House of Assembly: Vol107 - FRIDAY 24 MARCH 1961

FRIDAY, 24 MARCH 1961 Mr. SPEAKER took the Chair at 10.5 a.m. QUESTIONS

For oral reply:

*I. Mr. MITCHELL

—Reply standing over.

Establishing of Industries in Border Areas *II Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Economic Affairs:

  1. (a) How many industries have been established in border areas since the announcement of the Government’s policy to encourage such industries, (b) where are these industries situated, (c) approximately how much (i) private and (ii) State capital has been invested therein and (d) how many (i) White, (ii) Bantu and (iii) other workers have been employed as a result thereof.
The MINISTER OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS:
  1. (a) None; and
  2. (b), (c) and (d) it normally takes a consider able time, in most cases from two to three years, from the time consideration is given to the establishment of an industry until it is actually established.
    The Permanent Committee for the Location of Industry and the Development of Border Areas, which has only been functioning for seven months, has thus far received 89 inquiries and 47 applications in connection with the establishment and expansion of industries in border areas. The majority of the enterprises being planned, will be established in Natal. Twenty-three of these applications could not be supported, two have been withdrawn, four have been referred to the Industrial Development Corporation, 11 are pending, five are supported in principle and are still receiving attention, whilst the remaining two cases receive financial assistance on the usual conditions from the Industrial Development Corporation. In this connection it may be mentioned that it has been decided to refer all applications, in which only capital assistance at economic tariffs is required, direct to the Industrial Development Corporation and to have the other applications, which do not fall under this category, dealt with by the Permanent Committee.
    At this stage it is too early to furnish figures in respect of capital investment in and employment with the proposed factories, but it can be mentioned that the applications in connection with the textile industry alone represent an investment of several million rand and employment for a few thousand Bantu.
    In conclusion I want to mention that the propositions which have been favourably considered, compare very well with the figures of applications to establish industries in the “Development Areas” in the United Kingdom, where in recent times out of a total of 122 applications 70 were refused, whilst the remaining 52 are being investigated.
Makatini Company and Trading in Native Reserve No. 16 *III. Mr. E G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

  1. (1) Whether the application of the Makatini Company to trade in the area at the Pongola Poort Scheme within Native Reserve No. 16 has been granted; if so, what are the names of (a) the owners, directors or partners and (b) the manager of the company;
  2. (2) whether the application has been granted subject to conditions; if so, what conditions; and
  3. (3) whether the fact that trading rights could be applied for, was made public in advance; if so, when and how; and, if not, why not.
The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:
  1. (1) Approval in principle has been given in terms of Section 18 (4) of Act 18 of 1936.
    1. (a) Messrs. J. F. Kriel and E. H. C. Hanke and Mesdames B. F. J. Martins and H. M. Muller.
    2. (b) Unknown.

      I may add for the hon. member’s information that I prefer that information of this nature be obtained from the Registrar of Companies.

  2. (2) No specific conditions have been laid down but the concession will in any case be subject to the conditions laid down in the standing permission to occupy which is issued in such cases.
  3. (3) No, because the initiative was taken by the interested parties.
Revenue Derived by the S.A.B.C. *IV. Mr. E G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

What was the revenue of the South African Broadcasting Corporation for each year since 1955 in respect of (a) licence and (b) advertising fees.

The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

The required information appears in the S.A.B.C.’s annual reports which were tabled in both Houses of Parliament. I wish to furnish it, however, for the convenience of the hon. member.

(a)

1955

£1,075,098

1956

£1,147,455

1957

£1,245,084

1958

£1,318,799

1959

£1,381,073

1960 (will be tabled this year); and

(b)

1955

£637,933

1956

£640,180

1957

£685,336

1958

£799,284

1959

£831,437

1960 (will be tabled this year).

Annuities Granted to War Widows by Special Pensions Board *V. Mr. J. LEWIS

asked the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions:

  1. (1)
    1. (a) How many war widows receive annuities granted by the Special Pensions Board in terms of Section 35 of the War Pensions Act, 1942, and
    2. (b) What is the amount of the annuity paid to each widow; and
  2. (2) whether any increases in these annuities have been granted; if so, what increases and when.
The MINISTER OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND PENSIONS:
  1. (1)
    1. (a) 30 Europeans, 14 Coloureds and 36 Bantu.
    2. (b) Europeans:

      28 widows without minor children receive R276 per annum each.

      2 widows with minor children receive R252 per annum each.

      Coloureds:

      11 widows receive R87 per annum each.

      3 widows receive R75 per annum each.

      Bantu:

      36 widows receive R23 per annum each.

      I may state that widows with dependent minor children receive an annuity in respect of each eligible child. The amounts of these annuities are—

      for European children, R72 per annum each;

      for Coloured children, R24 per annum each;

      for Bantu children, R11.80 per annum each.

  2. (2) Yes, increases were granted with effect from 1 April 1960.

    Previously the amount of the annuity paid to a European widow depended on the area in which she was resident. This distinction was abolished with effect from 1 April 1960, and the annuities of European widows resident in areas other than city areas were increased to the rates in force in city areas. In addition all European widows were granted a further increase of R84 per annum, with the result that these widows received increases ranging from R84 to R132 per annum.

    The annuities of Coloured widows resident in rural areas were adjusted to the rates in force in town areas and the annuities of all Coloured widows were further increased by R21 per annum with the result that these widows received increases ranging from R21 to R33 per annum.

    The annuities of all Bantu widows were increased by R8 per annum.

Repayment of Pension Contributions on Resignation *VI. Mr. EGLIN

asked the Minister of Finance:

Whether he intends to introduce a Bill during the current Session to amend the Pension Funds Act so as to incorporate the principle referred to in paragraphs 126 and 127 of the First Annual Report of the Registrar of Pension Funds.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

No.

Immigration and Emigration from 1940 to 1960 *VII. Mr. EGLIN

asked the Minister of the Interior:

How many persons (a) immigrated to and (b) emigrated from the Union and (c) became South African citizens (i) by registration and (ii) by naturalization during each year from 1946 to 1960.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

(a)

(b)

(c)

(i)

(ii)

1946

11,256

9,045

863

1947

28,839

7,917

2,761

1948

35,361

7,534

3,589

1949

14,780

9,206

2

3,990

1950

12,803

14,644

20

2,198

1951

15,243

15,381

10

1,747

1952

18,473

9,775

7

685

1953

16,257

10,220

193

375

1954

16,416

11,336

351

734

1955

16,199

12,515

406

835

1956

14,917

12,879

343

1,003

1957

14.615

10,943

426

1,164

1958

14,673

8,807

419

1,010

1959

12,563

9,378

554

995

1960

9,789

12,613

1,089

1,041

Police Action Against Demonstrations in Adderley Street *VIII. Mrs. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of Justice:

  1. (1) Whether the police took any action against demonstrations in Adderley Street, Cape Town, on 21 March 1961; if so, what was the nature of the demonstrations;
  2. (2) whether the police ordered the demonstrators to disperse; if so, whether the order was obeyed; and
  3. (3) whether any arrests were made; if so, (a) on what grounds, (b) what were the names of those arrested and (c) what charges were preferred against them.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:
  1. (1) Yes. Demonstrations in commemoration of the Sharpeville and Langa riots.
  2. (2) Yes. Not by all concerned.
  3. (3) Yes.
    1. (a) For failing to disperse after having been lawfully ordered by the police to do so.
    2. (b) John Williams.

      Lawrence Kumalo.

      Winifred Ndziba.

      Joyce Msusa.

      Idah Ncanywo.

      Emma Mcanca.

      Miriam Myata.

      Mildred Lesia.

      Athol Makinana.

      Lettie Malindi.

      Francina Mncanca.

      John Sacks.

      Isiah Stein.

      Sally Zimmerman.

      Anthony Eastwood.

      Peter Lawton.

    3. (c) Alleged contravention of the provisions of the Riotous Assemblies Act, No. 17 of 1956, read with the provisions of the Suppression of Communism Act, No. 44 of 1950.
Disturbances at Black Sash Meeting in Johannesburg *IX. Mrs. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of Justice:

  1. (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to a report in the Cape Times of 21 March 1961, of a Black Sash meeting held at the City Hall steps in Johannesburg on 20 March at which, it is alleged, that disturbances took place and that police who were asked to intervene refused to do so on the grounds that they could not act without orders; and
  2. (2) whether he will make a statement in regard to the matter.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:
  1. (1) Yes.
  2. (2) The police did not refuse to intervene. In fact their timely action prevented serious rioting.
Arrests in Connection with Multi-Racial Conference *X. Mr. COPE

asked the Minister of Justice:

Whether any persons were recently arrested in connection with a proposed multi-racial conference due to be held in Pietermaritzburg; and, if so, (a) what were their names, (b) where were they arrested and (c) what charges were preferred against them.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Yes.

(a) William Ngakane.

(b) Johannesburg.

Marks Shope.

Johannesburg.

Paul Masoka.

Johannesburg.

Julius Malie.

Johannesburg.

Nimrod Tantsi.

Bloemfontein.

Jeremiah Mbata.

Springs.

H. Bhengu.

Durban.

Jordan Ngubane.

Durban.

  1. (c) Alleged contravention of the Unlawful Organizations Act, No. 34 of 1960, read with the provisions of the Suppression of Communism Act, No. 44 of 1950.
Prohibition of Gatherings on 21 and 22 March *XI. Mr. TUCKER

asked the Minister of Justice:

  1. (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to a report in the Cape Times of 22 March 1961, that notice of the proclamation prohibiting gatherings on 21 and 22 March 1961, was not given to the South African Press Association or any English language newspapers;
  2. (2) whether such notices were published in any newspapers circulating in the localities concerned; if so, (a) on what dates and (b) in which newspapers were the notices published; if not, why not;
  3. (3) whether complaints that the prohibition had not been published timeously have been brought to his notice; and, if so,
  4. (4) whether he will take steps to prevent a recurrence.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:
  1. (1) Yes, but there was no proclamation.
  2. (2) and (3) The legal requirements in connection with publication were complied with.
  3. (4) Falls away.
Costs Per Bantu Scholar

The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION replied to Question No. *XV by Mr. Eglin, standing over from 17 March:

Question:
  1. (1) What is the cost of education from std. I to Junior Certificate, or its equivalent, for a Bantu Scholar; and
  2. (2) whether he is in a position to state how this cost compares with that for a European scholar.
Reply:
  1. (1)R69.50, made up as follows:

    R49.40 for readers, exercise books, atlases, slates, pens, pencils, erasers, ink, rulers, etc.

    R15.60 in respect of school fees which, however, is not compulsory; and

    R4.50 in respect of examination fees.

  2. (2) My Department has no data on the cost for European scholars.
Territorial Authority for Bantu Areas in Natal

The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT replied to Question No. *V, by Mr. Mitchell, standing over from 21 march.

Question:
  1. (1) Whether the intention is to proclaim a Territorial Authority for Zululand; if so, (a) when and (b) what boundaries is it proposed to proclaim for this Territorial authority;
  2. (2) whether it is proposed (a) to add additional land to the proclaimed area or (b) to withdraw land from the proclaimed area; if so, under what authority; and
  3. (3) whether the intention is that after the proclamation of this Territorial Authority additional land in Natal is to be purchased or obtained for the exclusive use of, or used exclusively for, the Bantu people; if so, what will be the extent of such additional land.
Reply:
  1. (1) The establishment of a territorial authority for the Bantu Areas of Natal, including Zululand, is under consideration.
    1. (a) It is not possible to name a specific date as the matter is still in the planning stage.
    2. (b) The boundaries can only be the same as those of the regional authorities in respect of whose areas the territorial authority is established.
  2. (2) (a) and (b) Yes, provided always the amount of land so added does not increase or reduce the quota allocated to Natal under Section 10 of the Native Trust and Land Act, 1936
  3. (3) Yes. As in the past land situated in the released areas in Natal will in terms of the provisions of the Native Trust and Land Act, 1936, if offered to the Trust, be purchased in accordance with the usual conditions governing such purchases. In addition the acquisition of certain unallotted Crown land in Zululand which will form part of the quota allotted to Natal Province, is under consideration. The Government’s policy as regards the use of land which is the property of the Trust by Territorial Authorities is clearly enunciated in Section 7 of the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act, 1959.
Total Number of Native Reserves

The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT replied to Question No. *XIII, by Mr. van Ryneveld, standing over from 21 March.

Question:

What is the total number of Native reserves in the Union, not including “ Black spots ”.

Reply:

It is presumed that the hon. member has in mind the areas traditionally occupied by the Bantu and set aside for them by the various colonies which later constituted the Union. If so, I have to refer him to the schedule of the Natives Land Act, 1913, as amended.

Land Purchased for Bantu Occupation in 1960

The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT replied to Question No. *XIV, by Mr. van Ryneveld, standing over from 21 March.

Question:
  1. (a) How many morgen of land were purchased during 1960 for Bantu occupation in terms of the Native Trust and Land Act, 1936, (i) in the Union and (ii) in each of the provinces and (b) what was the total cost.
Reply:
  1. (a)
    1. (i) 40,790 morgen.
    2. (ii) Transvaal 35,988 morgen. Cape Province 3,321 morgen. Natal 1,481 morgen.
  2. (b) R984.031.49.
Queries as Regards Race of Voters

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR replied to Question No. *XV, by Mr. Miller standing over from 21 March.

Question:

What number of persons whose names appeared on the Voters’ Roll prepared for the referendum received requests from the Secretary for the Interior for proof of race in terms of the Population Registration Act.

Reply:

No voters whose names appeared on the voters’ lists in respect of the referendum were requested to furnish proof of their race in terms of the Population Registration Act, 1950.

In terms of the provisions of the Electoral Consolidation Act, 1946, queries regarding their race were sent to 1,302 voters whose names appeared on the aforementioned voters’ lists. Of this number the names of 79 persons were removed from the voters’ lists because they did not qualify for registration as voters.

for written reply:

Aircraft of South African Airways Chartered by Companies I. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Transport:

Whether any aircraft of the South African Airways have since 1 January 1952, been chartered by companies undertaking passenger flights to countries abroad; if so, what was (a) the make of the aircraft, (b) the charter fees, (c) the period of the charter and (d) the name of the charterer in each case.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

Yes; details are, however, only available as from April 1952, and the reply is as follows:

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Make of aircraft

Charter fees

Period of charter

Name of charterer

1.

DC-4

It is considered undesirable to make public this information

1 day

B.O.A.C.

2.

| DC-3

2 days

QANTAS

3.

DC-4

4 days

C.A.A.

4.

DC-4

1 day

B.O.A.C.

5.

Constellation

1 day

B.O.A.C.

6.

| DC-3

1 day

D.E.T.A.

7.

Lodestar

8 days

Commercial Air Services

8.

i DC-3

2 days

D.E.T.A.

9.

Constellation

4 days

EL AL

10.

Constellation

3 days

EL AL

11.

Constellation

3 days

EL AL

12.

Constellation

3 days

EL AL

13.

Constellation

4 days

EL AL

14.

DC-3

1 day

D.E.T.A.

15.

DC-4

5 days

C.A.A.

16.

DC-4

6 days

C.A.A.

17.

Constellation

3 days

EL AL

18.

Constellation

3 days

EL AL

19.

Constellation

1 day

EL AL

20.

Constellation

3 days

EL AL

21.

Constellation

3 days

EL AL

22.

Constellation

3 days

EL AL

23.

DC-7B

2 days

EL AL

24.

DC-4

3 days

Trek Airways

25.

DC-4

2 days

Trek Airways

26.

Viscount

1 day

C.A.A.

27.

Viscount

1 day

C.A.A.

28.

Viscount

1 day

C.A.A.

29.

DC-4

1 day

C.A.A.

30.

DC-4

1 day

Trek Airways

31.

DC-4

6 days

Trek Airways

32.

Viscount

1 day

C.A.A.

Cost of Alterations to Railway Line Union-Volksrust II. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Transport:

  1. (a) What is the total amount spent on alterations to the Union-Volksrust railway line since 1 January 1957; and
  2. (b) what maximum tonnage could be conveyed over this line by one goods train (i) before the alterations and (ii) after the alterations.
The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:
  1. (a) R20,672,232.
  2. (b)
    1. (i) 1,000 tons for 96 axles.
    2. (ii) Between Volksrust and Kraal the load has been temporarily increased to 1,118 tons for 96 axles. As soon as all the work north of Kraal has been completed, new loads will be determined by means of tests with the dynamometer car.
Railways: Joubert Report not to be Tabled III. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Transport:

  1. (1) Whether a departmental report on certain aspects of the administration of the Railways, known as the Joubert Report, has been submitted to him; if so, (a) by whom was the report drawn up, (b) what is its subject-matter and (c) what are the recommendations; and
  2. (2) whether he will lay the report upon the Table; if not, why not.
The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:
  1. (1) Yes.
    1. (a) A departmental committee consisting of senior officers of the General Manager’s Office, the Civil Engineering Department, the Stores Department and the Mechanical Department, under the chairmanship of Mr. P. G. Joubert, the then Assistant General Manager (Commercial and Road Transport);
    2. (b) stores stock on hand at and the work load of mechanical workshops;
    3. (c) it was a fact-finding committee and no recommendations were made in the report.
  2. (2) No; it is not the practice to lay upon the Table departmental reports.
SUPPLY

First Order read: Adjourned debate on motion for House to go into Committee of Supply and into Committee of Ways and Means (on taxation proposals) to be resumed.

