcomed the republic because he saw a greater future for the Transkei in a republic. It is a strange thing that a chief who holds a position like this by birth should be such a keen advocate of a republic. [Interjections.] In fairness to that chief, I must say that it is generally believed that the telegrams sent were not spontaneous or even drafted by him. Nevertheless he is a chief whom the Government has been using for propaganda purposes. Of course, his people have not been slow in pointing out that he has not gone unrewarded. He has got a farm now and he has increased emoluments, and in July of this year Bantu, the Government publication, pointed out that although some people opposed Bantu authorities when they were first introduced, they now admit that they were wrong and that it is working well and is accepted by the people, as is shown by Chief Botha, who is beloved by his people. But it is incredible that an article like that should have appeared in June or July, when the police had actually started prosecuting his followers for objecting to Bantu authorities three months before that, and the chief himself was receiving police protection from his followers. The objection to the Government policy is not confined to Pondoland. Although there has not been the extensive hut-burning which occurred in Pondoland, I believe that most of the chiefs and certainly all the senior chiefs, and a number of the headmen throughout the Transkei have had warnings that they will be dealt with. The whole structure of Bantu authorities rests on the authority of the chief and the headmen, and these people are now being threatened that if they carry out their duties they may be murdered. Recently the chief magistrate had occasion to go to Bizana to thank the Mizisi tribe for their loyal attitude towards the Government and the way they supported the Government in the crisis. He thanked Chief Stanford, but seven days later Chief Stanford was murdered. Even before Bantu authorities were established, the administration of justice depended on the chiefs and the headmen and if this intimidation is to continue the occupants of those posts will be increasingly reluctant to carry out their duties and the administration will break down completely. We have got to have headmen and chiefs to help in the administration, but with this threat against their lives they will be afraid to carry out their duties; and what is the Government doing about it? In terms of its policy, it has appointed a Commissioner-General to the area. His duties are to act as a liaison officer between the Bantu and the Prime Minister. He is to take the place of the Native Representatives who were abolished, to bring to Parliament the complaints of the Bantu and their views. If the Prime Minister has to rely on the Commissioner-General for his information, and if the latter’s information to the Prime Minister as to what is happening in the Transkei is as inaccurate as his statements have been to the Press, then the Prime Minister must have a very poor knowledge of what is actually happening in the Transkei. Government propaganda alleges that the Commissioner-General is the father of the Bantu and one would have expected that when the father arrives at his home he would be able to restore order in his household and that they would have some confidence in him for the future. But instead of this happening the errant children became more unruly and the position deteriorated. I do not wish to make a personal attack on the Commissioner-General, but I must point out, in attacking the post, that his post was opposed by this side of the House when that legislation was introduced. Suffice it to say that his presence in the Transkei does not appear to have made any difference to the attitude of the Bantu, that he does not seem to have any influence on them and that he certainly has not endeared himself to the English-speaking people there after his republican speech to the Afrikaans-speaking children at East London, when he almost out-Hertzoged the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in his revelation of his racial animosities to other groups. Mr. Abraham is not suitable to the post. He has had no experience of Native administration and knows nothing about the Transkei. It is hard for me to think of any other person in the Government ranks who was less suitable for that appointment. [Interjections.] When this post was established we, in objecting, pointed out that the Chief Bantu Commissioners who should be the eyes and ears of the Government in the reserves would have their positions undermined, and what we feared has happened. When it was obvious that conflicting official reports were coming from the Transkei on the situation, the Commissioner-General issued a statement that in future he and he alone would issue official statements and that he would only give these statements to S.A.P.A. Luckily I am able to commend the Minister for one action taken by him, and that is when he silenced the Commissioner-General, who appears now to be the one official who is not allowed to make statements. [Laughter.]

Now, what else has the Government done besides appointing a Commissioner-General? It appointed a Departmental Committee to inquire into the disturbances. Certainly there should have been an inquiry, but it should have been an independent judicial inquiry as in the case of Sharpeville and Langa. The departmental inquiry was neither adequate nor politic, in that it was the Government’s policy in the reserves which was in question and it is quite wrong for men of that very department that is responsible for seeing that the Bantu authorities work in practice, to be placed in the invidious position of saying why the experiment has failed, men who are the victims of this system which many of them, if they were allowed to express their views without fear of reprisals, would condemn, although I am not necessarily talking about these three men. However, the committee took evidence and issued a short report of its findings, and those recommendations and the report may never see the light of day. I hope the Minister will give this House a full copy of the record and of the recommendations. If he does not do so we can only assume that he has something to hide.

Another unsatisfactory feature is that since the inquiry the position has worsened and nobody yet knows what the recommendations were, or what the Government intends doing. That is one of the main complaints of the Bantu themselves. They want to know what will be done as the result of that committee’s findings; and they have not been told yet. Alt that happened was this, that the chairman of the committee, Mr. van Heerden, went to Bizana on 11 October and made a statement at a meeting of Bantu. He said that the committee had been appointed to go into their complaints and the committee found that the people had many complaints, some of which were quite justified, but that they had acted wrongly in opposing the Act as they did, and he found that huts were burnt and £20,000 damages caused. He said that the committee found that the people in Eastern Pondolond were seriously misled and that they had been told the Government was against them, whereas all the time the Government was anxious to govern the various tribes through their own chiefs and councillors.

Complaint No. 1 was that the people were not properly consulted about the Bantu Authorities and that it was forced upon the people—

The committee found that the system was fully explained to the chiefs and headmen and that many people also knew about it. The committee found, however, that when the tribal authorities were formed the old customs of the tribes who reside in Bizana were not observed in every respect, and that in regard to this matter the people of Bizana had every right to complain.

Then complaint No. 2 was—

That the Paramount Chief of Eastern Pondoland did not consult the people when nominating members of tribal authorities.

Complaint No. 3 was that headmen who are not heads of tribal authorities may not try cases. Then the committee dealt with rehabilitation and found that there was a fear of rehabilitation and expressed the opinion that this fear was unfounded. They then dealt with increased taxation, the increase of the stock rate and so on, and then dealt at length with Bantu Education, where they found that there were complaints of graft in school boards and school committees. We know that it is general talk throughout the Transkei that teachers cannot get appointments unless they pay the school boards their salary for the first quarter. The committee found that these complaints were being made. They did not tell us what the Government was going to do about these complaints. The chief magistrate who accompanied Mr. van Heerden said, “You have heard the findings of the committee of inquiry; you have heard that the committee found that your complaints concerning the boundaries and the appointment of councils and tribal authorities are justified. The Government has instructed that these matters must be rectified after consultation with you and that these bodies must be constituted in accordance with your past custom. These matters will be taken in hand as soon as possible. Your complaints against chiefs and headmen were very carefully considered. They are receiving the attention of the Government and it may take some time before they are finalized.” But, Sir, that is all that the people have had. They met afterwards and said “We want to know what the Government is going to do; the Government knows what our complaints are and we want to know what the Government is going to do to rectify those complaints We have heard nothing from the Government, and this is a serious charge against the Government. If the Government had acted earlier it may not have been necessary to call in the Army as it has had to do. Sir, what else has the Government done? It has declared a virtual state of emergency for the whole of the Transkei and a state of seige for Eastern Pondoland. The powers given to the Police Force, the Defence Force, the Native Commissioners, chiefs and headmen are wider even than those promulgated during the state of emergency in the rest of the country earlier in the year. I am the first to agree that law and order must be maintained and in commenting on the Transkeian disturbances, I have always stressed that fact. But the Minister, the Information Officer and the Commissioner-General were continually and regularly assuring the public that the disturbances in Pondoland were only of a tribal nature, that it was only the usual faction fighting. In fact, the Commissioner-General said that there was nothing on. Surely if all these official statements issued by the Minister, the Chief Information Officer and the Commissioner-General—I am not talking now about the chief magistrate—were accurate, surely it was not necessary then to apply such harsh restrictions to deal with such a minor affair as a local tribal matter.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

The storekeepers seemed to be very satisfied.

Mr. HUGHES:

I am not saying it was a minor matter. I am saying that the information given out officially was inaccurate. The Minister has just entered the Chamber. Did he hear what I said? My attack has been against officials for giving inaccurate information.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I have been here for the last ten minutes.

Mr. HUGHES:

My point is that we have not been given proper information. Sir, if these complaints are local and only confined to Eastern Pondoland and the resistance is not wide-spread, why is it necessary to apply the regulations, except for entry permits in Chapter 3, to the whole of the Transkei? These regulations are very drastic. Government members are so used to regulations of this type now that they probably see nothing wrong with them. But just let me read out what may happen. The first part deals with prohibition of meetings. If the information which the Minister has given that there are communists entering the area and that this is the work of agitators is correct and if he gives us full information, because he says he knows who they are, he may be able to justify this. I hope he can justify this prohibition of entry and I hope he will give us a full statement. The same will apply to the departure from a prohibited area, although that particular section has not been applied. We also hope that the Minister can justify the surrender of firearms. We have no information and we are hoping that the Minister will give us the full information.

Now I come to Part VI which deals with subversive statements. This part makes it an offence for any person to make—

any statement, verbally or in writing or to do any act which is intended or is likely to have the effect of subverting, or interfering with the authority of the State, the Chief Native Commissioner, a Native Commissioner or any other officer in the employ of the State or of any Chief or Headman.

Sir, it must be remembered that a headman and a chief, is directly affected by what is happening there. The headmen have their opponents in the locations and you are now going to give headmen the power to decide whether there has been a subversive statement made against him, and if there has been, he lodges a complaint and the man is then arrested and he may be removed. The chiefs can now remove people at will from locations. There is no appeal, or at least there is an appeal, but you cannot get an interdict against the order in the meantime. The man has to move or go to gaol; he has to pull his place down, and the chief is being given the power to do that now against anybody whom he does not like, and the poor tribesman can do nothing about it except to note an appeal which may only be heard in a few months’ time. In the meantime he may be detained. You have this prohibition of entry, under which a Native, although he is resident in that area, may not be allowed to enter the area unless he gets a permit. For the purposes of subsection 1 a person shall be deemed not to be resident in the prohibited area who, being a Native, is absent from such area for the purpose of employment or for exercising any trade, calling or profession or permanently or habitually resides outside the area. If he has been out for employment, if he has been working in Cape Town, for instance, and has lost his employment here and has not been able to get employment within 72 hours, he has to get out of Cape Town. Supposing the Native Commissioner at Bizana says “I am not going to allow you to come in here”, what is going to happen to him? He may be prevented from going back to his home. What is to happen to that Native? It is quite wrong to prohibit people who are resident in that area and who go out for employment purposes, to return to their homelands. But, Sir, my main objection is not to Proclamation No. 400 but to Proclamation 413. Section 91 of that Proclamation deals with methods to trace offenders—

Wherever a Native Commissioner or a commissioned or non-commissioned officer of the S.A. Police Force is satisfied that any person has committed an offence under these regulations or under any other law, or wherever the said Native Commissioner or commissioned or non-commissioned officer has reason to suspect that any person had or has the intention to commit such an offence …

he may arrest him. If any Native Commissioner, commissioned or non-commissioned police officer suspects that any person, not a Native necessarily, is in possession of any information relating to an offence or an intended offence, the said Native Commissioner or commissioned or non-commissioned officer may question or cause to be questioned the said person in regard to any matter which has any bearing upon the said offence or intended offence and may detain him or cause him to be detained at any place which he deems suitable until the Native Commissioner or commissioned or non-commissioned officer is satisfied that the said person has answered fully and truthfully the questions put to him. Now, what does that mean? It means that if a commissioned or non-commissioned police officer suspects that a Native or any other person has some knowledge of an offence which has been committed or which is intended to be committed, he can arrest him under this section and keep him in any place he likes. He can keep him in any little gaol in the country, not at a village police station and nobody can do anything to help that person because only the Minister can release him unless the officer himself releases him. He can keep him there until he thinks that he has a truthful answer. He may in fact be getting a truthful answer, but if the answer is not what he wants to get, he can go on keeping him there at the Minister’s pleasure. What is worse, the next section goes on to say that no person who has been arrested or is being detained under Regulation 90 shall without the consent of the Minister or a person acting under his authority be allowed to consult with a legal adviser. Just imagine what will happen now. These people are taken off to gaol; nobody gets in touch with them. My objection is this. This does not apply only to Pondoland or Eastern Pondoland; it applies to the whole of the Transkei, and I would like the Minister to tell us when he intends repealing this Proclamation. After all, we have been told by him that everything is quiet now; that it is safer to be in the Transkei than in Johannesburg, and if that is so, I want to know why this Proclamation is being kept in force there.

Sir, my Leader has said that overseas he saw reports about the Navy patrolling the coast. We all know, especially those of us living in the Transkei, that that is absolutely correct, that the Navy is patrolling the coast. But when this information first came out in the Press it was denied. Now they cannot deny it any more because it is a regular patrol. You see two warships crossing each other. I have been down to the coast and I have seen them. The coast is patrolled by Air Force patrols every night. They may have stopped this week but during the holidays they were dropping flares all night along the coast. Aircraft were flying up and down all the time. Surely if all this is taking place the position must be pretty serious, but we get no information from this Minister as to the true state of affairs. We get no information either from him or from any departmental official. Sir, it is not only the people in the rest of the country who are confused. The people in the area do not know what is happening. They hear patrols going out and coming back in the early morning; they hear all sorts of rumours, but nobody tells them what is happening. The Information Officer denies that hundreds of people are being detained. My information from people living there is that hundreds of people are being detained and that there is a camp at Bizana. Will the Minister tell us about that? How long are those people to be detained and why are they being detained? If it is only the work of a few agitators and communists, and the Minister knows their names, why does he not arrest those people? If he has not arrested them, will he tell us what is happening to them; are they still going into the area? We want to know and the Transkei especially wants to know.

In these regulations more powers are being given to the chief. The chief and certain headmen can try cases. Their jurisdiction has been increased to £50 fine and three months’ imprisonment, and the offences which they try are offences in which they are the complainant. Where they find that a Native has undermined their authority or that he refuses or neglects to obey a lawful order given by the chief or a headman, or where any person who—

being a Native, treats the chief or headman to whose authority he is subject with disrespect, contempt or ridicule, or fails or neglects to show that respect and obedience or to render such services to such chief or headman as should be shown or rendered in accordance with Native law and custom …

he can be arrested and charged under these new powers given to the chief. It is quite wrong to extend the powers of the chiefs in their courts at this time, at this particular time when the complaint is against the chiefs and the headmen, against the chiefs’ courts. When the chiefs’ courts were given power a few years ago to give default judgement, in the Select Committee here, I opposed it and we divided on the issue. I said it was wrong to give the chiefs’ courts the power to give default judgement, but the Proclamation went through; the Government allowed it to stand. The complaint to-day throughout the Transkei—and the Minister must have heard this from his officials —is that in most of the chiefs’ courts there is graft. People complain that the man with the fattest ox gets judgement in his favour. It is a general complaint. They are not allowed to appeal to the Native Commissioner; they are intimidated if they want to appeal. That is another general complaint. It is a mistake to make these people go to the chief’s court. If they want to go to the chief’s court, they will go, but it is wrong to give the chiefs’ courts power to give default judgement and it is wrong to give them added jurisdiction at this time. The Government is looking for trouble. Those chiefs who are exercising this jurisdiction are looking for trouble. Surely the Minister must realize that it is folly for him to allow this Proclamation to remain in force.

Sir, it is clear to the country that the Government’s policy has failed; no one is content. The Natives want and must have a voice in the Government. They must be given a forum. They cannot be expected to talk only through their chiefs and to the ambassador. Let me ask the Minister what is happening about these ambassadors; are they being appointed in the towns? I should be very surprised if any person accepted an appointment as ambassador at the moment. Sir, border industries find no supporters, except by politicians supporting the Government. They do not help the reserves at all. Work must be found in the reserves for the Natives who live there. They must work there and remain there with their families and those Natives who are permanently urbanized must be allowed to take their families with them, to buy their own little homes and to have a stake in the country and to able to live as all other responsible citizens wish to do. The Native can no longer be expected to live in sufferance and be harassed from pillar to post, as is happening to-day. With the present Cabinet, unfortunately, I can see no prospect of a change. Not one of the Ministers has the courage to stand up to the Prime Minister. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, when he was a member of the Tomlinson Commission, advocated that Europeans should be encouraged to take part in the development of the reserves.

The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Under certain conditions.

Mr. HUGHES:

That was against the policy of the Prime Minister, so once he became a Minister he dropped the whole idea. Nobody in the Nationalist ranks in Parliament, as far as I can see, is prepared to make a stand against the Prime Minister, despite the fact that with the change of wind has come a change of belief on all sides in the whole community. Sir, we cannot afford to keep this Prime Minister; he must go, and if the Nationalist members of Parliament have not got the courage to stand up to him and make him go, then it is his duty, in view of what has been happening lately, to resign and test has been happening lately, to resign and to test the feelings of the people throughout the country.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to thank the hon. the Leader of the Opposition very heartily for his friendly reference at the beginning of his speech to my recovery. I appreciate the fact that he is so well disposed towards my health in spite of being so unfavourably disposed towards my policy.

Then I should like to move—

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “this House expresses the fullest confidence in the Government.”

There is no other way in which we can effectively bring it home to the hon. member that he has really done a foolish thing here to-day. He comes here with a motion of no-confidence, a demand for the Government’s resignation—and he does so after the most terrible defeat that any party can suffer. That defeat assumed the special character of an expression of general distrust in the Opposition because of the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition himself.