[Debate on motion by the Minister of Finance, upon which amendments had been moved by Mr. Waterson and by Mr. Williams, adjourned on 23 March, resumed.]

Mr. HORAK:

When the House rose last night, I was indicating that we in this country find ourselves in a situation which is fraught with danger and peril, probably the most serious situation in which we have been in the course of our existence as a Union. Sir, nothing that has happened overnight, as reflected in the morning Press, has done anything to change my view. I see, for instance, that the Lord President of the Council in London yesterday said that South Africa by her policy of apartheid was “ bent upon a course of action which would lead to disaster”. I see also, Sir, that we have for a change voted at the United Nations, and that the result of that vote was that we with one other nation opposed 79 countries. As I say, nothing has happened overnight to change my views on the situation, a situation which cannot be improved by ignoring the dangers which exist, by whistling at the cemetery, by proceeding on the path which this Government is set without a reappraisal, without heart-searching, and without a very serious re-assessment of the policies which have led us to this grave pass. How have we got here? I think we have got here for two reasons largely. Firstly, in the course of the past 60 years, hon. gentlemen on the other side and their predecessors have directed their major efforts in South Africa to the avengement of the past. They have directed their major efforts towards the winning of the Boer War. They brave done that in the course of 60 years by building up in this country a nationalism not built upon the loyalties or the patriotism of all the peoples of South Africa, not even built upon the loyalty and the patriotism of all the White people of South Africa, but a nationalism built upon a section of the Afrikaner people, only a section. That has been the course of history, and what we have to-day is the end result of that course. In doing this, gentlemen on the other side and their predecessors have undone everything that the great leaders, the great visionaries of the past in South Africa achieved. I speak of the Bothas and the Smutses, who in their preaching of tolerance, conciliation and mutual regard of one another’s tradition in the bitter period after the Boer War …

Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER:

The English War.

Mr. HORAK:

There we have precisely the sort of thing I referred to, the destroying of any prospect that we as White people in South Africa can ever have of achieving national unity.

An HON. MEMBER:

Why call it the Boer War?

Mr. HORAK:

Call it the “ Vryheidsoorlog ” if you like. I am a South African, and I think my antecedents had something more to do with that war than those of the hon. gentleman had.

Mr. Speaker, in this narrow concentration upon the avengement of the real and imaginary grievances of the past—over 60 years—we have had smashed down in this country any chance of building a united White South African nation. The example I referred to, the example set by General Botha and General Smuts, has been ignored in favour of the creation of a very narrow and exclusive nationalism which has led us to the pass in which we find ourselves to-day, and coupled with this attitude we have over the years the distortion, the twisting of the traditional policy of social and residential and racial segregation in South Africa into a barren ideology, the ideology of apartheid. Over the past 13 years we have seen grow from an election slogan, apartheid, a new ideology. In 1947 apartheid meant, in most men’s minds in South Africa and out of it, simply the traditional policy of the European in South Africa; the policy of social segregation, of residential segregation, of no miscegenation. That was the policy of every White man in this country.

Mr. B. COETZEE:

And political segregation.

Mr. HORAK:

No. Does the hon. member not know about General Hertzog’s Pact of 1936? Does the hon. member not know the history of this country?

Dr. DE WET:

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Mr. HORAK:

I am sorry, but my time is very limited. Since 1947 we have had the distortion, the conversion of that traditional policy in South Africa, the policy of segregation, into a barren ideology which has come to stink in the nostrils of the world. And it is a barren ideology. And we are now asked, at this pass in the affairs of South Africa, to stand together as South Africans behind the hon. the Prime Minister and behind hon. gentlemen on that side of the House in the name of unity. We are asked to do that without any reconsideration, without a single move towards re-appraisal by the hon. the Prime Minister; without any re-assessment of the path which he has traversed and which brings us to where we are to-day. One does find, in the streets outside, that people say “ What else could the Prime Minister have done?”

An HON. MEMBER:

Most people.

Mr. HORAK:

Well, I must say it is very difficult to find what else he could have done at this particular juncture. But he has put himself in this position. To a certain extent I sympathize with the hon. the Prime Minister because he has been put in that position by the actions and the omissions of people who preceded him over the years and who, for 60 years, have been engaged in this barren Nationalist struggle. Now we are asked to stand as South Africans behind the Prime Minister without, as I say, any re-appraisal on his part or on the part of his party of the actions and policies which have led us to where we are to-day, and which will inevitably lead us to destruction if they are pursued.

Sir, the South African is a creature of great loyalty. He loves his country, and he has demonstrated that over the years. In the last war, the 1939-45 war, I had in my battalion many young boys whose political beliefs did not agree with those of the government at the time. They were not United Party supporters. But they went to war and they gave their blood and their lives in many instances because of their loyalty to South Africa. They did that in a great cause, in the cause of world freedom and the freedom of our country. What I now want to warn of is this: I want to ask and implore of the hon. the Prime Minister that he will not, in this situation, exploit and abuse the loyalties of South Africans who love their country by asking them to follow him on this path which can only lead to the abyss.

*Mr. VAN STADEN:

The hon. member who has just sat down said last night that the time had come for serious discussion. We on this side agree. I listened very attentively to the hon. member, but he was definitely not in earnest in his discussion of the position of South Africa and he made no contribution towards improving the position of the White man. He was only in earnest in one regard, and that was in his attempt to harm the hon. the Prime Minister, the Government and the National Party. That is the only serious attempt he made. But he further said that the Opposition had been loyal to South Africa for 13 years. You know, the loyalty which South Africa has been given over the past 13 years by the Opposition has been of the same type as was given by the Opposition during this debate yesterday. For 13 years the United Party have covertly associated themselves with the Black man. But since yesterday they have openly chosen the side of the Black man and not only the side of the Black man in South Africa, but the side of the Black man throughout the world. The fact of the matter is that we could in fact have remained a member of the Commonwealth, but what was the demand that was made? We had to grant equality to everyone in South Africa, and it is this demand which the United Party wanted the hon. the Prime Minister to concede. The hon. the Prime Minister has refused to sell out the White man and in that regard we stand as one man behind him. Mr. Speaker, I say they have associated themselves with the Black States in the Commonwealth. As far as racial policy is concerned, the United Party can no longer conceal its nakedness and I prophesy that from now on its supporters will leave it in droves.

During this debate it is the United Party who have provided our enemies, including our enemies in the Commonwealth, with ammunition. The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), who was the first United Party speaker during this debate, has said that the racial policies of the Prime Minister are the cause of all our difficulties. Have the United Party now thrown overboard all colour bars in South Africa? What are their supporters outside to believe? What has happened here, and what also happened at the Commonwealth conference, has been that the Prime Minister and South Africa have upheld the traditional colour policy of South Africa. I should like to ask the United Party: Why are the members of the Progressive Party sitting over here? Why did they oppose one another in Green Point on the question of the colour policy? The United Party has always claimed that the Progressive Party is too liberal and wants to go too far. But during this debate the United Party have gone at least as far as the Progressive Part. During this debate they have solidly supported the Black man. They are at one in heart and in mind. We just want to tell them that as far as we are concerned, this is not the end of the world. We have the faith to persevere, and we have the will to triumph. In the past our slogan has always been South Africa first, but from now on we shall add something else: Increase production and buy South African. This is so because we believe that this is not the end of the world, but that by struggling a nation becomes great. This struggle is for the continued existence of our nation, of the White man in South Africa.

I think that the prophets of doom amongst the Opposition are glad about this red herring which they have been given by this question of our membership of the Commonwealth because this Budget is absolutely water-tight. There can be absolutely no criticism of the Budget itself, and I think the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Government can pat themselves on the back for having been so successful in maintaining the economic and financial position of the country that, after being in power for 13 years, there is not one loophole. This is a balanced diet, and first things come first; that is to say our defence, the development of the Bantu areas, border industries and the establishment of a development corporation for the Coloureds.

But, Mr. Speaker, because we believe this is not the end, but the beginning, of great things for our people—why else have we suffered and struggled—and because we believe that we must provide for future generations, I want to bring one or two matters to the notice of the Minister and the Government. During the debate on the Part Appropriation Bill and later on private members’ days during this Session, we have discussed the drought position and the position of our farmers in the country. The United Party has claimed to be particularly concerned about the depopulation of the platteland. Now I must honestly admit that, if I was a United Party member, I would have been far more concerned about the depopulation of the platteland, because the more depopulated the platteland becomes, the more nationally inclined the cities become and the bigger the majorities gained by the National Party and the smaller the representation of the United Party in this House. During this debate hon. members have tried to hold the Government responsible for this position. The fact of the matter is that the farmers throughout South Africa, as well as in the drought-stricken areas, are infinitely grateful to the Government for the assistance which has been provided over the past five years. I do not want to go into that matter, but I have figures here which show that, over the past five years, the assistance which has been given to farmers, including assistance in respect of mortgages, etc., totals more than R200,000,000. But we are all grateful that it has started to rain in these drought-stricken areas. But we must take steps for the future, and, with this object in mind, I want to associate myself with the speech by the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. J. D. de Villiers) during the debate on the Part Appropriation Bill, when he gave us figures which gave cause for concern regarding the White population of the Cape. What we must not forget is that the major portion of the Cape is traditionally a White man’s area. For that reason we cannot afford this area to lose its White people.

As I see the position, there are three methods which can be adopted and which can be used to very good effect by the Government in order to keep the White man in this vast part of our country. Much has been said recently about the first method, namely, the utilization of the Orange River. I do not want to say much on that point because the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs made a statement in this House last Friday. But I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Government to keep in mind that this river, the main source of water in South Africa, runs through the heart of these drought-stricken areas, and, although the droughts have lasted five years and longer in those areas, this river never ran dry for one moment, and a vast quantity of surplus water flowed into the sea. I do not want to associate myself with the people of the Sundays River or with any other side. I just want to say that a great deal of land is available in the heart of this drought-stricken area. The hon. the Minister has given figures showing the land which is still available along the banks of the Orange River. But along the Sak River there is also the most fertile land to be found anywhere in South Africa. A great deal has been said about fodder banks which should be established. I believe that the solution is that this water should be used to enable the farmers to establish their own fodder banks by making a piece of irrigable land available to each farmer.

There is another method which can be used. In this regard I want to urge the establishment of a branch of Iscor in this area. Unfortunately, no coal is available in this vast part of our country which covers two-thirds of the Union, but there is a plentiful supply of iron ore. It has already been accepted in principle that Iscor must be expanded. Four stages have already been decided upon, of which two are nearing completion at a final cost of R112,000,000. But there are another two stages which it is calculated will cost another R520,000,000. It is considered that all four stages will be completed by the end of 1972. But it has not yet been decided where the other two development stages will be undertaken, and I ask that these two further stages should be undertaken somewhere in this area. The principle of division and decentralization has long since been accepted; that is to say, when a branch of Iscor was established at Vanderbijlpark. In establishing a branch elsewhere, we are, therefore, not dealing with a new principle. I just want to point out that there is scope for development. We have coal and large quantities of iron ore. From 1958 to 1959 the domestic consumption of steel declined, and we could then export. We exported a total of 755,000 tons of steel to 30 different countries. There is a heavy demand for South African steel products; Japan, the United States, the United Kingdom and Argentina were amongst the most important buyers. The increase in the consumption of steel since 1959 has resulted in the export of steel having to be stopped, with the result that we shall have lost those markets when we one day again have the position that we are producing more steel than we need. Mr. Speaker, I now want to say this: By establishing a steel factory nearer the coastal areas, we can improve the export position. It is true that it will cost a great deal to convey the coal, but, by bringing the steel nearer our coastal cities, we shall be greatly reducing the cost of exporting that steel, and I therefore think that it is correct that there should be this decentralization.

Then there is one other matter which we can seriously consider, namely, the establishment of a nuclear reactor somewhere in this vast area. In this regard I am not an expert. But precisely in this area, where coal is not available, and in view of the fact that it costs a great deal to convey coal for the generation of power, we must think primarily of the use of nuclear power. The experts say that a nuclear reactor should really be established in a desert. There is such an area along the west coast, and a nuclear reactor can provide power over a radius of 600 miles. By establishing one nuclear reactor, the whole Orange River area, the interior and the western Cape could be served. One argument can be used against this suggestion, namely, that vast quantities of capital have been invested in the railways, and that the loss of coal traffic would be a tremendous setback for the railways. On the other hand, I say: By producing more steel and by establishing a great export market, we would once again be providing the necessary traffic to the railways and the railways would definitely not suffer the losses which some people claim they will suffer.

*Mr. KEYTER:

I just want to come back for a few moments to the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Horak). In his speech he has said that the United Party still follow the traditional policy which was laid down by the 1936 Act as far as relations between Black and White are concerned. I wonder whether the hon. member realizes that he is completely behind the times. Did he not hear the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) say in this House that the 1936 legislation was only an experiment and that it had been a failure? For that reason the hon. member on behalf of his party can no longer rely on the 1936 legislation.

Furthermore, the hon. member has once again tried to beat on the old war drums. That will not help us. We are living under changed conditions. The United Party is co-operating with the enemies of South Africa. When we look back over the past week, when we consider everything that has happened, we can see how the United Party do not care a scrap what happens to South Africa. As we have seen, the East and the West are bidding against one another for the support of the Black man in Africa in order to gain his favours, in order thereby to strengthen and to enrich themselves, and with that end in view they have no qualms about sacrificing the White man of South Africa. The United Party is prepared to accept that position. Mr. Speaker, the members of the United Party are so filled with hatred and envy of the National Party Government that they do not care whether the Black man eventually governs South Africa, but they just do not want this National Party Government to remain in power. They are not even as South African-minded as the Prime Minister of Australia or many members of the Conservative Party in the British House of Commons or even certain members of the Upper House. Many of those members are more South African-minded than the United Party because they feel that the hon. the Prime Minister of South Africa could adopt no other course than the one which he adopted in London. They agree with it. But the members of the Opposition do not see their way clear to agreeing with what he has done. This is because they are so filled with hatred and envy of the National Party Government. They are even prepared to agree with those representatives who vilified South Africa at the Commonwealth Conference. They are prepared to concede to the Black States in the Commonwealth that they are correct. They agree with them. The intention is to humiliate South Africa. This is the South African feeling of the Opposition! They are co-operating with Ghana, Malaya and India. They wanted the hon. the Prime Minister to give way to the Black States. That was what they wanted, and they wanted to sacrifice the White man in South Africa in order to remain in the Commonwealth.

We have already been told that when our representative at the Commonwealth Conference refused to allow a discussion of the domestic affairs of South Africa at the Commonwealth Conference last year, hon. members criticized that representative. They said he was wrong and he should have allowed that discussion. This year such a discussion was in fact allowed in order to facilitate matters for the Commonwealth in order that we could remain in the Commonwealth. Now hon. members are asking why this concession was made. If the concession had not been made, and the hon. the Prime Minister had refused to allow the discussion and matters had come to a summary end, hon. members would then have made the reproach: Why did you not make that concession? We would have had that reproach. I do not even want to refer to South Africa’s self-respect which she had to preserve, but I feel that I would rather be outside the Commonwealth and be faced with some difficulties than allow the White man to be betrayed in the Commonwealth. That is what they wanted. They wanted the hon. the Prime Minister to let the White man be betrayed in the Commonwealth; they wanted him to betray the White man by making concessions so that the policy which we follow in South Africa could be destroyed. Concessions had to be made, and it has also been made quite clear that these were only temporary concessions and that they eventually hoped that all the concessions would have to be made so that every person in South Africa, White or Black, would have a vote. We know that is the policy of the Progressive Party. They do not mind the White man being betrayed.

Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the United Party are so obsessed by hatred and envy of the National Party Government—it is for no other reason but simply because this is a National Party Government. Had there been another government in power, they would not have been filled with such hatred. The reason why I say this is because in 1948 when our Government came into power, the United Party followed the same policy as to-day. They can therefore not say that it is the policy of this Government which has caused these difficulties. And at that time the United Party were already trying to sabotage South Africa. In 1948, when this Government gained the victory, their then leader was already saying that because our country had a National Party Government, she would be destroyed economically, money would flow out of the country and the banks’ doors would close. At that time they already tried even to sabotage the Government financially. They did not care a scrap whether it would ruin the country economically or whether the people of South Africa would suffer as a result of their behaviour. They simply wanted to cause the Government difficulties in the hope that in 1953 they would come into power again, and when they were unable to do so, they became even more bitter. To-day they do not even care whether they co-operate with the Black States in order to bring South Africa to her knees. On two occasions they have tried to drive a wedge into the ranks of the National Party, but on two occasions we have seen that as a result of their policy they have split asunder. First the Conservatives left them, and now as a result of their Native policy they have a second splinter party. This shows that they do not have any colour policy and if they should come into power one day, which will never happen, they will crash down a precipice.

When we discuss economic matters, they try to frighten the people into believing that because we are becoming a republic outside the Commonwealth, things will go so badly for South Africa. I do not want to discuss what has already been said, but I should like to say that England enjoys far more benefits than South Africa under the protective policy which has been followed in the past. If England were no longer to receive the gold, the uranium, the wool and all the raw materials of South Africa, her financial position would be far weaker than ours. In addition we must assume that England imports products from South Africa which she cannot buy elsewhere. It is not so easy simply to buy those minerals and raw materials elsewhere. But we also buy manufactured goods from England which we could easily buy from any of the other great countries of the world and perhaps even at lower prices. That is the difference between us and England as far as trade is concerned. They now say that we enjoy preferential tariffs. I can say from experience that there are in fact products which sell abroad, not in England but in other countries, at better prices than those paid in England, even with the preference tariffs. If our trade agreements with England are to be abrogated, if England no longer wants them, I am certain that if the products which South Africa exports are offered to other countries and trade agreements are entered into, some of those countries will be most eager to enter into those agreements. I see that some of our friends in the Opposition are laughing at this, but it is the actual truth. South Africa supplies raw materials which are not easily obtainable elsewhere.

I want to make an appeal to the English-speaking people, and I hope that there are still some sitting here who are not so blinded by their hatred. On the platteland there are many English-speaking people who are well disposed towards the National Party, and as a result of the attitude the United Party is adopting to-day there will be more and more of them. I appeal to the English-speaking people to examine the position in the old Free State Republic and how the Afrikaans- and English-speaking people co-operated at that time, and to remember that there was not the same feeling between them at that time that there is to-day. There was co-operation. Those English-speaking people who came from England learned to love the republic, and I hope that there is still a chance that some of our friends opposite will also learn to love the republic because I know of many English-speaking people outside who will love the republic and who will cooperate with us and who will learn to love the republic just as much as the English-speaking people loved the Free State Republic, so much so that they fought with the Afrikaners for the preservation of that Republic.

Seeing that the British Parliament has now discussed the Protectorates and the need for a new agreement with our Government in connection with the Protectorates and, in view of the fact that the Basutoland Government has placed police posts all along the borders wherever one can cross from the Free State into Basutoland, and in view of the fact that the White man is stopped on entering Basutoland and has to indicate where he is going, what route he is following, when he is coming back and by what route he is coming back, I should like to ask the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance also to take note of this fact and I say that we for our part should do the same. When the White man wants to enter Basutoland, he is provoked by these Native constables. His motor car is inspected, but from Basutoland they can enter freely and there is no one to stop them. If the United Party talk about a police state in South Africa they should go to Basutoland and see what the position is there.

Apart from that, the border farmers along the Caledon River are in almost the same position as the border farmers of the Eastern Province were in the old days. Along the Caledon River the position to-day is such that a farmer cannot leave anything on his lands. He must take everything home with him at night if he does not want to find the next morning that half his equipment or half his plough has been stolen during the night. The Government is also paying a large subsidy to the consumers in South Africa to-day and to a large extent the Protectorates are also enjoying that subsidy. When one goes to Ficksburg for example and one sees all the foodstuffs going to Basutoland in respect of which this Government is paying large subsidies to the consumers, I want to say that we should ensure that the Basutoland Government repays that subsidy. If the Protectorates do not want to form part of the Union, they cannot expect the Union Government also to subsidize their population so that they can have cheap food.

In addition we find that thefts are increasing tremendously in the border areas. When a farmer, on arriving in the morning and finding that some of his stock have been stolen, follows the trail and finds it crosses the Caledon River, he has to turn round there, even if he can see that stock just on the other side of the river. Then he must go to our police and they have to go to Maseru or Labibe, and they in turn have to obtain permission from the police there. Then they go together but they cannot simply go after the stolen stock. They must first go to the chiefs kraal and the chief then says he will see whether there is any stolen stock. He instructs his village to bring their stock together and they then bring a number of animals into the kraal and he says that you must point out which is your stock. But the stolen stock is not brought into the kraal, and then one has to leave. That is the type of co-operation we are receiving from the Protectorates.

Then there is another matter. As a result of the fact that the Protectorates and particularly Basutoland, are located in the heart of the Union, it is difficult to regulate our system of justice because if an accused person is released on bail, he simply flees across the border and they refuse to extradite him. He becomes an agitator in Basutoland and he starts inciting the Basutos who have always been law-abiding. To-day we are finding that Natives go so far as to agitate and to distribute pamphlets in the Free State. People park their motor cars in Ficksburg and when they come back they find that pamphlets have been thrown into their cars. These pamphlets are even being distributed amongst the Natives, and they are inciting the Natives in Basutoland against the Government of South Africa. This is because Basutoland is so easily accessible to the agitator in this country; when he sees that the Government are on his track, he then simply flees across the border. As I have said, as far as Basutoland is concerned, we find that over the past 30 years the population of Basutoland has not increased. Nevertheless when we go into Basutoland we see large numbers of children, but the population of Basutoland remains constant. The increase in Basutoland’s population is being transferred to the Union and the time has come for us to say: Look, if that is the position, the Protectorates must come under the control of the Union so that we can help them to absorb more of their population increase themselves and so that they will not simply stream into the White areas. I shall appreciate it greatly if the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister will have the position regarding the Basutoland border investigated. As far as trade is concerned, for example, we find that in the case of kaffircorn, a levy has been imposed on all the malt produced in the Union, but that when kaffircorn is exported to Swaziland, a levy cannot be imposed. The malt is simply manufactured over the border and the same malt is then brought back to the Union to compete with the malt manufacturers in the Union who have to pay a levy of 4s. 6d. to 6s. per bag. That is the advantage which they enjoy because they can produce malt in that area, and that malt is produced from kaffircorn which they import from the Union. I think it has become a very unreasonable position that we cannot impose a levy on products which leave the Union. While we are faced with surpluses, the Protectorates dump mealies on the Union’s markets without paying a levy. We shall have to devise plans so that a distinction can be drawn. As I understand the position, the agreement is that if we do not impose a levy on any article in the Union, we may not do so when that article goes to the Protectorates and vice versa, but under present conditions I think we shall have to review that position and introduce a change.

Mr. MITCHELL:

I think that so far as Government members are concerned, this week has shown their lack of reality because they are running away from the realities of our difficult situation in an almost incredible way. The hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not follow him, but I think his speech, particularly in regard to the last few sentences, shows the position in which the Government members are placed in this debate. South Africa’s isolation in the world to-day is of little account compared with the export of our kaffir-corn. I think the hon. member should now call it Bantu-corn out of consideration for the whims and fancies of the Minister of Bantu Administration. It is a lack of reality which is almost frightening. Member after member is not getting down to what matters, to the realities, to our isolation in this world. Our country is isolated. Even the Prime Minister in his speech of nearly two hours carefully avoided our isolation. There have been two realistic speeches made so far, one by the Leader of the Opposition, which I think is one of the most outstanding speeches I have ever heard in this House. It was the speech of a statesman, a man who was not trying to score small debating points or take advantage of the obvious chinks in the Government’s armour. The other was that of the member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst). He brought a breath of reality to this debate. There was not one touch of politics in his speech from beginning to end. He merely pointed out the position we were in, defenceless and isolated. What are hon. members opposite doing to grapple with that situation? They are trying to talk party politics again and we have had speech after speech on the old theme of: You are kafferboeties.

HON. MEMBER:

Who said that?

Mr. MITCHELL:

The Chief Whip especially. It is no good hon. members getting angry. They can get angry when they make their speeches. I am not going to lose my temper. The hon. the Minister of External Affairs was one of those who ran away from reality, and in his speech the hon. the Prime Minister aided and abetted him. The picture painted to hon. members behind him was one of intransigent non-European Prime Ministers at the Conference who were ganging against White South Africa on a colour basis. That was the picture. When they move away from colour they come to our internal policy, which is our affair. They say no one has any right to discuss our internal affairs because it is our domestic affair. Where is that carrying us? Who was against it? The non-White Prime Ministers? No, every Prime Minister was against us. The White Prime Ministers opposed us as much as the non-Whites. It is a completely wrong picture to present to South Africa, of a White Prime Minister from South Africa battling with the Afro-Asian Prime Ministers. It is no good the Prime Minister coming here with this talk of how he resisted any attempt to discuss the constitutional change. That was not the issue. The issue was the policy of South Africa, which was condemned by both the White and the non-White Prime Ministers, and what was the net result? Six White Prime Ministers and six non-Whites came together, because our Prime Minister funked the issue and ran away and left six White Prime Ministers to deal with six non-Whites. Do not let us misinterpret the reports coming from overseas about the speeches of the British Prime Minister and other Prime Ministers, and run away with the idea that he was sitting there with the sympathy of any of the White Prime Ministers. The Minister of External Affairs was guilty of one of the most irresponsible statements which could have been made in this debate when he accused the Prime Minister of Canada of telling a deliberate untruth. How will that get us friends? I want to say to the Minister that I personally resent this reflection on the Prime Minister of Canada, because for the moment he is condemning us. I fought alongside Canadians. [Interjections.] Suppose the other White Prime Ministers who were there and who know what took place say that our Minister of External Affairs is wrong in his facts? I say I fought alongside Canadians and I do not want the Minister throwing aspersions on the Canadians, on the Prime Minister of Canada. They went there with a mandate, but they threw away that mandate. That was a betrayal of the people of South Africa by the Prime Minister when he did not carry out the mandate to keep us within the Commonwealth. But the Minister of External Affairs now ranges himself behind this theory that diplomatic representatives could not be accepted here. The point was made by the Prime Minister yesterday and presumably from what is coming from overseas now, possibly the turning-point upon which the whole of the decision was reached at the conference hinges on this matter. Why does the Minister run away from this issue? Before the days of the present Prime Minister, he was suggesting in this House that houses should be built in Bryntirion to house these ambassadors from the non-White states. He is the man who suggested it. Why was that dropped? It stands in Hansard and the hon. the Minister can look it up. When we pressed it from time to time because we wanted it to be done, he ran away from it and now the whole thing has been dropped, and to-day most people do not even remember that this same Minister made those suggestions.

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

Where did you get hold of that? It is quite untrue.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Now we cannot have these ambassadors. The Minister of External Affairs, in referring to the speech of my leader, could not find one single little chink in the logical arguments of my leader. He is a very good debater. If there is a weakness anywhere, he is as liable to seek it out as anyone else, but what did he do? He said that my leader was willing to stay in the Commonwealth at the price of full racial equality. My leader eventually had to invoke the rules of the House to compel the Minister to accept the position that he had never said anything of the kind.

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

That was the implication.

Mr. MITCHELL:

You cannot have an implication of that kind from the categorical statement that my leader made, that we are not prepared to accept that position … [Inaudible.]

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

Then he agrees with the Prime Minister.

Mr. MITCHELL:

The hon. the Minister of External Affairs will no doubt in the days and months to come, when he has had time to think it over, by implication be able to attribute all sort of things to the speech of my hon. Leader, but he could not think quickly enough yesterday. He had to come with something which was demonstrably false; it was not true, because it is there in my Leader’s Hansard, unexpurgated, for the hon. the Minister to satisfy himself about it, and when he has done so this morning, as undoubtedly he will, because he would not like to do anybody an injustice, he will no doubt then get up and apologize to my hon. Leader and to this House for the statement that he attributed to my Leader yesterday.

Mr. WATERSON:

That will be the day.

Mr. MITCHELL:

The hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of External Affairs tried to make history start Monday a week ago when the London conference started. The hon. the Minister of External Affairs says that my Leader is wrong when he contends that at that point, the hon. the Prime Minister only had to sit still and say “ no ” at the London conference. The Minister of External Affairs tried to make out that there were all these difficulties—he elaborated on them—which had been raised by the hon. the Prime Minister. He goes on to get himself tied up in a mess and then he starts about the unanimity rule. Sir, for the expulsion of South Africa was the unanimity rule not to operate in exactly the same way as the re-admission of South Africa required the unanimity rule to operate —a unanimous vote for us to come back? Did it not require a unanimous vote to expel us? He then proceeds to tell the truth, this time in a frank manner which is really quite unusual; he says “ the unanimity rule does not matter. National pride and self-respect demanded that we could not remain in a club where we were not wanted”. Sir, was this a question of remaining in a club or were the vital interests of South Africa at stake in the whole of the negotiations that were taking place in London? Were we to walk out of the club and take with us not one single member of the club? Were we to walk out without even the sympathy of a member of the club? Were we to isolate ourselves as far as the United Nations are concerned, which is a far bigger organization but of which the members of the club are also members and where they will be given another forum in which to show their dislike of us and of our policies? He says the unanimity rule does not matter. Mr. Speaker, what was the position that we were faced with here? We were faced with the fact that the Prime Minister over and over again in South Africa had said that the domestic policies of this country cannot be discussed by the Prime Ministers, that that is our affair, that it belongs to South Africa, that it is our affair here in Parliament and on the public platforms throughout South Africa, but it is our business and nobody else’s business. The hon. the Minister of Finance, who was then Minister of the Interior, read a prepared statement in this House as a result of a question put to him by the hon. member for Queenstown (Dr. Steytler). It was not an off the cuff reply that he gave; it was a prepared statement, worked out and written down and read out to this House after due consideration. Sir, I quote from Hansard, Vol. 105, Col. 8072. The Minister of Finance said this—

There were three points which had to be borne in mind in connection with the forthcoming conference. The first point was that the only official meeting of members of the Commonwealth, namely the conference of Prime Ministers, should not attempt to interfere in the domestic affairs of member countries. Not only did this not occur, but once again it was explicitly decided that the long-standing tradition and convention that interference may not take place should be upheld.

That language, I submit, Is plain enough. And who breached that first in the conference? Our Prime Minister. He admitted it himself, in the same way that the communiqués from the other Prime Ministers have said categorically. Three or four of them have done it in their personal capacities. In fact, Mr. Diefenbaker went so far as to say that “ if the Prime Minister of South Africa had not agreed we could not have discussed the internal policies of South Africa”. The Prime Minister said yesterday that he had allowed this to happen because he had had a previous discussion with Mr. Macmillan.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

He thought he could convert them all to apartheid.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Sir, this decision of our Prime Minister was the fatal decision that lost us our membership of the Commonwealth, if he was thereafter found to be entitled to withdraw our application. That decision was the fatal decision; it was the crucial turning point. He had repeated over and over again in South Africa, and he got his deputy, the Minister of Finance, to assure this House, that that was the first inviolable principle and he breached it. It is no good his coming back and blaming Mr. Macmillan for it. What else is he going to blame Mr. Macmillan for? He turned round to us yesterday and started to harangue the same Mr. Macmillan at the end of his speech and said that he was entitled to do it because Mr. Macmillan had referred in some respect to what had transpired at the Prime Ministers’ Conference. So even he turned on Mr. Macmillan yesterday. He virtually says, “ I acted on Mr. Macmillan’s advice when I did this ”. In other words, he is not going to take the responsibility for his own action, notwithstanding the conviction that he had voiced repeatedly in South Africa in and out of Parliament. He made the fatal blunder of agreeing to a discussion on South Africa’s internal affairs. Sir, what made the Prime Minister believe that he was going to persuade other Commonwealth Prime Ministers that South Africa’s policy was the right one and that through that medium he was going to get their votes for our re-entry into the Commonwealth when we become a republic? If the advice that the Prime Minister was given from official channels meant anything at all, if it was in the slightest bit reliable, then he must have been aware for months and months past that our policy was anathema to so many of the other member states. Sir, history did not start Monday a week ago. It started in January 1960 when the Prime Minister came with his proposal for a referendum. When he came with the proposal for a referendum he knew—and he was repeatedly warned at the time—that he would put our Commonwealth membership in jeopardy. I am not going to read out the statements that my hon. Leader read out yesterday of all these cast-iron assurances that were given by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Deputy Minister of Education, Arts and Science and all sorts of lesser speakers in regard to our remaining in the Commonwealth. The Prime Minister knew that our policy was anathema to many member states. The Minister of External Affairs had been warned at the Prime Ministers’ Conference a year ago that our re-entry into the Commonwealth could not be taken for granted.

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

I also objected to our affairs being discussed there and I was criticized by you people for being obstinate.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

You had better start looking for the cuttings.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Sir, Mr. Diefenbaker said—

What in effect was being asked …

That was at the Prime Ministers’ Conference in 1960 when the Minister of External Affairs was representing South Africa—

What in effect was being asked was advance approval prior to the final legislative decision being made, something that was denied last May.

Why did the hon. the Minister come here and rely on his colleague to give us assurances in regard to these matters when it had been denied last May? He goes on to say—

The wording of the communiqué in May 1960 reflected the general view of Prime Ministers that a positive act of concurrence was required on the part of each of the other member governments if South Africa’s request for consent to remain a member of the Commonwealth was to be granted. It was agreed by the Foreign Minister of South Africa that all governments would have to consent. At least that was the statement that he made in May last.
Mr. HOPEWELL:

Does he deny that?

Mr. MITCHELL:

Yes, does he deny that that statement was made?