Before dealing with that, there is another thing to which I have to draw special attention and it is this: Although I have a great deal of sympathy—actually pity—for him in the predicament in which he found himself inasmuch as he had to come forward to-day with some sort of motion, I have to sympathize with him even more because, after he had acquitted himself reasonably well of his unenviable task by at least making some impression with the sham arguments advanced by him, that impression was destroyed by the seconder whom he chose for himself. I have seldom heard anyone trying to support such a broadly framed motion with such a light, superficial discussion of a simple matter such as the Pondoland disturbances. The attack was actually so devoid of striking power that one cannot understand how the Opposition could choose such a person and such a subject for this purpose! For the rest I leave him to other hon. members.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said something to-day in connection with his new policy, to which I must also draw the attention of the country at once before I proceed because it is so far-reaching and because it will need so much attention in the future. I shall come back later on to the question of the colour policy, but I must emphasize right at the start that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has announced to-day that the future policy of the leading Opposition Party is that the Coloureds must be restored to the Common Roll and fully integrated. In the meantime the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to have an alternative method of representation, that is to say, one under which they will have to be given direct representation in this House on the separate roll. From that it will also follow eventually that the Asiatics and at least the urban Bantu population will also have to be given representation here as though they form an ordinary part of the enfranchised population generally. Let us be perfectly clear what that means. It means that the Coloureds at least, and perhaps the others as well, will have to have the right to become full members of the United Party, because otherwise equality would be pure bluff. That ordinary process of being able to become part of the United Party within Parliament must include the right to become members of the United Party outside of this House. The Leader of the Opposition will have to accept the consequence of that, and that is that if he does come into power and gives them the full vote on the Common Roll, with full membership of his party, they will also have to have the right to participate in his national government and the right to participate in the controlling bodies of his party. The result will be that in the Cape Province, at any rate, his party will be completely dominated within a very short space of time by the Coloureds whom he thus incorporates fully in the national body, as he sees the nation of the future. I want the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to realize that the public, if they should be called upon to judge whether or not this Government should clear out, will know, after this speech of his, that they will have to take into account this threat that comes from the Leader of the Opposition. I shall come back again later on to the general colour policy.

There is another thing that I want to say at the outset. On 5 October the electorate gave its verdict on the question of whether South Africa should become a republic. At the start of the campaign I made appeals to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party and the country that we should vote on this issue not as parties but that everybody, to whichever party he may belong, should be given a free vote on this constitutional development in accordance with his own free will. This appeal of mine was rejected by the Leader of the Opposition. In doing so he, more than anyone else, was responsible for the fact that the referendum on 5 October became, in the main, one between the Opposition parties on the one hand and the party in power on the other. If, therefore, I claim a motion of no-confidence in the Opposition and one of confidence in the party here, I do so on the strength of the character which the Leader of the Opposition himself gave that referendum.

After he had refused to allow the verdict to be left to the free vote of the electorate I made a second appeal to him, and that was that we should concentrate only on the one matter of broad principle before us, namely, the constitutional issue. None other than the Leader of the Opposition, supported by his party, refused to allow this struggle to become, if necessary, one between the parties but then at least on this one issue only. The Leader of the Opposition stated bluntly that he was going to make it a test of confidence or lack of confidence in the Government and he attacked us in his speeches—and he was followed by other members—on our policies over the broad political field, in the same way that he did so to-day in his motion of no-confidence. That is why I stated publicly—I did so inter alia at Groblersdal—that if that was the challenge thrown out by the Leader of the Opposition we would accept it. We told the electorate that we were prepared to be judged on the issue as to whether, bearing in mind the whole broad basis of our policy, we were competent to be entrusted with the task of helping to establish and to govern the republic of South Africa. Therefore, in claiming to-day that his motion is unrealistic because it is in direct conflict with proof given by the White voters of this country of confidence in the Government and in its policy, I say that it is thanks to him alone that I am in a position to make that strong, explicit claim.

In that sense his motion to-day is altogether unrealistic. It is even more unrealistic because of the way in which the electorate gave its verdict at the referendum. The allegation constantly came from his side that if the National Party were to contest every seat in the country, and similarly the Opposition parties, it would become clear that the former could not achieve as great a victory as it achieves when it confines itself purely to certain seats. Secondly, the National Party would then see that the Government had the support of a minority of the White or the registered voters. That was their claim. This result has shown now, although we opposed each other in every constituency throughout the country, that not only has the Government been able fully to maintain its vast majority of seats in this House but also that that will remain the position whatever delimitation may take place. In other words, the position here differs from that in Britain where the delimitation differences between constituencies are much greater and where, in addition to that, the Churchill Government and the Macmillan Government ruled with a minority of voters supporting them. This Government has the support not only of the majority of seats but in fact of the majority of the voters of the country.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

That is not correct.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

It is correct.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Of those who voted.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

Yes, of the electors who voted, and if those who did not vote had voted on our side, the majority would have been even greater. What right has the hon. member to say that that would not have been the case? In other words, here hon. members have clear proof of the unrealistic nature of such a motion of no-confidence and of the request that this Government should resign. Moreover, let us assume that the Government were to resign. Is there any Government which could assume power? Even a combination of all the Opposition members could not take over the Government and in order to obtain that combination on the part of the Opposition, the fighting between the Progressive Party and the United Party would first have to stop. In any case what sort of compromise would result from that? The demand which is being made here is a ridiculous one therefore; it is a ridiculous motion of no-confidence; the demand that the Government should resign is ridiculous. Perhaps I should tell hon. members why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition nevertheless thinks that he can make this demand. He imagines that the position has change since 5 October. He imagines, because of discussions which have taken place in public and because of all sorts of deliberations which have taken place, in which various opinions have been expressed on colour policy, that there is going to be a split in the National Party, and in the ranks of the Cape party in particular. He also imagines, of course, that he will be able to fish in those troubled waters. He imagines that he will be able to reap benefits for his party as the result of dissension. Let me say this clearly to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: There is no such thing to-day as a likelihood of division either in the political ranks or amongst the Afrikanerdom as such, nor is there going to be any division in any of the institutions that we know. The fact is that the great mass of the people of South Africa have chosen a particular course and they are so strongly united that they are not going to allow themselves to be split—not anywhere. Although they sometimes argue matters from different angles, they will again become like-minded, as has happened more than once already in our history. Or the Nationalists, in spite of differences of opinion with regard to certain details, will remain united because of the great massive unity of ideas and trends which still continues to exist. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition need not speculate therefore on the prospect that he will be able to augment the very small number of members of Parliament who support him by recruits from the ranks of Government supporters.

If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition understands that once and for all, then we can go one step further; then we can draw his attention to the fact that everything about which he complained to-day—this whole jeremiad about the miserable position in which South Africa allegedly finds herself in this country and abroad in the sphere of colour policy and in connection with economic matters —was known before 5 October. These same things were being said before 5 October. And the electorate nevertheless made its well-known choice in spite of his challenge that it should reject the Government on the strength of those things. He has said nothing to-day therefore in regard to which the electorate has not already given its verdict. All those opinions were taken into account when the verdict was given, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself bears the blame for it.

I should also add that it must not be forgotten that the test of 5 October knocked the ground from under the United Party’s feet. The United Party’s basic policy was always that of anti-nationalism and anti-republicanism. Let me deal for a moment with the term “antinationalism”. Throughout its history it has been the aim of the United Party to retain its connections with the after-effects of the old imperialist idea, as it changed into a form of South Africanism which was really alien to the South African nation. Dual loyalty, anti-republicanism, was the basis, the soul, of the United Party—not its colour policy. Its colour policy was like a wandering ghost which changed its form every now and again. Nobody could tell precisely what form the ghost took. That is how their colour policy was. It was not from this that the United Party derived its strength; it derived its division from it. Its foundation, the basis of its strength, however, was that it held out to the country as its policy a contrast, however vague, to nationalism. That was rejected on 5 October. And it was rejected so unambiguously that it makes the motion with which the Leader of the Opposition comes here to-day a ridiculous one. What the referendum really meant was a motion of no-confidence in what little was left of the United Party. That is why I feel that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is to be pitied that, in the unenviable position in which his party finds itself to-day, he had to introduce a motion of this kind in order to save his prestige—to save his prestige, not to do the impossible, that is, to save his party.

Now I want to come to the motion itself. I find that his sermon has three points; but, other than in the case of the usual sermon, somebody else gets an opportunity to analyse this sermon. We can therefore take these three points one by one and see what substance there is in them.

His first point is that the Government has not succeeded in bringing about racial harmony and internal peace. Secondly, he advances the proposition that the Government has not succeeded in bringing about sufficient prosperity. His third point is that the Government has harmed the good name of South Africa.

Let me deal first with the idea of racial harmony and internal peace. If one wants to test that, it should be tested in the light of the relations between the three groups: English— Afrikaans, White—Bantu and White—Coloured. To begin with let us deal with the question of the relations between the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking. Does the hon. member contend in all honesty that the relations between the Afrikaans and the English-speaking to-day are worse than they were in the past?

*HON. MEMBERS:

Yes, much worse.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

Nonsense! The days of rebellions are over; the days of flag struggles, as we knew them in the past, are over. Hon. members opposite are not in a position to draw good comparisons because they are in the Opposition; they are disappointed people and for ten years they have been yearning in vain to get into power. That is why they feel bad and disappointed and frustrated. Do they not realize that those who sat on the other side in the days when they were in power had to endure similar disappointments? If hon. members on the other side had been able to penetrate into the minds of their opponents in the years before 1948, they would have discovered a sense of oppression there, a feeling of hatred, an unfortunate condition which does not exist to-day. Because at that time the then Government took such oppressive steps, due inter alia perhaps to wars, that they penetrated right into the soul of people and created that feeling of oppression and unhappiness, a feeling which does not exist to-day. The National Party then came into power. It had the good fortune that the war situation was then something of the past, but in addition to that it was characterized by the fact that it came forward with a policy which was able to bring about a common loyalty to South Africa—its republican policy in particular. From this, the National Party was able to draw the conclusion that once this constitutional issue was resolved it would not only create a different feeling towards their English-speaking fellow-countrymen in the minds of those people here who, because of historical developments, had developed the strongest sense of frustration, namely the Afrikanerdom, but that it would also bring about a better feeling towards Great Britain, the mother-country of the other national group, in the minds of the Afrikaners. In this process of working up to the stage of the republic, a change has already come about in fact—if not in the mind of everybody on the other side then certainly in the minds of many—a change in the feelings of supporters of both sides towards one another. This change is one which sprang from the people themselves. The members of our population have already started to understand one another better, to such an extent that it has been possible to accept a national anthem and a national flag with a minimum of disruption of goodwill. But in addition to that it has been possible to hold a referendum with regard to the advent of a republic in a spirit of good understanding, in a good-natured spirit such as we have never witnessed in this country before, particularly at election times. If ever there was a symptom that in the midst of our political struggle over the great differences between our party and the official Opposition as well as the Progressive Party, we have something in common to-day as people who love South Africa and who say “South Africa only” and that much greater progress has been made than ever before on the road to unity, it is that experience to which I have just referred. That is why I say that under the National Party more progress has been made than ever before in our history in the sphere of White mutual relations. And the opportunities in the future are even greater.

I admit that things do occasionally happen which cause people to ask, “But is that really correct”?

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

What does Thomas Boydell say?

*The PRIME MINISTER:

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to-day to one incident. He referred to something that happened to the hon. the Minister of Posts. I am not going to go into the details of all sorts of idle gossip but I do want to discuss this incident in one respect just to indicate that we should not allow ourselves to be so easily misled as to make allegations in this our highest legislative assembly which are based on what appears in a newspaper. Certain newspaper representatives attend such meetings with an object. Some of us—I too have suffered in the past—are watched just to see whether they cannot get hold of something to use in order to create an incident or to make unfavourable propaganda in the outside world. The Minister of Posts has also been a victim of this before—inter alia shortly before 5 October. The Cape Times then went out of its way to put a number of specific questions to him. I have the questions and the replies here with me but I do not want to take up the time of the House by quoting them, unless it becomes necessary to do so. The Minister was then specifically asked about his attitude in respect of the English-speaking section, and in a signed statement he frankly gave his replies setting out his attitude towards the English-speaking section, their language and their culture. One cannot do other than admit that this is a wholehearted acceptance of the basic friendship that ought to exist between the two national groups. Such first-hand evidence, however, is not mentioned in the Press when they want to incite hostility against us in the minds of the English-speaking section of the population. No, what they then do, particularly in Natal, is to see whether they cannot find something somewhere else to use as an injection of venom. In that way certain sentences were found in a speech made by the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and use was made of them. I have before me the Daily News of 16 December 1960. It is an extract I have here and it is this type of report which causes all the unpleasantness. Inter alia, it contains, the following sentences which I should like to quote—

Dr. Hertzog said Britain “appeased and caressed” the non-Whites only in case she needed them to obtain the wealth of Africa. The Whites would be sacrificed for the advantages Britain hoped to get out of the Blacks.

Then they quote the following, as if these were his own words—

“Don’t imagine that the British would stretch out a helping hand to the White man in South Africa. There is no hope of that ever happening. Britain has sided with the Black man against the White people.”

That is where the quotation stops, and it is printed as if the words had come from him. This is the type of thing which creates the impression to which I have referred and which gives rise to this type of propaganda, because what has happened? The hon. the Minister in his speech merely quoted what the Cape Argus of 4 February 1960 wrote in a leading article. Actually, what was printed here in inverted commas should clearly have been put as something which did not emanate from the Minister, but as something quoted from the Cape Argus. The following is what Dr. Hertzog quoted from the Cape Argus of that date—

“There is then no longer any room for doubt as to what Britain’s African policy really is. She takes the side of African nationalism and African self-government. And where these things clash with the interests of White populations, she takes the non-White side.”

Now you see what happens. Here a Minister is quoting what a newspaper supporting the United Party said, and then he is attacked as being anti-British, but not that newspaper.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

With what object was it quoted?

*The PRIME MINISTER:

The point is that it was printed in a leading article of a newspaper supporting the United Party and it represented the editor’s evaluation of the situation after the Macmillan speech in Cape Town. Now the Minister quotes it in order to show what the trend of thought already is amongst the English-speaking South African community, which in turn indicates how we are arriving at the stage where English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people are presenting a united front vis-à-vis the outside world and even a British Prime Minister. But that now becomes re-interpreted and represented as hatred towards Britain on the. part of the Minister and the opinion expressed in the Argus is put into his mouth as being his own words in order to condemn him. Therefore I say that whilst during the regime of the United Party Government there were many difficulties between the Whites, and although there will certainly still be difficulties in our time, I say that if all the misunderstandings and misrepresentations are removed, there is a basic desire to be one united nation, greater than ever before.

As against that I must test what will happen if the United Party should come into power. Now I ask hon. members opposite and I ask the country; Can you imagine the bitterness which will again develop if in that case the establishment of a republic in South Africa were to be opposed or negatived by them? If this Government should resign now, before the republic is established, and the United Party should come into power, would it then implement the mandate given on 5 October? Of course it would not do so. The United Party has not yet said that it would negative it later when once it has been established. In fact, it would not be able to do so, but if it were able to prevent the establishment of a republic, it would do so. And just imagine the bitterness which would then arise! Think of the history of the past and all the bitterness of the past to formulate a picture of what the position would be if the United Party should come into power to-day!

Supposing, further, that the United Party should come into power and apply its colour policy, just think of the dissension which would then arise between the Whites in South Africa. In the Press its new policy has been called “a charter of hope”. I do not know whether he himself meant it that way.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

“Ordered advance.”

*The PRIME MINISTER:

I am glad to see that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition evidently does not feel happy about that expression. I have the newspaper here and will haad it over.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Do they not talk about “ordered advance”?

*The PRIME MINISTER:

No, and it is significant that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself has so much objection to the first expression. As my hon. friend next to me says, it would be more fitting to describe it as “a charter of despair”. This “charter of hope” is nothing else but a continuation of the old method of the imperialists in South Africa to thwart the will of the majority of the Whites in the country by making use, whenever necessary, of limited numbers of non-Whites. The policy announced to-day by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does the same. Again I ask: Can you imagine the bitterness which will again arise in South Africa if the United Party comes into power and should again apply the policy which ever since the time of the Cape Colony and the old Natal and until recently caused bitterness every time when use was made of the vote of the non-White (to whatever limited extent) to thwart the will of the White community? We will again have hatred and opposition in South Africa, not only against the United Party but also against Britain, because it will be considered that Britain is sitting behind it. If we want to build up friendship between South Africa and Britain, the only way to do so is by following the course we are following to-day, namely by moving forward as a republic, and one which no longer has the policies of the past. The four-stream policy we have can insulate us from everything which previously caused strife and friction. Then we can build up friendship. Then we will stand opposite each other as two independent states, South Africa and Great Britain, without there being an interwoven policy of divide and rule in the present policy. As against that, I repeat, the United Party will bring no peace. They talk about unity and peace which they would like to have. They will not obtain that, particularly after what the Leader of the Opposition has said to-day about his policy in regard to the representation of Coloureds, to which I have already referred.

Therefore the present Government must remain in power if the friendship between the Afrikaansand English-speaking South Africans is to grow, and if there is to be friendship between South Africa and Britain. The disappearance of the present Government would put the clock back again and allow everything to revert to the strife and misery of the past, from which we have escaped with so much thankfulness.