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

You are twisting the whole thing about now.

Mr. MITCHELL:

I am not twisting anything; I am quoting from a speech made by Mr. Diefenbaker, in which he says that the Minister made that statement in May last.

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

That is the question of advance consent before the referendum; that is quite a different matter.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Well, let us take what Mr. Macmillan said two days ago in the Imperial Parliament—

Hon. members will recall that last year the representative of South Africa …

That was the Minister of External Affairs—

… informed the Prime Ministers’ Conference that his government intended to hold a referendum on the proposal that South Africa should become a republic. At that meeting Commonwealth Prime Ministers were asked to give their agreement in advance to the continued membership of the Republic of South Africa in the Commonwealth. The Prime Ministers felt unwilling at that time to agree.
The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

Because they said it would influence the referendum. That is a different matter; you are misleading the House.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order!

Mr. MITCHELL:

I am concerned with reporting what was said by Mr. Macmillan in the British Parliament, and there is no question of misleading the House. I stopped at the full stop which came at the end of a paragraph in Mr. Macmillan’s speech. Sir, I quoted those two Prime Ministers. The fact is that the Minister of External Affairs was at that conference. He was told and he acquiesced when he was told, that each individual Prime Minister in the Commonwealth would have to agree to our re-entering. Why did he not come back and tell this House that that was the position?

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

Before the referendum …

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister of External Affairs will give the hon. member an opportunity to proceed with his speech.

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

May I rise on a point of explanation?

HON. MEMBER:

No.

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

The hon. member has it all twisted.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member is not prepared to allow the hon. the Minister to rise on a point of explanation.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. the Minister entitled to say that I have it all twisted?

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

Yes. There are two different issues. Will you give me an opportunity to explain?

HON. MEMBER:

No.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! If the hon. the Minister wants an opportunity later on to rise on a point of explanation, I shall allow him to do so but he must give the hon. member an opportunity to proceed with his speech.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Sir, the picture we have is this: The Prime Minister returning from overseas; South Africa to-day virtually in complete isolation; Britain, out of her desire not to hurt us any more than is absolutely necessary, so I understand, busy with a design to keep the present trade relationships, and possibly other relationships as well, between South Africa and herself frozen for ten months to allow us to take stock of the position in South Africa. Whatever the other arrangements are, whether they deal with defence or otherwise, that is for Britain to determine. It does not help us in that regard to have these gibes which are being made at the Prime Minister of Great Britain and this criticism of him that we had yesterday from our own Prime Minister. Sir, kissing still goes by favour in this hard world. You kiss a girl you want to kiss, not because there is a law to say so but because you like her, and she is willing to let you do so. It cuts both ways, and these Prime Ministers’ conferences have always created opportunities for very friendly social contacts between members of the Commonwealth, but I am afraid to-day legal barriers, if I may put it that way, are going to intervene and stop some of the joys and enthusiasm with which these meetings have been greeted in the past. As I have said, Sir, to-day we have the Prime Minister back and South Africa stands in isolation, but I repeat that history did not start Monday a week ago. It started when he came with the Bill to have the referendum to take South Africa out of the Commonwealth. This pretty picture that the Prime Minister paints, I am afraid, has a lot of loopholes in it. My hon. Leader said that the Prime Minister should have sat there and simply said “no”. Firstly, he should never have agreed to a discussion on our internal affairs. He knew that we all agreed to that. What has he done, and what could have happened? He has got out so as to allow Ghana to come in and possibly Tanganyika. From the point of view of South Africa, is that a fair exchange? Do we deem that tp be a fair exchange? The Prime Minister said that if he had stayed there and forced the issue, it would have embarrassed Mr. Macmillan and possibly Mr. Diefenbaker and possibly Mr. Menzies and possibly the Prime Minister of New Zealand. What about it? They are going to be embarrassed in any case. Are they in a less embarrassing position through continuing the relations that we are seeking to maintain with them? What has happened to the non-European Prime Ministers who opposed us at the Commonwealth conference? Have they left Africa? Have they resigned each in his own homeland? Are we in any better a position vis--vis those Prime Ministers than we were three weeks ago before the conference, or are they not now more free to attack us and to bring pressure to bear on Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand because we are, by our own deliberate design and choice, to be out of the Common wealth by 31 May? Does it not put them in a privileged position? Sir, let us put the shoe on the other foot for a moment and assume that South Africa has stayed in and that, as a result of our staying in, Ghana has said: “In that case we are out ”, and that Ghana was out of the Commonwealth from 31 May. What would hon. members on the other side have done about that? Would they have regarded that as a great defeat for the Prime Minister of South Africa? Is there not one who would hail that as a great defeat for South Africa? Why then do they reckon that it was a great victory when Ghana stayed in and South Africa was shouldered out? This is a most incredible way of looking at things if one wants to deal with realities. No, Sir, Mr. Macmillan and Mr. Diefenbaker and the others are going to have their trouble anyway, and it was better that they should grasp the nettle then at that conference. If we had wanted the Commonwealth to remain as we had known it, a good Commonwealth of which the Prime Minister would have been prepared to remain a member, and if we did not want the Commonwealth to change its character and become something else in which the Prime Minister felt he could not stay, then the way for him to have fought that battle was to have stayed in that Commonwealth and to have used his influence to see that it was a Commonwealth which he knew and which he appreciated. That was his duty—not to run away from it by withdrawing South Africa’s application and leaving the door open now for further non-European nations who may have very strong views about South Africa’s internal policy, and who will come into the Commonwealth, which will still remain, Mr. Speaker. I know that it may be a happy fantasy for the Prime Minister to believe that, because South Africa leaves the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth is going to disintegrate. That is the kind of unreality that we have to deal with. The Commonwealth remains, the United Nations Organization remains; other non-European nations will be seeking admission and will be admitted to the Commonwealth, and this organization, which has been built up by our erstwhile friends, is the organization which, in the end, because the White Prime Ministers will be in the minority, can be placed under pressure and duress by the non-White Prime Ministers, so that the Commonwealth itself takes action against South Africa. It is an inevitable conclusion that we are forced to.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

And how long will they allow us to enjoy preferences?

Mr. MITCHELL:

Yes, that is another question. We have ten months within which Britain is prepared to help us. I hope that the realization of that is going to bring reality to the thinking of the Prime Minister and the members of his Cabinet. We have been given ten months’ grace, breathing time. I hope the Prime Minister is going to withdraw his Bill before 31 May, so as to allow himself ten months’ breathing time. Let him make our change to a republic coincide with the day that Britain’s ten months’ breathing space comes to an end, so that Britain withdraws all economic and defence facilities for South Africa at the same time as we become a republic, so that the people of South Africa shall see and appreciate the significance of the two events taking place together. But, Sir, what is the outcome of this conference? Whom has it helped? Nobody can say that it helped South Africa. What grave and mortal danger it is going to expose us to nobody can tell. What disabilities in the economic field we are going to suffer, we cannot yet evaluate. But, Sir, what good has it done us? Where has it found us one friend in the whole world? Nowhere. The Nationalist Party, since they came into power in 1948, has lost us every one of the friends built up by previous great Prime Ministers in South Africa over the last 50 years, and now we stand alone. And on the other side of the picture, who do we have cheering? The Nationalist Party organizes great welcomes for their Prime Minister; they are entitled to do that as long as they do not try to pretend it was South Africa welcoming him back. Let them make it quite clear that this was an organized political gathering to welcome back the Prime Minister.

Mr. MILLER:

Who organized the welcome in Johannesburg?

Mr. MITCHELL:

Sir, we get this paean of praise, we get this great welcome for the Prime Minister, and at the same time we get the plaudits of Chief Albert Luthuli, who says he is overjoyed at the outcome of the Prime Ministers’ Conference. Surely he makes a strange bed-fellow with hon. members opposite. Sir, the Prime Minister’s withdrawal of his application is being accounted a big victory in certain circles. Mr. Macmillan has said in the clearest terms possible that there was no question of South Africa’s expulsion. The hon. the Minister of External Affairs put his finger on it. He and the Prime Minister decided to get out of it; they could not stand criticism, so they decided to get out.

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

Did you listen when I read the reports yesterday?

Mr. MITCHELL:

Other people acclaim his withdrawal as a great victory. I will tell the Prime Minister, Sir, that there are two great victories that are being claimed by other people —by the non-European people in the Commonwealth who are to-day opposed to us and by the non-European people who are out of the Commonwealth and who are opposed to us. The first great non-European victory was when this Government closed down on General Smuts’s immigration policy and stopped the flow of White men to the Union of South Africa. That was the first great non-European victory in South Africa made possible by the Nationalist Party. The architect of African victory was the Nationalist Party. It is all very well for them to come now in the year 1961 and decide that they are going to resurrect the immigration policy, that they are going to bring White men to South Africa, to an isolated South Africa standing alone in the world, a South Africa with its policies abhorred, as one of the White Prime Ministers said the other day, by all civilized people. The architect of the Africans’ victory was the Nationalist Party. The second victory for the non-European against White South Africa was this withdrawal by the Prime Minister of our application to remain within the Commonwealth. Yesterday over the radio we got this broadcast from Moscow, reported in Pravda, the communist newspaper. Their second main headline was—

The withdrawal of South Africa from the Conference was a victory for the Afro-Asian bloc.

That is what Pravda said. The victory of the Nationalist Party in South Africa is a victory for the Afro-Asian bloc, according to the communists—again strange bed-fellows,—Chief Albert Luthuli and the communists and the Nationalist Party in South Africa all as happy as they can possibly be together in one common community! Are we beginning to find where we are to look for our future friends seeing that it is possible for the Nationalists all to be so happy in that company? Is that their future for White South Africa that is now being depicted in shadowy colours but perhaps to be brought out in harder and harder colours as time goes on? Sir, we have to get down to it. The Prime Minister has ten months that Britain has given him. He has professed to be a great friend of Great Britain’s and he has said that Great Britain is our best friend. It is true that he then went on to blame the Prime Minister of Great Britain and to take umbrage at what that Prime Minister had said yesterday. The whole thing is a curious hotchpotch, if I may put it that way—praise one minute and condemnation the next; Diefenbaker is a man who deliberately does not tell the truth, and so on and so forth. It is a curious hotch-potch. Let us get down to reality. We have ten months to do so, and I hope that the hon. the Prime Minister is going to lift himself above these party political considerations. I would like to see South Africa becoming aware of the situation in which we are placed. I would like them to realize that South Africa can take a fatal turn which will bring us to complete ruination in this country, to complete and utter catastrophe. If we can get comprehension to the minds of our people we may still survive. We will have to grapple with very difficult problems, of course we will have to grapple with difficult problems; we are living on earth not in Heaven. But there is an onus on the Prime Minister that can be shared with nobody else. Before I sit down, Sir, I want to quote the words of Byron, who is one of the few English poets that the communists have not claimed so far—

A thousand years scarce serve to form a State, An hour may lay it in the dust.

Sir, I hope that is not going to be the epitaph on the grave of White South Africa. After all the years and years of building, are two or three fatal mistakes now to lay our country in the dust? The Prime Minister, Sir, has made two grievous mistakes, two bitter mistakes. He betrayed the mandate we gave him to go to Britain and to keep South Africa in the Commonwealth. It is for him now to take a completely fresh view of the whole situation, and if it means a re-orientation of the thinking of the hon. members who sit behind him, then he must not lack the courage. He must not be inflexible in wrong-doing; he must be equally inflexible when he is determined to take the right course and to re-think and to re-assess the position, and in that way, Sir, we may still save something from the utter wreck which is facing us at the present time, because make no mistake about it: We need not worry about what is going to happen in South Africa once the pillars start to tumble. Let us be quite clear on that point. I do not want to pursue that subject. Too many people take comfort from warnings that we give the Government, but I say that if the pillars start to fall let us beware. We will be attacked from without and from within. Let the Government call a halt. If they are trying to get the support of English-speaking South Africans, it is up to the Prime Minister to do something—not to make appeals. The first thing he could do, admittedly, would be to get out and resign as Prime Minister, unless he is prepared to give a lead to South Africa which both sections of the White population can follow. On unity and unity alone are we going to build the salvation of South Africa.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCE:

Mr. Speaker, we were already asking ourselves yesterday whether this debate had not already been talked out. And after this morning I am convinced that it has in fact been talked out, particularly now that we have heard the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) who has just sat down. All of us, including myself, looked forward with some anticipation to the speech of the hon. member for South Coast. I think hon. members will agree with me that he gave us the impression of a satellite which did not get into orbit and if I might quote something which the hon. member for South Coast said about his previous leader, Mr. Strauss, I should like to remind hon. members that when they came back from Bloemfontein —not the Bloemfontein of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), but the previous one—the hon. member had this to say on 27 November 1956 about Mr. Strauss. I give it back to him to-day—

This was no condemnation of Mr. Strauss, he said. The position was that Mr. Strauss was suffering from battle fatigue.

I think the hon. member for South Coast is tired as well. He has become tired and his whole speech shows that he has become tired. This South Africa which must now be built does not have place for people with weak backs and weak knees. The hon. member for South Coast has said that if we want the support of English-speaking South Africa, we must do this or do that. Mr. Speaker, I want to say here to-day that nothing anyone has ever done, no action ever taken by any leader or Prime Minister in South Africa, has done more to bring English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans together than this action of the Prime Minister.

*HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCE:

I was one of those who always believed, and I still do so to-day, that the most certain way of bringing Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking South Africans together is to give them a common task and to give them a common cause for which they can fight. To-day the English- and Afrikaans-speaking peoples know that there is a common cause for which we can fight: We can fight for the preservation and the continued existence of South Africa, even if we must do so against the whole world.

The hon. member for South Coast has reproached us for the fact, to use his own words, that South Africa stands “isolated and defenceless ”. Is that so? Mr. Speaker, South Africa is no more isolated than any other small country which is free. Why should we at this stage suddenly become isolated and “ defenceless ” because we have become free? In the case of other small nations this is a virtue, but only in South Africa is it a sin if we want to be free as regards our relations with the entire world. I say that we shall be just ¿s isolated as any other small country which, is free, with this difference that South Africa’s strategic position is such—and hon. members know it—and our position is such within the Western world—and hon. members know it—that if there should be a war in future, which we hope will not happen, South Africa will take its place in the Western world exactly as she would under any other circumstances.

I have done my best—I want to be fair to the hon. member—to follow what the hon. member for South Coast was really trying to tell us. On the one hand he accused us of acting in such a way that all the Prime Ministers, White and non-White, were unequivocally opposed to us. On the other hand he reproaches us for sacrificing five White Prime Ministers to six non-White Prime Ministers. On the one hand the hon. member and his party claim to be a Commonwealth party and that they stand for the preservation of the Commonwealth under all circumstances. But what is his main complaint against the Prime Minister to-day? His main complaint against the Prime Minister is that he did not tear the Commonwealth apart and come back here with the pieces and present them to this House. It is in fact his complaint against the Prime Minister that he did not make such a fuss that he tore the whole Commonwealth apart. Perhaps he holds it against the Prime Minister that he behaved in such an exemplary way and did not tell them: “ Go and be damned ”. In all seriousness I want to ask the hon. member this: Did he not listen to the explanation which the Prime Minister has given as to why he allowed South Africa’s position to be discussed as an exception to the general rule? Did he not listen when the Prime Minister explained his actions by saying that he did not want to place Britain in an impossible position? Does that mean nothing to him? Does the exemplary way in which the Prime Minister has behaved mean nothing to the hon. member and those who sit with him? Mr. Speaker, I shall tell the House what is happening in South Africa at the moment. Hon. members opposite are angry. Why? They are angry because their supporters have refused to become angry with the Prime Minister. The hon. member for South Coast knows full well that that is so. His supporters are refusing to become angry with the Prime Minister. What is the score at the moment? We for our part have not done anything as yet. Thousands and thousands of people gave the Prime Minister a spontaneous welcome at Jan Smuts Airport, and thousands and thousands did so here at Cape Town airport. And what is the score on the other side? They have done their best to incite feeling amongst the public. And what is their score? Five of them have been able to get 1,000 people together. Five of those hon. members opposite, including the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) and he after all is the “ box office attraction ” of the United Party. I am afraid that after this morning they will write off the hon. member and I cannot blame them. But it is after all a fact that the supporters of hon. members opposite agree with the Prime Minister and they are very grateful to him, and I want to express my personal thanks to the Prime Minister for having saved South Africa’s honour on that occasion. The hon. member’s supporters are not angry. They feel exactly the same way about this situation which has now developed here in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, do you think for one moment that if his supporters were angry, the hon. member for South Coast would not once again have built up a wall of telegrams here in this House so that everyone could see them? What has been the reaction which all hon. members opposite have found in their constituencies? Has any hon. member opposite found a sharp reaction amongst their voters? Have they received protests from their voters? Or has the reaction which has emanated from their constituencies been like that of my constituency, namely that Nationalists and supporters of the United Party, Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people, believe that the Prime Minister has done the right thing by South Africa? I challenge any hon. member opposite to say that he has found any other reaction in his constituency. The House can see how quiet they are. They can see what the answer is. There has not been the slightest reaction amongst hon. members’ voters, except a reaction which they do not want to tell us about, namely that their voters want them to support the Prime Minister of South Africa at this time. We do not expect them to support the Prime Minister as leader of the National Party. That is asking too much of hon. members opposite. But it is not asking too much of them to expect them to stand by the Prime Minister of South Africa at a time such as this.