Let us then review the relationship between the Whites and the Bantu. A much greater degree of peace has been achieved by this Government as its policy than the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to admit. People forget what I have referred to on more than one occasion before, viz. the figures of the numbers and the scope of the clashes before 1948 in which the then United Party Government and the Bantu in various parts of the country were concerned. I am referring to the ordinary type of riots, whether they are tribal clashes or clashes in the various cities. That type of riot has decreased as compared with the period before 1948. Those hon. members forget what their record was. They should remember what a tremendously large number of difficulties their Government continually had to cope with. And they were not only minor troubles! Serious ones. We know how concerned people were last year when the march of between 10,000 and 20,000 Natives from Langa to Cape Town took place. Do hon. members not also remember a much larger march of 50,000 Natives who were marching from Springs to Johannesburg during the regime of the United Party Government? In those days the same type of clashes and demonstrations occurred as at present, and even on a larger scale. In other words, I want to state as a fact that in regard to the large mass of the Bantu the spirit and the hope for the future is much better than ever before. I am speaking now about the Bantu and I say that they have never yet had so much hope for the future, in the social and economic sphere, as during the regime of our Government. They admit that now for the first time they are enjoying real opportunities to develop as people and to become prosperous, by becoming leaders in their own community, particularly in the educational and the economic spheres. Hon. members opposite base all their convictions in regard to the so-called ill-feeling on the part of the Bantu on what they hear from the representatives of small Bantu groups, the P.A.C., the A.N.C. and other even more leftist groups. The Opposition obtain their information from those people whom they and certain newspapers prefer to regard as the leaders of the Bantu because they are office bearers or chairmen or the leaders of the aforementioned bodies. However, the mass of the Bantu do not accept those people as their leaders. The masses are sometimes intimidated by the tsotsi groups into following them when riots take place, but they do not accept the overadvertised agitation leaders as their real leaders. I do not know why hon. members of the Opposition are always so fond of depicting the natural leaders of the Bantu as renegades and stooges of the Government. That is how, for example, they refer to Botha Sicgau. Who put him where he is? He was not appointed by this Government. Long ago, as the result of studies made by the then Department of Native Affairs, he was recognized—in the circumstances obtaining at that time—as the best successor, the future leader. As far as all the Bantu chiefs with whom we have to deal are concerned, it has been found on the basis of ethnological investigation that they are the people who are most suitable to hold those posts. In this ethnological investigation the family trees are investigated, as known to the elder people in the vicinity and as recorded in the books of the Departments of Native Affairs over a period of 50, 60 and even 80 years. Those are the leaders which have been selected in terms of the natural democracy of the Bantu themselves, and those tribal leaders have no power which they obtained in any way other than through their acceptance by the tribe and through consultation with the tribe. I do not want to go into this matter further, but merely wish to state that the peace and good spirit prevailing in our country between the Government and the true leaders of the Bantu—and let me immediately once and for all repudiate all accusations of corruption which have just been made here by the seconder, so it seemed to me—rests on a realization by the Bantu that opportunities await them in future as the result of the policy of the Government. The principle we now accept is to allow political development to begin with that which the Bantu knows, and that from that will flow more and more changes in the direction of the representative systems which are considered by the greater nations of the world as the best method by which people can govern each other. That will take place later. Nobody has said that the political development must remain stationary at the stage where we commence. The tribal system is only where it should commence. Self-government should commence in terms of methods known by these people.

Now I must add something and that concerns a matter which makes the position more difficult at the present time, and which makes conditions appear even worse. It is something with which all Governments will have to cope. Even if the Progressive Party were in power, it would have to cope with it, and the United Party would have to cope with it to an even greater extent. It is, firstly, that in the world a struggle is being waged between the East and the West. There are certain people who would like to have chaos in as many countries as possible, and there are those who think that South Africa is a good country in which to create chaos. Under communist leadership unrest is being instigated here, as also in other parts of Africa. That certainly makes the position more difficult for us. But any Government which comes into power will have to cope with it. Indeed, not a single one of the parties in this House is communistically inclined. All of them would have to wage a battle against communist subversion.

Secondly, there are agitators, also Black agitators. Those Black agitators will not be satisfied with any of the partial solutions offered by the parties opposite. They will want only one thing, namely Bantu supremacy over South Africa. Any party which wants to draw a line somewhere will therefore also, like us, have to come into conflict with leaders of that time.

Thirdly, just as in the modern White world the “ducktail” development is something new in certain forms, in the same way the incidence of tsotsis amongst the Bantu is something which has also increased, in conformity with the prevailing spirit in the world. They exploit any form of political agitation which anybody sets afoot. When the slightest unrest occurs they apply intimidation, scare people, drag them along, and force people unwillingly to commit violence. Even some of the dissatisfied groups sometimes do not want to have violence because it might be bad tactics. That is the situation with which any Government would be faced to-day, not only us.

Fourthly, there is something else, viz. the encouragement from outside. There are states which during their struggle for their own freedom came into conflict with what they regarded as the evil of colonialism, without any recognition of the good it did and the benefits it conferred on them. They do not take into consideration what they received from those who educated them to become independent. Those states think that they see in South Africa a parallel to what their problem was, although conditions here are totally different. They therefore try to incite rebellion from outside. If the United Party were in power it would have been faced with the same problem, because the United Party would not have satisfied them with its policy. It could only have satisfied such states if it capitulated completely and surrendered the country to the Bantu. It could not have maintained peace in any other way.

I am not going to discuss the problems of Sharpeville, Langa and Pondoland here now. Time does not allow me to do so. Other hon. members will probably do it. We all know that grievances were exploited, like that against the identity card system. We know well enough what the so-called reasons are which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants us to investigate. Does he know, however, that there is another side to that matter?

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Then why do you not state it?

*The PRIME MINISTER:

We state it over and over again, but the hon. members see to it that such a cloud of suspicion is always thrown over all our statements that it becomes difficult to remove the misapprehension.

If we take all this into consideration, I want to tell hon. members that South Africa is enjoying wonderful peace. When one makes comparisons with what happened in the past, and if one takes into consideration all the new factors which have come into play, then I tell you: No government other than this very one, which is a stable, firm and strong Government, would have been able to maintain this situation as well. This was possible because the Government has a policy in terms of which this peace can be maintained. If there had been a government in power like that of the United Party, which has landed on a slippery downward path in regard to its policy, it would not have been able to act as a bulwark against these many difficulties in the way in which we did.

On the other hand, I then want to test what the position would have been if the United Party had been in power, viz. what the position would have been in regard to the Bantu. Would there have been more peace if United Party members adopt this standpoint, as I think they do, that the White majority should remain in control? Some of them, it is true, merely say “for the time being”, and that the Government will later be controlled by a Bantu majority. I do not know whether all the United Party members say so at this moment. One becomes confused because their members slip from the one colour policy to the other. However, when Mr. Oppenheimer was still a member of the United Party, or at least before his Progressive Party stage, he stated this very clearly. Let us therefore for the moment accept that in terms of the United Party’s charter of hope the Bantu will receive very limited rights, that the Coloureds will receive very limited rights, and also the Asiatics. Will that, for example, bring about peace and quiet amongst the friendly type of Bantu, or amongst the White leftist leaders? Will the limits set by the United Party, e.g. in regard to how much representation it will give the Bantu, satisfy the Progressive Party? It will not even satisfy them! In other words, if hon. members opposite think they will get peace and quiet in terms of their policy if they should come into power, they should realize that they are making a mistake. In terms of that policy of granting certain rights along the road of integration, but limiting those rights, they will not prevent a single attack being made on South Africa, even though they call their policy “Leadership with justice They will soon discover that it is said that it is leadership with injustice. They will be told by the Bantu leaders of the small political agiator groups particularly, as well as by all the Bantu states of Africa and by all the countries of UN, that there is no justice in it. They will say that the United Party policy offers only a limited form of the apartheid or segregation policy. The Opposition will therefore land in the same difficulties as those in which we have landed.

To that I want to add this. The United Party, which has accused us in regard to our policy of apartheid, itself really has a type of apartheid policy. I say “a type of”, because it is apartheid within integration, whereas we have a policy of vertical segregation with no integration. We see the four streams as being clearly separate and in every stream we see justice in the column of progressives which stretches from the bottom to the top. Anybody can, within the stream of his own community, qualify himself in any possible direction and satisfy his ambitions. Vertical separation gives and guards the opportunities for everyone inside his own stream, and that is the moral basis for it. But what does the United Party do? Together with the integration they have a kind of apartheid. It is a horizontal apartheid. The United Party draws a horizontal line and it would like to see that the majority of Whites remain above that line. A few of them will in fact sink below it, but the majority remain above the line. That is the leadership with justice for the Whites in so far as the majority of them have been pushed up above the line. In so far as the Bantu are concerned, they want to allow only a few of them to rise above the line, and also a few Coloureds and Indians. That is now the justice for the non-Whites advocated by that party. The great majority of non-Whites all remain below the line, because otherwise the leadership is in danger. It is horizontal separation. There is no morality in it! Nor is there any justice in such a scheme, and it will not bring about any peace. The danger in the standpoint of the United Party is that by conceding this principle and his rights, it abandons the basic principle of genuine segregation advocated by this side vertically. In terms of its policy the United Party will in fact give full justice to nobody. In the final result that policy is also just a colossal bluff, because in the final result it will simply mean that when once the principle of everybody developing within his own group is abandoned, the upsurge from below the line to above the line becomes inevitable and uncontrollable. In the final result a numerical majority of Bantu will emerge above, and injustice will have been done to the Whites, the Coloureds, the Asiatics and the mass of the Bantu, because in that way South Africa would have been handed over to a few Bantu dictators. There is no justice and no morality in it.

Nor can one obtain peace in that way. I hope hon. members will allow me to read a letter written by the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl). It is a pity the hon. member is not here, because I would have liked to read it in his presence. On 20 September 1960, he wrote a letter to the Rand Daily Mail. It was an attack on the Progressive Party. In that letter he quoted Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, namely words which Mr. Oppenheimer had used in this House on 24 January 1957. On that occasion he said this—

The bulk of the Native population has neither the education, culture, nor the experience to fit it to take a sensible part in democratic processes. That is the Native population as it is to-day.

The second reason advanced by Mr. Oppenheimer as to why there is no danger at present of their ruling the country was this—

But even if those difficulties were overcome —and here I differ particularly from the Liberal Party—even if they have that experience and education, there remains a very great risk that White South Africa will not take, the risk that if they did give political power into their hands they would use it, not for the benefit of a multi-racial South Africa as a whole (as hon. members of the Progressive Party still think at present) but for the benefit of an exclusive Black nationalism. I would say that those are the sensible reasons which make the people unwilling that political power should fall into the hands of the Natives in South Africa.

And then the hon. member for Green Point writes this—

Anticipating how the Progressive leaders will try to wriggle out of this by saying that they are creating safeguards for minorities, let me suggest that once a community which has the overwhelming majority of the population also obtains the majority of votes, no safeguards will be of any avail.

In other words, here I am quoting out of the mouth of the United Party the proof of my proposition that one cannot obtain peace in that way. In fact, it is clearly stated that the Whites dare not allow the power to slip out of their hands. The battle must or will then be joined by the United Party itself at the stage when White supremacy is challenged. That was said by Mr. Oppenheimer when he was still a member of the United Party. The other person, who is still a member of that party, also by implication states very clearly that they will not be able to allow a Bantu majority to rule.

Perhaps I should quote one other article to indicate that what I am trying to prove here even affects the Progressive Party. The White Opposition will not cease sniping at each other if the United Party should come into power. The Progressive Party will help to keep in progress the strife and unrest both in the country and outside it. Here I have a letter sent to the Rand Daily Mail by a member of the Progressive Party. In it he says that we must understand that there is no middle path. He emphasizes what the hon. member for Queenstown (Dr. Steytler) said, that there really are only two courses: The one represented by the Nationalists, and the other what he thinks is represented by the Progressive Party. The United Party thinks there is a middle path, but, writes this supporter of the Progressive Party, Mr. Andrew Sinclair, there is no middle path. And then we come to the important portion for the purposes of my argument. The editor wrote something in a footnote which reveals the thoughts in the ranks of the Opposition—

It is a pity that all Progressives are not as realistic as their leader. Dr. Steytler, who said in Parliament on 19 May this year that 95 per cent of White South Africans believe in baasskap and racial discrimination. However much we (the Rand Daily Mail) may deplore this, it is largely true and we must take account of it. Therefore, before there can be any hope of White support for the present Progressive principles, there must as a first step in this direction be a return to moderate middle-of-the-road policies. Surely this is clear enough.

In other words, they first want to deceive the public of South Africa. We must first follow the middle-of-the-road policy—we must follow the United Party a little—and as their education of the people succeeds, we will be guided increasingly towards the multi-racial policy of the Progressive Party. Will harmonious racial relations develop in the midst of this struggle which those hon. members will enter into amongst themselves, with us, with the Bantu and with the Coloureds and with the outside world? What hope on earth have we of obtaining internal peace in that way? I quote a brief sentence from the Liberal publication, Contact, published recently. That paper used these words—

No agreement or peace …

This is also an ultimatum from the Liberal Party that they will join the fight—

… can come about until such time as the Whites abandon their claim to rule.

Now the United Party must not try to tell me that they will be able to maintain peace and order by means of their Bantu policy, in the light of all the evidence I have adduced here, coming from their own ranks and from other sources.

Let us now deal with the matter of the relationship between the Whites and the Coloureds. I test the possibility of having harmony first in terms of our policy and then again in terms of their policy. During our regime there has been more peace and quiet and more new hope for the Coloureds than ever before. Do hon. members still remember how during the period when the Coloureds were on the Common Voters’ Roll and when the United Party was still busy teaching them to write in order to use their votes—showing interest for one day in order to obtain a vote and thereafter no further interest for five years —the Coloureds were continually incited against the White Nationalists, and how little peace there was as a result? Do hon. members remember how the Coloureds, as the result of that, made no progress, neither in the economic sphere nor in the educational sphere or any other sphere? Their assistance at the polling booth led to strife and not to benefits for them. Do hon. members still remember that period of frustration amongst the Coloured community? All that has been put a stop to since they were put on to a separate roll by this Government. That frustration is something of the past now, because now consideration is being devoted to their requirements. Perhaps I should qualify that by saying that that is so except in the case of Dr. van der Ross and people of that kind whose opinions the hon. the Leader of the Opposition apparently reads. The result is that to-day there is peace and rest and quiet amongst the Coloureds.

*An HON. MEMBER:

The hon. member for Green Point is entering the Chamber now.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

I am sorry that the hon. member for Green Point deprived me of the pleasure of his earlier presence. In any event, I just want to add this. To-day there is truly peace and quiet because the Coloureds generally speaking realize that they are being given an opportunity within their own community to improve their prospects in various walks of life. I am not alleging that we have said the last word in the political sphere. What I do say is this that we have indicated the trend of development within their own circle very clearly and that we have undertaken a great deal in respect of their upliftment and the improvement of their circumstances and their participation in controlling bodies at various levels. Opportunities are being created such as they have never had under any other policy. I go further and say that the latest discussions on the question of the Coloureds were initiated by Whites who think about these problems, not by the Coloureds. They are living in peace and quiet—to this day. Under our policy therefore, notwithstanding the fact that not everybody necessarily agrees with us, we have peace and quiet amongst the Coloureds.

But let us imagine that the United Party comes into power! Let us then take the latest Graaff policy, the “Charter of Hope”, and imagine what will happen to the Coloureds in terms of one of the two alternatives. One alternative is that of complete integration, politically as well. What does complete integration actually mean for the Coloured? It means that through his vote and the possible exploitation of his vote, he may again become an actual danger and may do an injustice to the Whites, as was the case previously, as I have already mentioned. But what does it mean for him? Such a party, and, it goes without saying, no other party would then single out the Coloured for special treatment. In terms of that policy the United Party would not be able to reserve opportunities for him in his group areas, or train him in a separate Coloured Council for self-government. No, the United Party would then be obliged to leave him to the mercy of competition. Under a policy of complete integration the Coloured would have to compete on equal terms with the Whites in every walk of life. It is possible that some individuals may find a special place under conditions of equal competition but the Coloured masses would be mercilessly crushed in that competition. That is why I say that complete integration, as the one leg of that two-legged policy of the United Party, holds out no hope for the Coloured masses. In contrast with what our policy will be able to do for them, it will harm the majority of them.

Let us also take the second alternative of his policy. According to that policy the Coloureds on separate rolls will be represented by four Coloured representatives instead of by Whites. Let us test that by putting two questions. (I admit that there are certain persons in our own ranks who have also thought in these terms. The Leader of the Opposition thought that he could exploit this fact. The point, however, is not what individuals think but what is the policy of this party and what is that party’s policy. The Government Party’s policy, which has been stated unambiguously, is not to allow Coloureds to be represented by Coloureds in Parliament. The United Party policy is that they are perhaps going to allow it. Let us assume that if they get into power they are going to allow it.) The first test is this: Would that improve the prospects of peace? Do hon. members really want to tell me that if four Coloured representatives sat in this House, the story would end there? Do they want to suggest that those four persons would be four educated Coloureds who would conduct themselves on a parliamentary basis? What guarantee can they give that that would be the case? In all probability four Coloureds would be elected who would come here to make more and more demands so as to remain popular, who would say that it is unfair that there are only four of them, that they want six representatives or that they want 20 representatives. They could come here and fight for the franchise to be extended to Coloured women so as to increase their voting strength and to support their claim for a greater number of representatives. In this way the struggle for greater representation would become keener, first on the separate roll and then on the Common Voters’ Roll. They would fight for the Common Roll; they would fight for social equality; they would fight in this House for equal rights with the accompanying facilities and they would fight for them outside this House. At what stage would the hon. the Leader of the Opposition resist those demands? Would he make concessions from the beginning or would he accede to all their demands?

*Mr. RAW:

They will fight in any case.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

Mr. Speaker, if that admission had come from the Leader of the Opposition it would not have been necessary for me to pursue this argument. The reply that has come from that side is “we shall fight in any case”.

*Mr. RAW:

No, “they” will fight.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

He says that they will fight in any case; what about those hon. members? Are they going to submit or are they going to fight? No, Mr. Speaker, there is not the slightest doubt that under that United Party policy there would continually be strife and discord between the Whites and the Coloureds. Do hon. members think, for example, that if the Coloureds sided with the Opposition and fought for these things and that if the United Party yielded or agreed with the Coloureds in due course, we would not fight back? Would that bring peace amongst the Coloured community in the country or would the struggle that takes place in this House also take place outside this House at the polling booth, where some of them may be representatives of the United Party itself? Would that not introduce strife and dissension in the ranks of our people on a scale hitherto unknown? Such a first step on the road to integration therefore would bring no peace.