What has been the other reaction of the hon. member for South Coast—a reaction at which his speech hinted? It has been that he blamed the hon. the Prime Minister for not crawling at the conference. Mr. Speaker, what has surprised me has been that at this time when South Africa needs its sons perhaps more than ever before, the hon. member who is the leader of a province, an hon. member who is a front bencher in this House, in calling for evidence, only calls in those witnesses who condemn South Africa; he does not call those people who have tried to defend and protect South Africa. I ask the hon. member for South Coast: Why has he not told us what Mr. Menzies has said, namely that in respect of this matter he adopts the same standpoint as our Prime Minister? Why has he not given Mr. Menzies’ version to this House? Why has he not indicated for the sake of his own supporters exactly what, according to Mr. Menzies, the position was at that conference?

*An HON. MEMBER:

Quote everything Mr. Menzies has said.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCE:

It was not necessary for the hon. member to quote everything that Mr. Menzies has said. He could just have quoted the few things which were in favour of South Africa. Why has the hon. member not told his supporters, and why has he not told his supporters in Natal—I am glad the hon. member has now turned his face so that I can talk into his ear—that Mr. Menzies has stated that he listened (and he was there), and that at the stage at which our Prime Minister withdrew his application, he (Mr. Menzies) told himself that he would have done exactly the same thing at exactly that stage? He would not have waited any longer than the Prime Minister waited. Does that mean nothing to the hon. member? Does it mean nothing to him that he can call such a witness in defence of South Africa? But preserve the hon. the Minister of External Affairs if he should dare to correct one statement Mr. Diefenbaker has made! Then the hon. member criticizes the hon. the Minister as though Mr. Diefenbaker is his twin brother; then he cannot find words strong enough with which to condemn the Minister of External Affairs! And what has the Minister said beyond merely putting correctly what happened at that conference because he too was present there? Does he expect the Minister to remain silent when South Africa’s case is put incorrectly no matter by whom? No, the same applies to the hon. member’s argument which he has used for the sake of a little political capital he hopes to make—and he needs it; I know that; he must do everything to try to gain a little political advantage and I do not blame him, but one should then at least remain logical while trying to gain a little advantage. On the one hand, as the hon. the Minister of External Affairs has correctly said, he was reproached last year for refusing to allow South Africa’s affairs to be discussed. And now?

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

At that time it was said that he created the impression that he had something to hide.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCE:

The hon. member is quite correct. At that time the accusation was made that the fact that Mr. Louw remained silent could be interpreted as indicating that South Africa had something to hide. That was the argument they used at that time. Now that the Prime Minister has explained why he allowed such a discussion, under the conditions which he has explained to us, and which I accept absolutely, and which every one of us should accept, and despite the fact that Mr. Macmillan has repeatedly stated that he was very grateful that our Prime Minister adopted that standpoint, the hon. member for South Coast, for the sake of a little political capital, criticizes the Prime Minister because he allowed such a discussion. No, Mr. Speaker, every one of us has one prominent characteristic, and this is particularly true at this time in South Africa, namely that we all have an inherent sense of justice and the inherent sense of justice which has been aroused in the people of South Africa to-day is to the effect that under very difficult conditions the Prime Minister did what was best for South Africa at that conference. Not only did he do what was best for South Africa, but he acted in such a way that he has made more friends for South Africa, I go so far as to say, than she has ever had before.

*Mr. H. G. SWART:

Who are these friends?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCE:

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) introduced this debate the other day, he said “ the sole responsibility rests upon the Prime Minister ”. He alone must bear the responsibility for South Africa leaving the Commonwealth. That is not so. It is true that the decision was the decision of the Prime Minister, but that is a decision which every member on this side wholeheartedly endorses, and the Prime Minister will not carry that responsibility alone. I and every member on this side will carry it with him, as hon. members opposite know. And it will not only be the National Party which will carry that responsibility with the Prime Minister, but supporters of the party opposite will help us carry that responsibility because they are better South Africans than the hon. members of the United Party who sit opposite. It may have been the decision of the Prime Minister, but we shall all carry the responsibility together.

An argument which the hon. members opposite have used is that we stand alone in the world. The hon. member for South Coast has placed great emphasis on how we stand alone in the world. And while he considers it wrong of us that we stand alone in the world, to an ever-increasing extent he wants to stand alone in Natal. They have used the argument that we stand alone in the world and that we must give way before world opinion. Must we then sacrifice our self-respect at all times in order to satisfy world opinion? Ever since I entered this House, hon. members opposite have put forward a new policy every year. That is the position, is it not? Hon. members can scarcely keep pace any longer with the various policies which they have put forward from time to time. But does the House know that I formed the impression while the hon. member for Sunny-side (Mr. Horak) was speaking that their policy is no longer going to vary from year to year, but that it is going to vary from day to day. Did hon. members listen to the hon. member for Sunnyside last night? And the very first thing he said on resuming his speech this morning was that he had adopted a certain standpoint last night, and that he had listened to the radio and read this morning’s newspapers but that nothing had happened to persuade him to adopt a different standpoint. Is that how a political party should behave? Is this how a political party can expect to make progress in South Africa, when it has to change its policy from hour to hour? Perhaps that is why hon. members opposite and the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) are so seldom in the House—they’re listening to the radio. In the nature of things, when one draws up one’s policy one must take world opinion into account. One must do so to a certain extent. But is there any hon. member opposite who wants to argue in all seriousness that we should continually trim our sails to the prevailing winds? That because we are a small nation, we cannot hold our own opinions, we cannot believe in any principles, but that we must allow world opinion to dictate to us? Must we always sacrifice ourselves on the altar of world opinion? There are hon. members opposite who argue that South Africa will be destroyed under these circumstances because we have taken this step. There are hon. members who say that we shall be wiped out here in South Africa because the Prime Minister has adopted this standpoint and because we support him in subscribing to that standpoint. I do not know what awaits South Africa. I do not know whether we shall continue to exist as a nation. I believe that we shall do so because I believe we were placed here in South Africa for that purpose. I still believe and my people still believe and the supporters of hon. members opposite still believe that we shall continue to exist, no matter what difficulties may be facing us at the moment, and no matter how dark the future may look. But if it should happen that this nation must go under, let us then go under because it is our fate, not because it is our fault! Because the future looks dark to hon. members opposite, must we capitulate to-day? If we as Whites in this country do not have a message for the world to-day, then we have never had a message. May I submit this for the consideration of hon. members opposite? I do not know how sombre the position looks to them, but the late Dr. D. F. Malan said on one occasion: “ If everything suddenly gets dark around you, then it is time to halt and to cling to the anchors you know, because if you do not do so, you will bang your shins against every rock and you will very easily fall into a ditch.” If it is dark all around us, then it is time for us to halt and to cling to the anchors which your fathers and my fathers put down for us here in South Africa, and which are not a whim of this Government or of the National Party, but the White inheritance which your fathers, just as my father, left for us in South Africa. If they considered it worth while to fight and to gain the victory under conditions which relatively speaking were far more dangerous than the conditions facing us to-day, why then is it not worth while for us also to fight for that victory? Hon. members opposite are so fond of saying that it is quarter past twelve. Mr. Speaker, it is not quarter past twelve. Here in South Africa we stand before the early dawn. For that reason, and because I believe that in my heart, because this debate offers the opportunity for all of us to ask ourselves where we shall stand in this struggle and whether the time has come to serve South Africa and how we shall do so, and because I feel in my heart and many hon. members opposite also know that this Prime Minister will lead South Africa under the conditions which have now arisen and that under this Prime Minister there is the possibility that the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking peoples will find one another on a basis of common love for South Africa, on the basis of a common allegiance to the Republic of South Africa. Because that is the position, I for my part want to pay tribute to the Prime Minister for what he did at that conference and I want to thank him for having protected South Africa’s honour, and for not allowing the self-respect of our nation to be trampled in the mud.

Mr. GAY:

I don’t propose to follow the line taken by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Education, nor the line taken by the preceding speakers on the Government benches, because it is quite obvious that the Government has decided not to face up to the realities of the position this country is in to-day, not to face up to the consequences of the Prime Minister’s dismal failure in London, but rather to set up a smoke screen in an endeavour to distract the attention of the country from the realities of the dangers that we are now in. The hon. Deputy Minister of Education has given us a long exhortation on past follies of this side of the House and what we should do and what the country should do. That we now should stand together in this situation that we find ourselves in. He again has invoked (the somewhat nauseating references that we get constantly) the divine aid which was rendered to bring about this state of affairs. I think it is a phase of what is happening in the country that cannot be too strongly deprecated in the damage that it is likely to cause not only to the people of this country, but to what remains of the good relations between the people of this country and the outside world. It is a species of side-tracking to which we are so used in this House. The Government have no answer to the position that has been created and in order to hide their barrenness, they adopt these tactics. I refer to the hon. the Minister of External Affairs, who is not here at the moment. He has shown us the way to make friends. Heaven help us, Sir. If that is the policy he adopts at UNO and as Minister of External Affairs, no wonder that South Africa is almost friendless to-day. His policy apparently of making friends is first to accuse them of untruths, then to attack them on their own procedures in their own countries, to attack them on their basic beliefs and what is honestly their policy, and then finally, having done that, to run away and leave them in the lurch. Those are apparently the hon. Minister’s tactics. Can you wonder that when it was announced that that hon. Minister was to accompany the hon. the Prime Minister to London, to the most important Commonwealth Conference that this country has ever participated in, that we on this side of the House, without any equivocation objected to his accompanying the Prime Minister? How right we were in that objection! Can’t you see the influence of this Minister of External Affairs in what has happened in London? The very selfsame tactics which he introduced into South Africa’s representations at UNO: To run away, to beg the question, instead of facing up to it. I want to refer to the hon. the Prime Minister’s position itself. This country. South Africa, in the world at large, far beyond the confines of the Commonwealth, has enjoyed a reputation in sportsmanship probably unequalled by any country of our size in history. You would probably have to go right back to the early Roman days, or the Greeks to find it. As a small country we have enjoyed an amazing reputation for sportsmanship. Sir, the very foundation on which that reputation was built, was by our representatives who have represented this country in practically every part of the globe facing up to their responsibilities, and never running away. No matter how grim the battle was on the sports field, no matter how much the odds were against them, they stayed and saw the fight out, even when they were defeated. Our hon. Prime Minister now has come back to us as the first International Springbok representing South Africa—because he represented South Africa at the Conference, not the Nationalist Party; he represented every person in this country—he is the first International Springbok that we can recall who has thrown the towel in before the fight was finished. What a fine reputation! I suggest that instead of being “ Springbok ” he was a “ Spring Back”. But what a fine reputation it is to bring back to a country like ours! He is the first man wearing the colours of this country to throw in the towel and walk out, leaving the field clear to the opposition. The real fact is that the hon. the Prime Minister, when he was in London, found himself in a completely new position. In this country he has had at his back the well-disciplined majority which serves him through thick and thin to carry through his proposals, no matter whether they are for the good of the country or to its detriment. But when he went to London he found himself in the same position that we on this side of the House have found ourselves in for the last 13 years, faced with a big majority opposition. He found himself faced with a majority opposition of people who were prepared to voice their arguments and to oppose his. And he cracked. He could not face that opposition. The hon. the Prime Minister cracked before the battle was ended and he walked out and left those who were our friends in the lurch, left them to try and defend us in his absence and to carry on the fight on his behalf after he himself had walked out. He could not remember that he was representing South Africa and not the Nationalist Party. That is the crux of the whole position. For the first time the hon. the Prime Minister found himself in the minority and he could not face up to the strain of that.

I want to carry that theme a bit further. The final decision has not yet been taken. We may have had the results of the London Conference and we may know clearly what will flow from those results if things take the course which was planned before the Conference was held. But at the present moment the Prime Minister of this country is the man solely responsible for what is going to happen eventually. No matter what consequences may eventually flow from his withdrawal of the application for our membership of the Commonwealth, nothing can happen until the day that his Excellency the Governor-General signs the Republican Bill if and when it is put through Parliament. It is from that particular moment that the consequences of the Prime Minister’s action will start to flow. And the hon. the Prime Minister can suspend all that. He can hold it all up by declining at this stage to carry on with that Republican Bill, to let it stand in abeyance until there has been time for second thoughts, until time has been given to the country and to other countries to consider just where we are heading. And that responsibility rests entirely on the shoulders of the hon. the Prime Minister. We are not out of the Commonwealth until this Prime Minister forces this Bill through Parliament and it is approved by His Excellency the Governor-General. Therefore I say the onus rests entirely on the Prime Minister and it is for him to consider, as never a man was called upon to consider before, what the consequences of inaction on his part are likely to be as far as the people of South Africa are concerned; consequences in every direction that you can attempt to think of. That is the responsibility with which I charge the hon. the Prime Minister to-day. Until that particular fact is accomplished, no matter how certain of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers may criticize what we are doing, or may dislike what we are doing, they will be completely powerless to act within the framework of the Commonwealth, at least until another Commonwealth Conference is held. Surely the welfare, the safety and security of the country, the well-being of our people must count more than the pride of one man when you come to deal with a state of affairs like that. Surely one man has no right to put his own political pride before the safety and the security of the whole nation. Yet that is the position in which we find ourselves to-day.

I would say, Sir, that this is one of the strangest anomalies which has ever been created by what has happened overseas, that this Prime Minister who poses as the arch-disciple of the fight in this country against Communism, as the leader of White South Africa in our fight against Communism—in which he has the support of the entire country —surely it is anomalous to realize that he has done more by his actions in London to bring comfort and solace to the heart of the Kremlin than any single South African has ever done before. What the hon. the Prime Minister did in London for the uplift of the morale of communistic nations, of those who are working that way in Africa and those who are inclined that way outside of this country, is worth a dozen army brigades to the Kremlin. That is what the leader of this country, that is dedicated to oppose Communism, has done for the communistic peoples of this world. And that is an additional burden which he has placed on us in South Africa.

I then want to refer to one other aspect of this matter before I come back to the Budget itself. We have heard so much of this divine miracle which has suddenly, out of the blue, given this country this wonderful freedom. The hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science has just mentioned this wonderful freedom so suddenly accorded to South Africa. But I have always understood from very responsible leaders of the Government that this country was as free as it ever could be. Let me make this point. If we now have to celebrate this wonderful, divine miracle which has given this country this first free republic, this unfettered freedom outside of the bonds of the British Commonwealth of Nations, how can one do that and at the same time reconcile that amazing sentiment with the claims made by the hon. the Prime Minister that he made every effort in London to keep us within the Commonwealth? How can you tie those two sentiments together? It is impossible. They are two sentiments which are diametrically opposed and no man who thinks in the sense of the one can dare to say that he also thinks in the sense of the other because if he did so it would be a gross untruth. Those sentiments do not marry in any shape or form, and I would like an explanation when the hon. the Prime Minister replies, as to how he can reconcile the fact of his devotion to this sudden freedom, this divine interference which has given us this unfettered republic, with his duty to South Africa, his pledges and his mandate from South Africa to keep us within the Commonwealth. Can he explain how he reconciles those two factors?

Mr. Speaker, I now want to come back to another feature of the whole issue. I want to deal for a moment with the question of defence and the security of the country. This is a matter which has already been clearly and lucidly put before the House in language that no person in the country can misunderstand, by the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig Bronkhorst) who spoke last night. He put this case in questions to the hon. the Minister of Defence, questions actuated by a sense of the highest responsibility for the security of this country; questions which any thinking man who thinks a little ahead, will want answered. Questions as to where we are going as we stand alone and what is to be our responsibility. And I would like to follow along those lines for a moment. The last comprehensive statement we have received from any responsible representative of the Government with regard to our defence responsibilities will be found in Hansard No. 73 of 1950, Column 9694. The Minister of Defence at that time, in replying to questions then stated that our policy was, firstly—

That the Defence Force must be able to guarantee South Africa’s internal security.

He said that secondly our policy was—

That our Defence Force must be able to defend the Union against attacks from outside.

And thirdly, he said, that in any war against Communism—

Our Defence Force must be able to render assistance to the other countries of the Western democracies.

The Minister then went on to say that we have entered into commitments only in regard to African Territories higher up, and in regard to the Middle East, to co-operate with countries which have other interests in South Africa and the Middle East. Then there were certain other provisions which were made, some of which have since fallen away. But I take it that those three major responsibilities still exist, although one finds it somewhat difficult to appreciate, particularly the latter one, namely our defence against Communism.