The second question I want to ask is this:

Does this bring about any certainty that what is morally just will be done for the Coloured? I say “no”. I say that as long as we adhere to the policy of separate streams and concrete plans are devised within the stream of the Coloured community constantly to help them to develop more and more in every sphere and as long as positions for Coloureds are protected within that stream, then you have a moral basis. There may be a difference of opinion on the question as to whether that is practicable or not. I believe that it is practicable. But there can be no difference of opinion amongst members with regard to the proposition that such autogenous development is moral. If the United Party came into power, however, and brought four Coloureds into this House, after having accepted the proposition that Coloureds and Whites must be politically integrated and do everything together, perhaps in other spheres as well, how then, having once accepted integration, could it morally justify the proposition that the Coloured representatives must always be limited to four? If there is one representative for 10,000 Whites, would it be fair to give 50,000 or 100,000 Coloureds one representative under a policy of multi-racial government and a policy of no colour distinction? Once it has chosen that course, then its morality cannot allow it to draw the line anywhere! How can morality allow restrictions? How can it say “I have accepted four Coloureds and that is enough; they are not going to be given any more because the White man wants to remain the ‘just leader’”? How then can one draw the line in respect of the other matter, political or otherwise, and say “Here I draw the line”? As long as you have a four-stream policy, that policy is based on morality because everyone is given full opportunities within his own communal group, but you cannot continue with a policy under which the different streams are forced to run into each other and then only permit that process to take place on a very small scale, for such action then immediately becomes immoral.

I want to add too that it is also impractical. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said that we have not learned the lesson of Africa. On the contrary, we have learned the lesson of Africa. Has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition learned that lesson? Let us just look at this one fact. In Kenya, less than ten years ago—I think it was between six and eight years ago—they adopted the attitude that they wanted to act in a practical and moral way by means of integration. They said: “We want to satisfy all races and we are going to give political partnership to the non-Whites—but on a very limited scale, a sort of junior partnership. We are going to allow one or two Natives in the Legislative Assembly and perhaps make some of them Deputy Ministers or something of that kind. We as Whites are then going to retain the power in our hands and those people will remain satisfied for years because we are giving them recognition and they will want our leadership.” That was the theory. To-day Kenya has to face that situation in practice—the same thing that would have happened in practice in the Union if the United Party policy had prevailed in South Africa! We need not ask what the position is with regard to the peace and happiness of the Whites, with regard to the way in which things are developing. We need not ask where United Party policy would lead—we need only look. We must look at Kenya, we must look at the Federation, and we may as well look at the Congo also. In the Congo they also started with the idea of only giving the Natives a joint say in the city councils and even allowing them to become the mayors of multi-racial cities. They argued that this would satisfy them for a long time to come, and then everybody would have peace for a long time to come! One generation thought that it could buy wealth for itself and leave succeeding generations to inherit whatever might be the fruits of that policy. And now the present generation itself has inherited what it did not bargain for. Here the position would be precisely the same. Let us look at Africa, therefore, and see what happens once you get on to this road of gradual partnership. Within a short space of time the position here would be as it is in Kenya where the Native leaders are saying: “We want to rule alone. We want a Black State and then the White man will be welcome here and free to make money here.” That is practically what Luthuli has also said about South Africa and what other Native leaders have said. Once integration started there would never be an end to the demands. South Africa would not get peace on the basis of the type of concession which the Opposition parties have in mind. That is why I say that the test in connection with this motion is this: Think what would happen to South Africa and what would happen to the Whites if the United Party were in power and think of it in terms of what we see in other parts of Africa.

When we examine the question of peace and harmonious relations in this way, we see the hollowness of all the arguments advanced by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In terms of basic things which count, the events in the Congo are also a warning. The Leader of the Opposition, therefore, fails in the first point of his sermon in which he tries to tell us that we are not bringing about harmonious relations and internal peace but that he will do so.

I go on now to his second point and that concerns our good name abroad. It is alleged that we as a Government must disappear for the sake of the good name of our country abroad. I want to say at the outset that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has made a few statements here which I must deprecate very strongly. In the first place I must very strongly deprecate the fact that he dragged South West Africa into this debate.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Why?

*The PRIME MINISTER:

Because at the moment South Africa has to account to the International Tribunal for her administration of South West Africa. I feel, therefore, that the least we could do in this House was to refrain from offering any comment.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I did not offer any comment with regard to the mandate.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

I concede that he did not comment on the mandate but he did comment on the future effects of the tribunal’s verdict. Is it reasonable and wise on the part of a person who loves South Africa to embarrass us in regard to this matter? I must say that I deprecate that most strongly. If the hon. member will pause to ask himself what it may mean to a country when a matter of this kind is raised in Parliament and when, following his example, other members perhaps elaborate it, then he will realize why I deprecate what he did. Must other members also make use of their right to offer comments in this House? And where could it lead to? I think the hon. member has had sufficient time in the past and will have sufficient time in the future to talk about South West Africa. This is certainly not the time to do so.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I issued a warning about it last year.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

The hon. member admits then that he has already had his chance and that he has therefore availed himself of this opportunity to repeat what is totally unnecessary. I do not propose, therefore, to say anything about the erroneous arguments advanced by him because I too want to refrain from offering any comment.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

You want to run away (“vlug”—escape).

*The PRIME MINISTER:

The hon. member over there who says that I want to run away knows perfectly well, that he is the greatest escaper. The Leader of the Opposition has said that we do not have any friends at the United Nations, that Britain and the U.S.A. have from time to time criticized our policy of apartheid, and that after certain unfortunate events last year motions were even moved in their parliaments. That is so, but it is also quite clear why that is so. It is quite clear that it was because it suited the domestic politics and interests of those nations themselves. At present South Africa is being used as a useful red herring which can simply be taken down from the shelf whenever these countries have one or other problem of their own which must be evaded. If these nations are really moved by unselfish humanitarian considerations, did they also pass motions in their parliaments when White women and children were mutilated and murdered in the Congo, as happened in that country? Instead of the Leader of the Opposition warning us that motions have been passed in those countries dealing with apartheid, it would have been more appropriate if he. had said: Look how deplorably those countries are acting in attacking South Africa over one or two unfortunate events, while they let these other countries go their own way unhindered. It would have been better if he had defended his country instead of attacking it. Such action was not taken in the case of Hungary and all the difficulties which arose there because mighty Russia was involved and because the other nations were already involved in a struggle of their own. No, South Africa is weak. It is therefore useful, when a position arises in a country which might embarrass the government of that country, if it can divert attention by commenting disparagingly on some general scapegoat, and by so doing free its government from a difficult position. This is what has happened in various of these countries, and now this position is being thrown in our face as though we are responsible for criticism which has arisen simply as a result of the internal situation in those countries.

South Africa’s name moreover is not as bad as hon. members opposite try to make out. It is even a question whether taken as a whole the struggle overseas is in connection with criticism of South Africa or merely our international position. It is true that we are being vilified by leftist inclined groups, by those who are trying to cause disturbances, and by those who do not realize that by attacking us they are promoting the cause of Communism, but basically South Africa’s reputation is not so bad. One could rather say that her international position is being made difficult because she has become the football of various interests, but her name is not so bad now that a better understanding of a colour policy which is trying to serve the interests of all groups is becoming evident. Take the case of the Afro-Asiatic countries. These states have various interests of their own which they are trying to further. Some of them are struggling for the leadership of Africa. To gain the assistance and support of other African states, they are using South Africa’s policy and their attacks on her as a White state as a useful aid. On occasion when they are quarrelling amongst themselves and are trying to reunite their ranks, they use attacks on South Africa as an aid so that they can at least agree about something! It is not South Africa which is primarily under discussion. She is merely a means whereby they can achieve their own objects in their internal struggles and to further their own attempts to gain prestige, for example at the United Nations. When the nations quarrel amongst themselves and South Africa’s affairs are raised at UNO, we very often find that the states choose sides, not so much on the basis of what they think of South Africa, but with a view to obtaining the most support from the so-called uncommitted countries. In other words, we are not here dealing with South Africa’s bad reputation, although the leftists are trying to attack our reputation, but to a large extent we are dealing with international intrigue in which South Africa is being used.

Rather than merely trying to join forces with the leftists who would like to condition the world to the vilification of South Africa, the Leader of the Opposition should have laid emphasis on the thousands of people who are favourably disposed towards us in friendly countries, as has been proved by letters, newspapers and discussions with other leaders. By these means South Africa is repeatedly being given the clearest indication of the great core of friendship which exists overseas and of the increasing realization that our policy may be the correct one. The events in the Congo have opened the eyes of the outside world and the negotiations in London on the constitution of the Federation also opened the eyes of more people in England as regards non-White politicians and states. We have far more friends in the outside world than hon. members think, and we should acknowledge this rather than try to disparage South Africa.