I want to deal particularly with the second phase of this policy, South Africa’s ability to defend the Union against an attack from outside. The first one goes without saying, I do not think it needs any amplification from this side of the House, when it comes to the question of maintaining internal security. The debate which took place recently on the Defence Amendment Bill gives, I think, absolutely clear proof that this side of the House supports the contention that internal security is paramount to anything that takes place in regard to the defence of the country. That was also made amply clear last night by the previous speaker on defence from this side, who said that it was impossible to maintain forward forces in any field of action for any length of time unless they could absolutely rely on the security of the base from which they have to operate. Arising out of what happened in London, we have heard from the hon. the Prime Minister in statements made both through the Press and over the radio, and we have heard from hon. members of this House, references to the Simonstown Agreement as a part of the defence measures which will be retained, although we are no longer a member of the Commonwealth. I want to refer to a statement in the address given by Mr. Sandys, Secretary for State in the House of Commons two nights ago when speaking on this matter. He said—

An hon. gentleman asked me about defence arrangements with South Africa, and particularly with regard to the question of whether South Africa would supply a division for the defence of the Middle East. The South African Government made it clear several years ago that they considered that arrangement had lapsed.

That we quite understand, and we did discuss that in this House—

But there are other arrangements based on an exchange of letters in 1955 which provide for certain naval defence arrangements which, I believe, are to the mutual advantage of both countries.

Now this is the pertinent part of the statement—

But they will naturally be the subject of examination, and I am not proposing to make any commitment about the future of these arrangements here to-night.

I think it is necessary that we should examine the position with regard to the Simonstown Agreement, that we should refresh our minds as to just what the Simonstown Agreement was and what it covers.

The Simonstown Agreement formed a portion of the exchange of documents between the Union Government and the British Government in connection with the taking over of the Simonstown Naval Station. As you will remember, Sir, there were several such documents, partly dealing with the taking over of the assets of the dockyard and our future responsibilities, and then there was an agreement between the two countries with regard to the allocation of responsibility for the seaward defence of South Africa in the event of certain eventualities or hostilities. There were two types of hostilities envisaged, one in which South Africa was involved, and the other a war in which Great Britain was concerned but in which South Africa did not participate.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. GAY:

Mr. Speaker, just before the adjournment I was commencing to discuss the implications of the Simonstown Agreement as it will now be affected by the position in which South Africa finds itself. I was saying that what is known as the Simonstown Agreement forms part of an exchange of letters between the two Governments at the time of the Simonstown take-over. The Agreement provided for two separate phases. One was for the maintenance of the Simonstown Naval Base and its occupation by our navy, including certain necessary measures of expansion there. Amongst other things was the provision for the retention of a Royal Naval Squadron at Simonstown and certain facilities to be accorded to them in peace time. The other leg, which affects us now more closely is in regard to the external defence of this country and allocates certain responsibilities as between the Union Government and Great Britain for the defence of the seas off our coasts. It allocated certain areas in which each government accepted responsibility, both separately and co-jointly for defence under certain conditions of hostilities. Our own responsibility, as we envisage it under the Simonstown Agreement embraced the full length of our seaward boundaries extending to a considerable distance off the coast, for the protection of our sea routes round our coast and defence against submarine attack on shipping or on our coast itself. It provided for certain substantial expansion of the South African Navy and shore bases in order to permit acceptance of that responsibility. And, in passing, I would like to say that this is perhaps the one bright spot in the defence record of this Government, the build up of the South African Navy and the services that go with it to enable it to fulfil that part of the agreement. But even there it was never at any stage envisaged that we would stand alone. I refer again to Mr. Sandys’ remarks in the House of Commons when he made it quite clear that even the Simonstown Agreement will have to be given very careful consideration to establish what it actually means in the light of to-day’s position.

There is another very important feature provided in the Agreement, namely that under certain types of hostilities in which Great Britain may be involved but which do not involve the Union, a war in which the Union was not participating, the South African Navy would vacate the base at Simonstown which would then be taken over by the Royal Navy and its allies as a base from which to conduct their operations. In that event our Navy would be based on other Union ports. That is a conception which was completely impracticable in the light of reality under any conditions. It is certainly completely impracticable in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves. We, as a nation, would not be the deciding factor as to whether we were going to be at war or not. Can you conceive of any conflict in which one of the opposing forces, the attacking force, would permit a neutral nation —a foreign nation as we will now be—to allow a portion of its harbours to be used as a naval base for part of the Commonwealth forces that they were fighting? Can you imagine that we could remain outside of that conflict? The whole thing is so fantastic that it does not bear investigation. But that is a very important feature of the Simonstown Agreement, one which I feel will have to be very closely analysed and re-examined in the light of the position we now find ourselves in. I want to make this observation, that I would make a request from this side of the House to the Government that when the time comes for this examination of the Simonstown Agreement as foreshadowed in Mr. Sandys’ speech, that the Government will approach that examination not in the intransigent manner in which the hon. the Prime Minister approached the London Conference, not with the hands up policy that he adopted there, but that he will approach that examination in a spirit which will be in the very best interests of South Africa as a whole; that they will approach it in that spirit, in the wider interests of South Africa as a whole, even if that means the swallowing of a certain amount of political pride.

I now want to deal with one or two aspects of the Budget which deal with defence. I want to support the request made last night by the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) who asked for certain information with regard to Government policy on defence. In introducing his Budget the hon. the Minister of Finance, as also when dealing with earlier financial proposals such as the Additional Expenditure Bill and the Part Appropriation Bill, referred to the increased expenditure we were incurring on defence. I want to remind this hon. House that since 1952 defence expenditure from Revenue alone has amounted to something like R400,000,000. That is the amount expended from Revenue in this small country, in addition to many additional millions expended from Loan Funds; in addition to the R61,500,000 covered by the present Budget, and in addition to the Special Equipment Fund provided by Parliament to enable the defence authorities to equip certain brigades for duty in the Middle East at that time. Since 1952 something like R150,000,000 has been appropriated by Parliament for that special fund. In total that is no small amount to spend on defence when considered in relation to the size and capacity of this country. It may be small when measured by greater countries, but certainly not when measured against the resources of this country. With that in mind and in the situation in which we find we have now been driven to by the Prime Minister’s dismal failure at the London Conference, I think that we have every right as an Opposition to ask of the Government what effective build-up of defence, what value are we getting for the money that has been spent? I appreciate that this is a difficult question for the hon. the Minister of Defence at the moment, because by far the greater portion of this amount was spent long before he was either a member of the Cabinet or Minister of Defence. It was spent in the time of his predecessor in office. But in a world as explosive as it is to-day it is something to which we require an answer. We have every reason to be apprehensive that South Africa is not getting value for the money spent on defence.

I should like to give one or two examples in support of this allegation. Let me deal first with certain aspects of the navy. If we consider five vessels of the navy, including two of the major ships, the Jan van Riebeeck and the Simon van der Stel, two ocean-going minesweepers, the Pietermaritzburg and the Bloemfontein, and the ex-survey ship the Protea, we find that in the last four years, since the end of 1957, approximately R155,000 has been spent on those ships. But those ships have not been used at all during that period. They have been tied up to their buoys. Those ships have cost this country R155,000 to maintain and now, except for the Bloemfontein and the Pietermaritzburg they are being put up for disposal. In other words, that is just so much money down the drain. Expert technical opinion on the two destroyers is that if the Government does not do something about them very quickly they will wake up one morning to find that they have sunk at their moorings because they have been allowed to deteriorate so much. Yet that is money which we vote year after year, being spent on these ships to the tune of R155,000, for which we have practically no value at all.

I want to turn to another one, dealing with the Army, viz. the disposal of certain military equipment. I want to say at the outset that I regard ourselves as being very lucky that we have been able to get back the amount we have got back on the sale of this equipment. I am not criticizing it from that point of view, but I want to quote it as an example of what has happened. Again it is a legacy we inherited from the previous Minister of Defence. We sold 100 Centurion tanks. 10 armoured recovery vehicles, one trailer tractor and a lot of spare parts, 20 universal carriers, etc. The total amount we received for the sale of these vehicles and equipment, which had practically never been used even for training purposes, was about R4,500,000, and we have lost on the sale of that equipment approximately the same sum, R4,500,000. I repeat that we were lucky to get back what we did, but again this transaction shows the reasons we have to doubt that the country is receiving full benefit for the monies spent on defence. The question has been put whether we have any tanks left. I understand that we have, but one might ask what their condition is, and how ready are they to be used if required. I understand we have some Centurions left, but the story of those tanks was a very sorry tale ever since they first landed in Durban and they could not be moved.

I want to refer to the next matter, and that is the naval development that took place under the Simonstown Agreement, and it is a good development. That is the acquisition of three new frigates, the President Kruser which will arrive here in about September 1962, the President Pretorius which will arrive about April 1963. and the President Steyn which will arrive about the end of 1963. Those shins are estimated at present to cost £4,230,000 each, so we are going to spend about R25,000,000 on the acquisition of these three new frigates. They are very fine ships. They will require when they come here a total peace-time complement of about 30 officers and about 624 other ratings, or under war-time conditions about 48 officers and about 732 other ratings. I want to ask the Minister of Defence what progress the Government has made in preparing for the manning of those ships, because they are ships of the electronic age, packed with electronic equipment from one end to the other. Like all vessels of that type it is practically impossible to lay them up because they deteriorate so rapidly if laid up. Manning our ships has been one of our biggest problems, and the manning of these new ships will call for the highest technical ability on the part of the crew. They are far beyond the ordinary accepted category of seamen. They have to be specialists in their jobs, and if we are going to get value from the ships, we have to be certain in advance that we have the men trained to man them. Certainly the record up to date does not give us too much confidence that that is coming.

These are just three questions out of a number which one could put, but I ask them to show the reasons why we feel we will not get value from Defence expenditure. They are the reasons for the questions in the speech of the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) last night. And we want to know not only in regard to the actual use of the equipment when it is here, but we also want to know what policy the Government has, if any, for the external defence of South Africa. We have been hearing a lot about the laager. This Prime Minister has taken us outside the laager in which we previously sheltered, the Commonwealth. We are now outside and on our own and if we want to feel secure we have to see to it ourselves that we can provide for our security I have no doubt that we will get some defence assistance because of our strategic position, but what we got before as a right, we will now get as charity, because the other people in their own interests have to do something to help us, whereas before we had that assurance as a right, and there is a vast difference between what we enjoy as a right, and what we will enjoy on goodwill, the grace and favour of the people who help us. That is why we want to know what Government policy is in regard to our external defence. I understand that there is a policy with regard to internal security, but the two are as different as night is from day. The training and equipment of the men differs and the two cannot be mixed. In each case we are dealing with the same manpower plus also the maintenance of the base in South Africa from which they will have to operate. That industrial and engineering base which will draw on the same small reserve of manpower due to this Government’s folly regarding immigration. That is where the Prime Minister and his policies have taken us to. The Prime Minister is the man who put us into this position. The choice was his and the responsibility was his. He has failed in his responsibility to the people of the country, and having failed in his responsibility he should now try to save what can possibly be saved in regard to our defence position and to safeguard the future security of the country. It is his responsibility to do that now without any further delay, or else to make way for somebody else who will be prepared to do it. Someone who will be prepared to do his best in the interest of the country and forget his own political ambitions which have been placed to a large extent ahead of his responsibilities to the nation as a whole.

*Mr. VON MOLTKE:

I think the best answer I can give the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) is to depict a different picture for him so that he can realize once and for all that he does not only live in the Peninsula but also on the Continent of Africa. South Africa as well as the entire Christian Western civilization feels threatened to-day by international Communism and I think that every member in this House will agree with that statement. If that is the position, it is also clear that we must counter that danger not alone, but together with the rest of the Western world. But the White man not only in the Cape Peninsula but elsewhere on the continent as well, is faced with other difficulties. We are faced with the problem that the United Kingdom, the United States, Soviet Russia and Red China are competing with one another for the favours of the Black man of Africa, and there lies our danger. But Communism bases its policies on the sayings of Lenin, their great apostle, and what did he say? He said: War is inevitable for so long as Socialism has not triumphed throughout the world. We have heard this morning that the U.S.A.’s Mr. Adlai Stevenson has said with a pious face and a catch in his voice that he appeals to the world, please, not to wage a cold war in Africa. He knows as well as you and I that the cold war has already been going on in Africa for the past 16 years and he knows that he and his country are playing a prominent part in that cold war. This is a cold war which could break out into a hot war at any time. The aim of the communists with their cold war is in the first place to gain control over Africa for economic, political and strategic reasons. Russia and China with their satellites are waging this cold war against the West for just as long as they are on the winning side, but as soon as they realize that they cannot win they will not hesitate to spark off a hot war, and when one reads the signs of the times, one cannot but think that that time is near. Their object is to bring about the triumph of Socialism throughout the entire world and they do not care whether they achieve that object by means of a cold or a hot war. I want to indicate to the hon. member for Simonstown what the position in Africa is so that he can escape from the atmosphere of the Peninsula.

In the course of this cold war Russia is broadcasting 3,000 hours per week in 55 African languages. May I ask the hon. member for Simonstown whether he knows in how many African languages the Union and the whole Western world are broadcasting in order to counter this propaganda? Since 1953 Russia has undertaken more purposeful and more thorough research on the African continent than all the other great powers together, and if I have the time I shall prove my submission. They have already published a whole series of historical, linguistic and scientific works in various African languages which testify to a thorough knowledge of Africa, apart from the propaganda they contain. They have already published two geography works in Libya and Abyssinia for school use, and they have published a whole series of brochures dealing with other areas in Africa. They are now engaged on compiling dictionaries in Swahili, Hausa and the Bantu languages of South Africa. The Institute for Asiatistics in Russia has been instructed to undertake research in connection with Egypt, Algeria and Morocco, while the Ethnographic Institute of Russia has received a similar instruction in respect of Africa south of the Sahara, that part of the continent in which we are most interested. The Soviet experts and students who are writing these theses, cannot speak too highly about the untapped wealth of the continent of Africa, and in this regard they mention Ghana, Mali, Zongai, the Sudan, the Rhodesias, the Congo, Angola, Mozambique, and the Union of South Africa and South West Africa. Apart from the political trend of these works—I have read many of them—they testify to a thorough knowledge of conditions in Africa. Only in a few African countries are there official communist parties to-day, that is to say in Nigeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt and the Sudan, but in all the other African states the communists use puppet movements. We find such movements in the Congo, Tanganyika, Kenya, Northern and Southern Rhodesia, Angola, Mozambique, in the Union and in South West. The reason is that in recent years, since 1953, Communism has no longer placed the emphasis on the economic welfare of the proletariat or the masses of the world, but on the political and constitutional liberation and on the human rights of the masses in Africa. I now want to ask the hon. member for Simonstown whether he has ever studied the military strength of Africa. Does he know that throughout the African continent there are scarcely 75,000 trained White soldiers and of those 75,000 the Union together with Southern Rhodesia controls hardly 25,000. The remainder are in the service of the Black States in Africa, and if a war should break out, they would have to fire on their fellow White men, or be put against a wall and executed. What potential strength is available to us? There are less than 5,000,000 Whites in all Africa and 3.000. 000 of them are in Southern Africa. It is from these people that we can derive our strength in the future, but Black Africa has 210,000. 000 people. The argument is often used: You can see what is happening in the Congo; there is chaos because they do not have trained military and political leaders. Sir, that may be true of the Congo to-day and of the other states as well, but for how many years will that continue to be the position, seeing that the U.S.A. together with the United Kingdom, Russia and China are openly offering their assistance and guidance to Africa in all spheres? I now want to ask the hon. member for Simonstown who has so much to say about defence matters whether he has considered which countries have already entered into mutual agreements aimed at freeing the Black man in Africa. I shall mention them to him. They are Ceylon, Ghana, Liberia, the Republic of Malia, Abyssinia, Morocco, the United Arab Republic, the Sudan and Indonesia. I now want to give him the names of the countries which support the establishment of an African army which could be used against him and me and all of us. They are Morocco, Guinea, Ghana, the United Arab Republic, the Sudan and Ethiopia. I wonder whether the hon. member knows that as far as manpower and equipment is concerned, the United Arab Republic is just as strong to-day as the Allied Forces were at the battle of El Alamein.

*Mr. GAY:

Ask the Prime Minister.

*Mr. VON MOLTKE:

Countries which are already receiving military aid from Russia, are the U.A.R., the Sudan, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Libya, and Gizenga of the Congo, whose troops are using automatic weapons which they could only have received from one power in the world, namely, Russia or one of her satellites. Allow me also to tell the hon. member that this is Russia’s cheapest way of fighting wars. On the one hand she is waging a cold war and she is winning “ all down the line” in Africa. On the other hand, she is providing armaments on credit to the liberated African States, and these States must provide the soldiers, their equipment, their food and their pay. This is the cheapest way Russia can recruit millions and millions of soldiers in Africa so that she can achieve her objects as far as we are concerned. [Interjections.] That is in brief the position of the White man in Africa.