Then I just want to add this. A country’s reputation does not only depend on its colour policy or its policy in one particular sphere. A country’s reputation depends on more than that. The recognition of its economic stability, of its stable government over all the years since 1910, of its scientific achievements and of the great development which it has brought about in Southern Africa, the level of its sporting achievements and the beauty of its scenery all give us a good name. In all the many other spheres of life which help to make a country’s name great, South Africa has earned the greatest possible respect. Do not say that South Africa’s reputation is bad because one part of its political policy is being criticized and in so doing perhaps overlook all the other good points. Together with the bad, please recognize all the beauty and goodness with which the outside world associates South Africa.

There are various reasons for the attacks which are being made on us. There is the lack of understanding of the facts, the motives and the objects of our policy. We are always trying to explain these to the outside world. Our Information Service is actively engaged on this task in many ways, but we have to fight against a worldwide humanistic movement which is evident to-day just as it was after the French Revolution. That world movement after the French Revolution also passed on. The whole colonial process in which Britain played an important part in Africa and elsewhere took place after the turning point in that movement, and hon. members surely do not deplore everything that England did after that humanitarian movement had died down. Times change. As a matter of fact, we already see to-day that there is a reversal of this movement. To-day already there is a movement back to a clearer appreciation of the relationships which should exist in a country like South Africa. I am not afraid of the future. I would be afraid if the United Party were in power, but the clearest possible signs of change are evident. Consequently one reason for these foreign attacks is a lack of understanding of the facts. A second reason is the deliberate misrepresentation in which other countries and the foreign Press are indulging for reasons of their own. A third reason for all these attacks is our own domestic party political struggle. The Opposition want to come into power, their Press want to help them to do so, and in the process they are at present going just further than is reasonable and wise and to the benefit of the country. All these misrepresentations and accusations which emanate from their ranks also go abroad because the channel through which the world to a large extent gets its news about South Africa is initially the newspapers in this country which support the United Party. From them it goes to Britain and from Britain it is disseminated throughout the world. This is one of the reasons why we are being attacked. Because the news emanates from these sources who with our domestic politics in mind are opposing us by every method they can devise.

There is another reason: The subversive leftist element which is found in South Africa and which feels itself powerless in this country, and here I also include the Liberal Party in particular. The latter are seeking foreign allies and are even telling the outside world that they should come to this country to bring about a change of government by force. This is one of the reasons for these attacks, namely these people in this country who are committing treason towards South Africa.

Then there is a further factor which is causing these attacks, namely the fact that South Africa’s position is so completely different from that prevailing in any other part of the world. People do not know our conditions. That is why we find that in America it is so readily thought that we can solve our colour problem by absorbing the non-Whites. The Americans can absorb their minority, their Negroes, into the great mass of their population, but they cannot understand that in South Africa the position is different. There the Negro minority is being absorbed by a process which uplifts them and they do not object, but if here in South Africa the Whites who constitute the minority were to be absorbed, they and the entire civilization and economy of the country would be forced downwards. It would also mean the absorption of the Whites who do not want to be absorbed—a completely different situation therefore. These people do not understand that. But allow me to say this. The United Party who are criticizing us so vigorously should not imagine that if they were to come into power, with the policy they are now advocating, they would fare any better at the United Nations or in the world. I want to remind the House of General Smuts’s own experience. Prior to 1948, when these factors had not built up over the years to the present state of affairs, General Smuts was faced with attacks which forced him to report in the same spirit as our representatives do to-day. He set out in the Senate in the clearest possible language how the struggle had been joined in that organization and how South Africa was being misused in that struggle. When one reads General Smuts’s speech at that time, it embodies practically word for word what we could say to-day about the position. Allow me also to remind the Leader of the Opposition of something else. If he were to go to the United Nations and to adopt his present standpoint there, the Afro-Asiatic countries would criticize any proposal which he made in terms of his policy just as they are criticizing us because they have only one demand, namely that the Bantu should govern in South Africa. He would therefore have to fight exactly the same fight. We then come to the facts regarding what he calls our friends. Our friends choose to vote or to abstain from voting with a view to the impression which they think they will make by so doing on these people whose friendship they want to retain in the struggle against Communism. Even if one makes far-reaching concessions, they will not vote for South Africa if they think that this group of so-called uncommitted nations will then accuse them of supporting the Whites of South Africa. They will once again do what they have done in our case. In private they are full of sympathy and they point out that they are our friends because we come from the same countries of origin, but with a view to their own foreign policy and interests they will be just as little able to give their active support to South Africa under this restrictive policy of the United Party as they can to-day. No concession we may make will make any difference to that position.

Then the United Party must understand something else. If they had to fight there as we have to fight, they would also have to choose between international popularity and the destruction of the White nation in South Africa. Then one has only one choice, namely to fight with all the strength at one’s disposal to safeguard the continued existence of the Whites in South Africa.

I shall dispose very briefly of the third reason the Leader of the Opposition gives for saying we should resign. He says we should resign because we have failed to bring about economic prosperity. This is simply the persistent story that one finds in their newspapers and amongst certain groups of businessmen. These people want to see our colour policy brought to an end because they think that they will then be able to make greater profits. Some of them are very strong supporters of the United Party and the other Opposition parties and they want us out of the way so that their party colleagues can come into power—for political reasons and perhaps for other reasons of their own as well. The facts are that all these comments of theirs are biased comments which must be weighed against the actual facts of the economic situation which prevailed during the past year. Hon. members will have noted that the newspapers often publish a factual report on a new favourable development which has taken place or on excellent import and export figures, etc. But these are published in small single column reports in these newspapers! Alongside we find reports of such attacks by biased businessmen on Africa’s economic prosperity, and these are given prominence. In this way the impression is being created that there is something wrong with our economic life. Moreover they do in fact spoil the economic climate. I want to say with the utmost clarity that the whole truth is that South Africa has had a good year. She has had her problems. I am not concealing that we have had problems caused by the decline in certain share prices for various reasons, some of which are of international application, as the declines in other countries have shown. Nor do I dispute that we have had problems as regards the fall in our foreign reserves. But even these two phenomena have had their credit side in that South Africa has gained possession at low prices of valuable domestic shares with the result that the dividends can be kept for our own fatherland or we can reap future profits. Apart from such problems, South Africa has undoubtedly enjoyed a reasonably prosperous year.

Then there is a second factor which should be taken into account, namely the favourable attitude of our own businessmen and of foreign businessmen who have visited this country. Both see such great prospects of development that they are prepared to invest additional funds and are anxious to do so in order to benefit from our country’s opportunities for prosperity. Furthermore I must point out that an indication of our prosperity and self-confidence is to be found in the fact that our own great key industries such as Sasol and Iscor are engaged on great development plans which could not have been undertaken if they did not form part of a rising curve in the industrial development of our country. When we study all the statistics which can be regarded as a barometer of prosperity or recession, we find prosperity in every field. I recently had before me statistics relating to railway traffic and revenue, exports and imports, the quantities of electricity generated, the building plans approved in the 18 main cities, the production of iron, steel, cast-iron and iron alloys, employment in the main industries of the country, the steady rise in the national income and the relationship between the prosperity of the racial groups as compared with other similar groups in other countries. Throughout, without one single exception, progress is evident. South Africa is experiencing a period of prosperity. Compare South Africa this year, with all her difficulties, with other countries such as Canada with her unemployment, the United States with her unemployment and her other economic problems, including her gold reserve position and the decline in share prices, and Britain with her economic problems. Then South Africa can consider herself very fortunate. I want to add that it is encouraging that it was precisely after the referendum about which the prophets of doom made such gloomy forecasts—for example that it would be followed by a recession —that we saw a further improvement in the position. The establishment of the republic therefore also has a part to play in advancing South Africa’s prosperity. When we take all these factors into account, how dare the Leader of the Opposition move such a motion and say that we should resign because we do not have prosperity? Of course we shall strive to increase this prosperity, and we have already announced various measures, but the basic fact is that South Africa is a fortunate and prosperous country.

When we take all the facts which I have submitted to you into account, then I ask you, Mr. Speaker: If we must choose between the United Party and its policy in the various spheres, its record of wavering and doing nothing, its promises for the future of greater difficulties than we have ever experienced, and this Government with its 10-year record of progress and advance in every sphere of life, what other choice can the people of South Africa make than the choice they made on 5 October? I make bold to say that if we were to hold an election to-day on the basis of who should govern South Africa, this Government would come back to this House with the same, if not greater, strength. We will come back to this House with the Progressive Party eliminated and the United Party internally weakened. Yet the Leader of the Opposition dares to move such a motion! It could not be more unrealistic. If I may give him sound advice, what he should do is withdraw his motion, throw overboard his policy and seek a new road.

Dr. STEYTLER:

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention in participating in this debate to indulge in purely party-political politics. I think it is correct that all points of view should be clearly put so that the electorate and all parties should clearly know where the respective parties stand. I think I am expressing the wish of every member, by virtue of the fact that we have had a long statement both from the hon. the Prime Minister and also from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, if I now move—

That the debate be now adjourned.
Mr. WILLIAMS:

I second.

Agreed to; debate adjourned until 25 January.

The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.