Now, what is the attraction which Africa offers to these nations of the West to which I have referred, and to Russia, Red China and the nations of the East? Their eyes are on the uncivilized millions in Africa whom they can easily exploit economically if they can only gain economic control over Africa. And then, as Mr. Stevenson has done, they call it “ partnership ”. The other attraction is the great “ lebensraum ” and the unequalled surface and subterranean resources of the great African continent. This explains to me, Mr. Macmillan’s “ winds of change ” speech, and all the nations I have mentioned will be prepared unhesitatingly to sacrifice the White man in Africa who has established civilization on this continent, and who has carried it to the far north, if they can gain their own objects. Africa south of the Sahara is 7,399,038 square miles in extent, and in 1951 its population was only 25,500,000 people, or 16.96 persons per square mile. This is negligible when compared with the more densely populated countries of the East or even of Europe. At that time there were 37.15 Natives for every White man, and to-day the ratio is different, because thousands of Whites have already fled from the north. Africa offers all these interested nations in ample abundance all those things on which the modern world is built, namely, fertile soil, ample water, coal and other fuels, gold, uranium, iron, copper, asbestos, manganese, itrium, beryllium, and a whole series of other metals and minerals which are required for the progress of the world. What progress has our great enemy, Communism, already made? It has succeeded in driving one powerful spearhead right through Red China deep into the Malayan Archipelago, and it is succeeding in driving a vast spearhead right through the Near East and Africa north of the Sahara—we must not always refer to Africa south of the Sahara—and it has succeeded to such an extent that Russia to-day has gained two strong footholds on the continent of Africa. The one is in Guinea which is communistic and the other in Ethiopia which, financially, is completely in the clutches of Russia. On the other hand, we have Red China, which is trying to compete with Russia for influence in the communist world. China has gained two firm footholds in Algeria and Uganda. I do not have the time to give the House all the information I have available, but in the space of 18 months 54 delegations from Africa visited China, and not one of them came back empty-handed. I now want to say that if Communism should succeed in driving its second spearhead deep into southern Africa, we shall have only one alternative. We are the basis from which the Western world can once again try to regain what it has lost in the Mediterranean area, in the Red Sea and in the East. We are the basis from which the West will start again to regain what it has lost, and, as a student of military matters, the hon. member for Simonstown will agree with that point. This is the only warm water route which will be left between the Eastern democracies and the West, and he will agree with me that, with its spearhead right through Red China and deep into the Malayan Archipelago and with the spearhead which it has driven deep into southern Africa, Communism can cut the West from its Eastern democracies within 24 hours. That is only logical. During the last world war, Germany and Japan did not have a single base along our coasts, and they succeeded in sinking 238 allied ships from the Mozambique canal to a little north of Walvis Bay. But to-day they are in a strong position as a result of spearheads which they have driven in and which they are still driving in, to cut us off within 24 hours when they can no longer win the cold war and want to wage a hot war. I now ask the hon. member whether he cannot get away from these petty matters? Will they answer and tell us that, if this is the position—the position in which we would find ourselves whether South Africa remains a monarchy or not, whether she is in the Commonwealth or not, whether she becomes a republic inside or outside the Commonwealth, because our enemies have been winning this cold war for the past 16 years. I ask whether it is not time that we, as White people in South Africa, in the famous words of the late Dr. Malan, should make this confession of faith and tell one another: Believe in God, believe in your people, and believe in yourself, and that we should take up a firm stand as White people, not only in the Union, but in Southern Africa, and that we, with the approval of the whole House, should provide all the assistance which other White people may require of us when they are faced with danger. We can and we must, or else we shall go under. May I make an appeal that in the face of the danger which threatens us, we should agree with the Deputy Minister of Education and say that we shall rather die if that is to be our fate, because then it will not be our fault. Seeing that we are now discussing defence matters, I ask that in this debate, we should see the whole matter in its overall perspective and realize that our enemies who want to become “ partners ”, as Mr. Stevenson admitted this morning, are our enemies and not our friends, that they are prepared to sacrifice us, and that, in the words of Mr. Macmillan and others, it means that: “ We are expendable.” Once we realize that, I think we shall be able to maintain a higher level in our defence debates than merely pottering around here in the Peninsula as the hon. member for Simonstown has done.

*Prof. FOURIE:

I would have liked to have followed the hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke) because there is quite a lot in what he said that I agree with, particularly the last sentence that it would not be our fault, provided we are sure of it. In my opinion it would not be so easy, in view of the spirit that I have seen so far, to determine whose fault it is.

But, Mr. Speaker, I feel in a somewhat poetic mood to-day and a vision of Jan Celliers gives me in figurative speech, and also in proper perspective what I have sensed here since yesterday and also since South Africa has been out of the Commonwealth. My memory goes back to many years ago when I started with the establishment of a “ Native ”—and in those days we still spoke of “ Native ”—study group in 1927. Then the cloud of the Native problem already came floating along. “ Soos ’n vlokkie skuim uit die sfere se ruim ”. And in the meantime it has—

Gegroei in die blou tot ’n stapelbou Van marmer wat krul en leef, Kolossaal monument op sy swart fondament Waar die bliksem in brui en beef.

We had an event last Wednesday which came like a flash of lightning for South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister went overseas with the good-will and support of practically the entire population, with the support, I believe, of even the large majority of the non-White population, that South Africa should remain within the Commonwealth when she became a republic. Then came the flash of lightning and South Africa was out. It does not matter if it is only effective from 31 May; South Africa is out. The fact that South Africa is out of the Commonwealth is very important on its own, but that is not all. It is clearly a symptom of an enormous number of circumstances built up in this country over the years I recall that already in those early days I foresaw and told my students that the matter that would eventually determine where South Africa would stand was not the question of a republic or anything else but the question of race relations in South Africa. Many say it to-day, and I think that we all agree with it. To-day the flash of lightning has come but the lightning, as I know the Free State, is usually the forerunner of terrific storms. That devastating hailstorm can still come and this is the great significance of our withdrawal from the Commonwealth, that it is a symptom of many greater dangers.

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

It sometimes also brings us nice rain.

*Prof. FOURIE:

It sometimes brings nice rain, and sometimes devastating hurricanes and hailstorms. We have been busy attacking each other during the past few days about the symptoms and we are now seeking scapegoats. The hon. the Prime Minister is made the scapegoat by the one side and by the other side he is made the hero of the situation. Mr. Speaker, we must be very cautious. One must come to the actual realities of the matter. I have listened to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) and also to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and once again the type of leadership coming from that side in a time of crisis was disappointing. If ever there was one who championed South Africa’s membership of the Commonwealth then it was I.

*An HON. MEMBER:

And now?

*Prof. FOURIE:

To me it is, of course, one of the greatest disappointments and because it meant so much to me I can appreciate the feelings of my hon. friends on the Opposition side of the House, but above all that there is still South Africa and however strongly I stood throughout my life for Commonwealth relationships I wish to state now that I stand by South Africa.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

Who stands by anything else?

*Prof. FOURIE:

I stand by South Africa and I am not going to cry about spilt milk. To my mind the matter has been finalized, much too our disappointment. But it is going too far to want to make the hon. the Prime Minister the scapegoat and to propose that the coming of a republic should be stopped in an effort to return to the Commonwealth. Mr. Speaker, it is said that a dog does not return to his vomit. I do not see the way clear for South Africa to crawl back to the Commonwealth hat in hand now. The matter is finished. The hon. the Prime Minister did not fail, or let me rather put it this way: He failed but it is not only he who failed.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

It is the whole party.

*Prof. FOURIE:

If he failed then the whole South African nation failed. Let us consider the matter objectively and stop looking for scapegoats. I am not going to look for any scapegoats because I could point out many. I say that if the hon. the Prime Minister failed with the mandate from South Africa then the whole South African nation failed and now the question arises: Why did he fail? In view of the fact that the great majority of the people believe in racial discrimination the people gave a virtually impossible mandate to the hon. the Prime Minister under the existing world and Commonwealth circumstances of to-day. We know what the causes are. The fact that we are becoming a republic, which the hon. member for South Coast and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition emphasized, has in my opinion practically nothing to do with the entire matter. The basis of the whole trouble is the clash between the views of other Commonwealth countries and us about the question of race relations in South Africa. That alone is the cause and the challenge has been in existence for us here in South Africa for many years. I want to state this afternoon that the reason why I am standing here, away from my former party, is because they could not accept that challenge. I differed from my hon. friends on that side for many years because I believed that they were not really accepting that challenge. The main problem in the world to-day in connection with human relationships, race relations, is the question: Can any nation continue with a policy of deliberate discrimination against another race? Whether it be South Africa or the rest of the world, I believe that a human revolution has been in progress for years now, unparalleled in the entire history of mankind and it concerns this question of vested interests and the privileged position, particularly of the White races of the West towards the non-White races over the length and the breadth of the world. Those former big nations awoke and said that racial discrimination should disappear from the world. And, Sir, nothing will stop it, and that also applied to South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister declared in London and here also that his policy was not based on racial discrimination; in other words, our policy was not based on the question of the maintenance of the privileged position of the Whites here in South Africa. I would like to believe that. It would really inspire me if it is true that we actually reject unconditionally racial discrimination and the privileged position of the Whites; that we are no longer fighting about that but that we are actually fighting for the rights of the non-Whites. If it is true, and the proof is there, then I promise that I will immediately cross the floor of the House.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Then do it now.

*Prof. FOURIE:

But let me see if we can really claim that for ourselves. The time has come for us not to bluff ourselves any longer. In my opinion, and apart from what the hon. member for Karas said, South Africa is in deadly peril and everything depends on whether we can convince ourselves and our non-Whites and the world that the White man in South Africa, in harmony with the rest of the world, is now steering away from White preference in South Africa and from discrimination against the non-White races, and that she will now once and for all do away with racial discrimination in South Africa. Our history proves that racial discrimination is really a fact, and no argument that anyone can advance will controvert it. In other words, we must stop relying on the sort of idea that caused the trouble in the Commonwealth Conference. There the fundamental trouble was that the hon. the Prime Minister relied on the old principle which held water in the Commonwealth since before the last world war, namely the principle of sovereign independence and equality, which made interference on the part of the member states impossible in what we considered to be domestic matters. After the advent of the United Nations and in view of the development that has taken place at a tremendous tempo during the past few years, we must realize that the old concept of national sovereignty, on which we base this claim of ours that we will not tolerate any interference in our domestic affairs from any other country, and especially not from Commonwealth countries, is to-day outmoded by at least 50 years in respect of one particular aspect, namely human rights. The concept of national sovereignty will not be tolerated in the sense that it prohibits other countries from interfering in our so-called domestic affairs. Human rights are not limited to national boundaries; it surpasses national boundaries and it concerns humanity as a whole. I have said in this House on a previous occasion, following on a speech made by the hon. the Minister of External Affairs, that we are entirely unrealistic if we think that Section 2 (7) of the United Nations charter is still in force to-day in the sense that other nations will not interfere in our domestic affairs. Throughout the history of the world, and particularly to-day, human rights, human freedoms, have never acknowledged the concept of national sovereignty. The concept of national sovereignty always had to give way to the greater sovereignty of the Creator towards His creatures. If I can believe to-day that South Africa wants to steer away from the old paths, that we are not going to stand in the way of other races in our country but that we really and truly want to help them to achieve their freedom and their rights then it will be a happy day for me. That was the great problem at the Commonwealth Conference. The other countries of the Commonwealth are determined that that antiquated idea of the Commonwealth, of non-interference, and which I have always supported, shall be rejected. That idea is outmoded. The hon. the Prime Minister and many other members opposite say that we have a different kind of Commonwealth to-day than we had before. But that is so, of course, and I am surprised that we have not realized it before. It is quite unrealistic for us to believe that the Commonwealth could remain unaffected in such a worldwide revolution of humanity. The Commonwealth has naturally changed, not only as far as its members are concerned, but an entirely different spirit has set in there; an entirely new concept has taken root there and South Africa must ask herself: Can we bring ourselves into harmony with the new Commonwealth of today, as it was in fact since after the first world war? The question is whether we can bring ourselves into harmony with it or not.

*An HON. MEMBER:

No.

*Prof. FOURIE:

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anyone here who could have put South Africa’s case better than the hon. the Prime Minister has done, as he sees it and as a large part of the population sees it. I do not think that anyone else could have carried out the mandate given to him any better. I do not believe what the hon. member for South Coast and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, namely that it was merely a question of sitting there and allowing them to punch us on the nose, left and right, and that we could then have remained in the Commonwealth. It is not only a question of sitting still. I agree that no nation which is proud of its nationhood, which has a sense of pride, could sit still and permit itself to be slapped and kicked left and right. As long as we could not succeed in convincing those other nations that our policy was really, and perhaps more so than theirs, steering away from racial discrimination than did the policy in the Western world or in India or wherever racial discrimination is avoided, then I regard what happened there as unavoidable. This is the test before South Africa and on this question our future will be determined. Are we going to continue with a negative policy of apartheid, as in the past? No person who considers matters objectively and impartially can believe that what we have done so far was actually steering us away from the policy of racial discrimination. On the contrary, with all the legislation we have passed here over the years we gave the impression that we wanted to maintain White supremacy in South Africa, come what may, and that we were even prepared to die for it, as the hon. member for Karas said. Therefore I say: Let us die if we must, but let us be very careful when we determine whether it is our fault or not. Let us understand one another. I am of the opinion—and I will be surprised if our White population does not come to their senses— that the White man is to blame for the conditions existing in South Africa to-day and also for the attitude among Commonwealth nations towards South Africa, but let us steer away from it and the first requisite, in my opinion, is that the White sections of South Africa must reject the sort of thing said here by the hon. member for South Coast and by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. That sort of thing, which must lead to a new racial struggle between Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking, must be stopped. I always believed that the Commonwealth and our membership of the Commonwealth, together with our becoming a republic, could become the two main foundations for national unity among the Whites in this country. Apparently that is no longer so. All our supports have now been pushed from under us—English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking—and we must now stand on our own feet in South Africa and we must in the first instance seek our security in each other, Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking together. Mr. Speaker, I stand unequivocally for national unity between the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking sections, but why do we want to stand together? Sir, I dread kraals. I have seen the effects of kraals over many years, where the Afrikaansspeaking section want to isolate themselves more and more in their own kraal and where the English-speaking section in turn want to isolate themselves in their own kraal. If ever South Africa wants to destroy her own future then we must now go into another kraal— White kraals on the one side and non-White kraals on the other. The time has come for us to break down barriers. We must penetrate the barriers in the country. Seen from this point of view I am of the conviction that what has happened now, as dangerous as it was, may have the positive effect of breaking down the walls of the kraals that we have built up over the past years. May the Lord preserve us from building kraals for the Whites on the one side and the non-Whites on the other because that will really be the end of White South Africa. We must penetrate those walls. The kind of talk we have been hearing here through the years gave one the impression that an opening should never be made in those walls. My personal experience is that anyone who wants to break loose from a kraal is beaten back into it, as we used to drive back calves that have broken out of the kraal.

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

But if you make a hole in the dam wall it breaks.

*Prof. FOURIE:

I want to say this to my hon. friends opposite: Even if they get 90 per cent or 95 per cent of the Whites behind them, even if they should succeed in getting them all to become good Nationalists, even if they came so far as perhaps to have only one or two Opposition members while the rest are all Government members, it will not save South Africa; it will actually put South Africa in greater danger. The time for a party struggle on this issue is past. As far as it concerns that great question which will determine our weals and woes and our future, parties are totally antiquated. Even in this debate, where we have the danger before us, it has become more obvious to me than ever before. Hon. members opposite say that what has happened is the very best. From the Opposition side they are throwing back stones: The scapegoats are sitting on the Government benches, from the hon. the Prime Minister downwards, and from their side comes the reproach that the scapegoats are sitting on this side. On that basis we will get nowhere. We must penetrate the walls; we must break loose from the kraals and I believe that there must now be a compromise based on actual conviction in connection with the matter, and as far as the Whites are concerned we must find a few points of agreement. That granite-like immovable inflexibility must lead to destruction here in South Africa. The question is: Where can we find a few points on which we can really stand united without sacrificing any of our principles? Firstly, I believe that the destiny of our Coloured population is bound up with that of the Whites historically and in every other respect, whether we like it or not; and whether we are going to give them certain civic rights now or over a period of years, in that lies the outlet from these kraals in which we find ourselves in connection with race relations as far as the Whites and non-Whites are concerned. Mr. Speaker, as I understand the hon. the Prime Minister he has practically locked the door on the Coloureds and their future on the one hand and where he, on the other hand, tries to give them a comprehensive plan for development. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I consider that the statement of the hon. the Prime Minister to the Federal Council of the National Party in connection with the Coloureds as one of the most unfortunate events in South Africa during the past few months. There the hon. the Prime Minister missed an opportunity and it caused incalculable harm to South Africa at the recent discussions in London. I still feel that if the hon. the Prime Minister could have said there that we have not got a granite-like policy, at least as far as our Coloureds are concerned, but that we believed in all sincerity that the time for full citizenship for them was not yet ripe, and that we were, however, busy preparing and developing them for it and that all doors were wide open for our Coloureds to take their full place alongside the Whites in the future, then I believe that the policy of open doors for our Coloureds would have made an impression on Commonwealth countries which would have resulted in us not meeting with that hard attitude which was adopted towards South Africa. As far as our Natives are concerned we will also have to come to our senses. My hon. friends of the United Party cannot continue to be neither flesh nor fish about the matter. If we really support apartheid—and I believe from my personal experience in that party that 95 per cent of the Whites in South Africa support the basic principle of separate development-then let us say so and act accordingly; and if that is so then let us stop this farce. Let the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. the Prime Minister arrive at a compromise on this question. Let us realize that the Native question is the overriding problem on the outcome of which we will either be destroyed or saved, but let us stop playing with the matter. Are there no points of agreement even on this question? The nation believes in separate development, whether it is right or wrong. I do not think the people have yet assessed the price of that policy, but they believe in it. We can start where it will not land any of us in trouble, so that it cannot be said afterwards: “ Yes, I warned you, but I later agreed in despair.” This, in fact, goes for me. I still want to warn that the policy of separate development will be the shortest route to the death of the White man in South Africa if it is not regulated and if it is just idle talk. But the extent to which we can make it a positive actuality could be the salvation of both the Whites and the non-Whites. We must make a positive start now and cease our negative outlook; we must stop building a colour Maginot Line here in South Africa. Let us begin with separate development now. I fully support any positive measure taken to develop the Native areas. I will give my support to any step taken in that connection and I believe that the larger majority of my hon. friends on the Opposition benches, however confusingly they may have spoken, will agree with it. Call it Bantustans if you will, call it Bantu homelands if you will, call it the beginning of the future independent states if you like, call it whatever you like, but let us begin to show the world and ourselves and the Natives that we now want to start with the positive implementation of separate development. Let us put everything into it. Let the Government again take into consideration the fact that the time factor is of the utmost importance, that we cannot develop those Native reserves as the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is trying to do, at the rate at which it should be done if we want to save ourselves, with the world situation as it is, if we are not going to base that development on the basis of the Natives and their stage of civilization. That enormous industrial structure which must be created, and speedily too, cannot be built to-day on the basis of the Native alone. One must reconsider the development of the Native reserves under White guidance, with White initiative and capital. If we cannot get the capital then we will have to take it from our own pockets. But everything depends on that, Mr. Speaker, and on that point we should agree. As far as the urban Native is concerned, which is the crux of the matter, we agree on many points. I think we can agree on social segregation and separate residential areas, provided we know what we mean by it. We agree on the absolute necessity of having wage increases for the urban Native labour. We agree that the Native is an indispensable factor in industry to-day and that we can forget about the development of the Native reserves if we do not look after the Native in our industry, who is already integrated on a high qualitative basis in our economic structure. There you must produce the wherewithal, you must produce the means in that sector of your economy to realize something in the other sector of your economy in the Native reserves.

Here we have a few points where this stone wall we have erected can be broken. My advice to the people to-day, if I may make it in my solitude, is that we must get away from party governments, the kind we have had in the past. We must get away from that policy of the Afrikaner, namely that “We shall go it alone ”. We will have to get away from the idea that “You will have to become Nationalists, you must accept our principles ” otherwise “ We shall go it alone ”. I repeat that that is the danger, that the Afrikaner will try “ to go it alone ”. We must join hands, and I say that unless a leader comes along; if it is not the hon. the Prime Minister or the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or someone from outside, then it will be a tragic day. But let us in Heaven’s name, during the emergency in which South Africa finds herself and which will continue to increase, come to an actual National Government instead of a Nationalist Government as we have had up to now. In this I see our salvation, that English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking sections where they can get together in this respect should join hands and form a National Government which will be able to help the nation through this crisis and perhaps lead it to security.

*Mr. WENTZEL:

I think that I am speaking on behalf of every member on this side of the House when I congratulate the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie) on his clear-headed approach to these great problems with which we are faced. It is not necessary for us always to agree on a matter, and what we in fact would like the Opposition to do is to adopt a clear-headed approach to our problems, without emphasizing any party political points of view and without us criticizing one another as we always used to do, and without harming the interests of our country. It is not necessary that we should always agree. We on this side of the House particularly welcome criticism. We do not want to be over-sensitive and even though we differ in many respects from what the hon. member has said, we appreciate the manner and the methods he has adopted in putting his case. He has done so in an exceptionally clear-headed way. We genuinely appreciate it. I say sincerely that I appreciate his speech and the way in which he has put his point of view. May I just say that I should like to start by referring to the metaphor of the hon. member regarding the flash of lightning in the Free State. He says that there has now been a flash of lightning which reminds him of the lightning when the storms are brewing in the Free State. I agree with him, except that I want to say that this is not the first roll of thunder, this is not the first flash of lightning which has come signalling the coming storm, and that this is not the first flash of disillusionment. If only it was the first flash of lightning! As has often happened in the past, I believe that we in South Africa must make a choice for the sake of self-preservation. We have had to do so in the past, in the years which are passed, in respect of the old policy which is now fading away, namely, the old colonial policies of the former Western countries which have now come to an end. At that time there were also great crises and we had to take a decision for the sake of self-preservation. At that time we also had to face the flashes of lightning signalling coming storms, and at that time we also had to take decisions for the sake of our self-preservation and we thank Providence that those decisions were taken and that we succeeded in protecting ourselves and in taking decisions which have safeguarded our nation over the ages. Because we really believe that we have come to South Africa, as was the original idea, to establish a refueling station, and that we have been sent by the Almighty with a far greater purpose, namely, to bring light to South Africa and to establish a spiritual refuelling station here. Yet we live in a new world, a most interesting world, but also a very dangerous world. We appreciate that fully. The old world has passed and a compact and new world has arisen. Distances have been wiped out in this new world. The old ideas and the old beliefs are something of the past. The old colonial policies which have caused us our greatest difficulties are something of the past and we are now experiencing the dying convulsions of the old colonial policies of the Western powers. Power has shifted to other nations and two main groups have arisen, the communistic group and the Christian civilization group. And these colonies which have now been liberated, must choose between these two groups, and we have been thrown into the vacuum which is arising. In these circumstances we see one ray of light for which we are particularly grateful to this Government, namely, that for a long time past it has been clear without the slightest doubt to the Western Christian powers, where the Union of South Africa stands, and that as far as the rest of Africa is concerned, we are certainly the most outspoken anti-communistic country. As far as that is concerned, the world knows where South Africa stands. Under these circumstances it is also no wonder that the undecided countries have become an important factor, and our policy of self-preservation at this time has for that reason quite naturally been subjected to violent criticism. The hon. member has referred to human rights, and it is true that as a result of this shift, the freedom of the individual and of the less privileged nations are being concentrated upon in the propaganda campaign between the two powers, and this has caused us to be dragged in because, in the light of that policy, we in South Africa have made ourselves guilty of a certain measure of oppression. However that may be, we have never, and to-day less than ever before, had an unconditional recognition of the arguments of pure logic. There are these great problems facing the world. We cannot get away from that. It is this same self-preservation which forced the hon. the Prime Minister to take this decision at this conference. I think that if we as a nation are grateful to him, then we are grateful to him for taking the decision he took under those circumstances. Under the circumstances he had no alternative. Seeing that this decision has been taken, can we not consider our own internal differences in the light of that position and with a view to our self-preservation in the future, pick out those points on which the parties do not differ. Can we not concentrate on those points? Can we not in the future regard and approach the differences of the past in that light, the future which may await us. Because the world position is there. It is not an easy position, but a most dangerous one. The position was dangerous before the Commonwealth Conference; it is just as dangerous thereafter, if not more dangerous. Seeing that there are these two world movements and that these two groups of nations have been formed, can we not find points of agreement? Seeing that South Africa is in this critical position, where she in fact is, in conflict with the world principle of “ one man one vote ”, can we not seek these points of agreement? We in South Africa cannot under any circumstances accept this principle of “ one vote one man ”, a full vote, because of our need for self-preservation. Can we not concentrate to a greater extent on these points because in this regard the United Party has never yet differed completely from us?

Mr. Speaker, it is also clear that the failure of the Commonwealth Conference is not due to the fact that South Africa wishes to become a republic. The dispute arose over the concept of human rights: One man one vote, irrespective of colour. Let us then differ in certain respects, but the United Party does not differ from us in this respect. Let one single member of the United Party rise to-day and tell us that he disagrees with the policy of discrimination. Let him rise and say that he is going to give in to the demands being made in the Commonwealth. He cannot. As far as discrimination is concerned, the United Party have never differed from us, although there may be differences between us as to the extent of the discrimination. If we can find one another in this regard, can we not work in that direction and try to eliminate the sharp differences of opinion between ourselves?

My time is unfortunately nearly up. I should like to discuss another point in this regard. How can we strengthen our position at this time? I know that this is one of the points on which the United Party have already been concentrating for years, namely, the strengthening of the White population by immigration. Can we not tackle this matter and see if we cannot supplement _ and strengthen our White population by immigration? Let us examine the resource available in our country and let us plan, in order to see whether we cannot strengthen our position by bringing in immigrants, the right type of immigrants. We immediately ask ourselves the question: What resources can we use to a large extent to bring about immigration. Can we do so on the basis of our agricultural industry? Let us examine the position. Can we do so in the industrial sphere, or can we do so on the basis of our mineral wealth? Can we develop our mineral wealth on a larger scale and base our immigration policy on it? One thinks of this great principle: A country’s capacity to carry its population and to develop industries does not depend on its size, but on its resources: Soil, rain, minerals, etc. Without water one cannot develop the most unlimited resources and the richest soil. Let us tackle this task. At this time of need in which we find ourselves, let us see how by using the resources available to us in South Africa we can strengthen our White population, not in order to throw them onto the streets, but to give them a livelihood. In which sphere can we bring in thousands of people into South Africa in order to strengthen the White population? Not to start clashes, but to provide the resources for the development of South Africa as a nation which will be of importance in the world.

I want to conclude in the firm faith that in view of the lines along which South Africa is developing—it is a question of time—and with a view to her situation and her strategic importance, South Africa is developing into a power which will be of importance, a power which will in fact have a say in world developments, and that this will be the position within a comparatively short time. The important question at the moment is to bridge over this time gap. Allow me in conclusion to make an appeal to the Opposition: Can we not place less emphasis on our differences and can we not try to find points of agreement and can we not try to find one another for the sake of our self-preservation?

Mr. RAW:

I find it difficult to reconcile the line of argument of the hon. member who has just sat down with the facts with which he purported to be dealing. We are faced here with a situation where South Africa finds herself isolated from the rest of the world, and that hon. member spent the greater portion of his time explaining the dangers which face us, yet he started off thanking the Prime Minister for having placed us in this impossible position. What sort of outlook is this that a man should thank the person who has created the difficulties for you, that a person should thank the creator of the dangers for your own fatherland, and for your own country? This situation in which we stand to-day is of our own choosing, it is a situation which we ourselves have chosen—not we on this side of the House, but the Prime Minister in the name of South Africa. He chose to put himself in the position in which he found himself in London. Whether he was right or wrong that is immaterial. He created the circumstances in which he found himself and he alone must carry the responsibility for what flows from that. And the hon. member thanks him for it and then spends the rest of his time pointing out what a dangerous world we live in and what difficult days lie ahead of us. Having pointed that out, he then says: What we need in this country is immigrants, is people, is money and development—when his Prime Minister has just slammed the door in the face of every thinking White man in the world who might have come here before we were isolated from those who were our friends and our associates. This Government has slammed the door in the face of people who would have come out here to become part of a great family of free nations. What people does he expect to get now? Those who are fleeing from dangers in other places? Or people who are coming here to play their part as South Africans to build up this country? Let me tell him this, and I say it to that hon. member and to all other hon. members who face this issue, let me tell him clearly that if the time comes when this country should be tested, we on this side of the House will do our duty to South Africa as we have always done in the past, and it will be we on this side of the House who perhaps will have to save that hon. member and his friends from this catastrophe in which the Prime Minister of South Africa has plunged us.

At 3.55 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the resolution adopted on 23 March and the debate was adjourned until 27 March.

The House thereupon, in terms of Standing Order No. 41 (3), proceeded to the consideration of Orders of the Day of which private members have charge.

BROADCASTING AMENDMENT BILL

Fifteenth Order read: Second reading,—Broadcasting Amendment Bill.

Mr. DURRANT:

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

In rising to move the second reading of this Bill, I think, Mr. Speaker, you will readily understand that I have in a sense a feeling of doubt about the wisdom of moving the second reading of this Bill at this stage in view of the blatant manner in which the Broadcasting Corporation has been used by the hon. the Minister, particularly over the last few weeks, for nothing but blatant political propaganda. But when Í think, Sir, I am placing into the hands of the hon. the Minister with this measure, if adopted by the House, extensive powers over another very powerful medium such as television, I console myself with the thought that it is quite probable that the hon. the Minister will not be very much longer in his portfolio, and that at least within a period of two years, which is the time stipulation in the Bill, there will be another government and we will be able to proceed with this matter in a happier atmosphere than we can do at the present time.

I introduce the Bill against the background, one may say the practically universal request, for a television service from the public of South Africa, also, Sir, because it has been clearly stated by the hon. the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government that it is not Government policy to permanently keep television away from the public of South Africa. He clearly indicated when he dealt with the matter in this House on 9 March 1960 that that was the attitude of the Government. Let me quote the hon. the Prime Minister’s words on that occasion—

No government can or will lightly say that it is going to keep any invention permanently out of its borders. I am quite prepared to accept that television cannot be kept out of South Africa for ever.

In the same speech he said a third time, “ television cannot be kept out permanently ”.

The third reason is that we have been told of the introduction of a new service, to be known as V.H.F., “ frequency modulation ”, costing the country, the taxpayer, some R30,000,000 within the next four or five years. That will require a loan from the taxpayers of South Africa to the S.A.B.C., which is financed by contributions from the taxpayers, a loan of R30,000,000. But not only will it cost the taxpayer another R30,000,000 by the introduction of very high frequency, but the public of South Africa will be called upon to purchase new receivers to the extent of many millions more. [Quorum.] This expenditure, both in the way of finding this necessary capital expenditure and for the purpose of new radio receivers immediately raises the question of the wisdom of such a policy when, with the same expenditure, a television service may be introduced to our country. The object of this Bill, therefore is to compel the hon. the Minister to ask the S.A.B.C. for the introduction of the television service. And in the event of the S.A.B.C.’s inability to do so, to compel the Minister to hand the introduction of the service to private enterprise. I emphasize the word “ compel ”. Hon. members will note the wording of the proposed new Clause 15bis. This Bill seeks to introduce that clause into the original Act as compulsive in that in the exercise of the power conferred upon the Minister he shall require the corporation to inform him whether it proposes to institute a television service and, in the event of a negative reply from the corporation, the Minister shall direct the Postmaster-General to issue a licence to any other person who may apply to institute a television service in the Union, such terms and conditions as he may prescribe. In introducing this measure I want to make immediate mention of the principle of this Bill, for the reason that whenever the matter of the Broadcasting Corporation is considered in this House the hon. the Minister has retreated and sheltered behind the proposition that he cannot interfere in what happens in the S.A.B.C., that he cannot dictate to them. He says he cannot tell them what to do and what not to do. And I use the words “ he cannot dictate to them ” because I am using the hon. Minister’s very own words as pronounced in this House on previous occasions.

The S.A.B.C., in the existing Act, has the power to introduce a television service. This Bill gives the Minister power to compel the S.A.B.C. to proceed with the institution of a television service, or to take steps to use private enterprise for that purpose.

My task in introducing this measure to-day is made very much easier for me when presenting arguments in favour of the principle of the Bill because I am in the position to rebut the Minister’s objections, and the main objections of the Government as defined by the Prime Minister when he outlined Government policy in regard to the introduction of television in this House last year. I intend to ignore the arguments of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs for three main reasons. I intend to ignore his argument as outlined in a Press statement in October 1959 that television is nothing but a miniature bioscope brought into the home merely to lower the moral standards of our nation and to make our children slaves to pornographic exhibitions and nothing but moral perverts. I intend to ignore those arguments because, as I think all hon. members in this House will agree, they are just too ridiculous to warrant any contradiction from me.

My second reason for ignoring the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is that I assume that the reasons given by the hon. the Prime Minister on another occasion for refusing this modern medium of entertainment, information and education of the people of our country, was based on notes and information prepared for him by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. And I have another reason for ignoring the arguments of this hon. Minister. I intend to take the unusual step, in introducing this measure to-day, of asking for the resignation of the Minister. I intend to ask for his resignation on two main grounds: in that he has misled our country in announcements made about the introduction of V.H.F., very high frequency, and its full purpose and, secondly, that he has withheld information from the hon. the Prime Minister in regard to the full implications of the programme of expenditure involved in the introduction of this service. I will return to that later.

Mr. Speaker, may I first put the case for the introduction of a television service. I wish to do so by answering the three main objections, the three main principles on which the opponents to the introduction of this service usually base their statements. The first objection that is usually made is that there exists in this development in the science of electronics, spiritual dangers which can lead to the destruction of community’s social life and the destruction of the minds of men. It is argued that with the introduction of television husbands, wives and children become slaves to the instrument, that family relationships, home and school work suffers. Is this true? Is it a proven fact? We have much experience, when considering the institution of a television service from which to judge this argument. Television is no new invention. It has operated in some countries for more than 20 years. To-day its development is a major phenomena of the post-war era. From information that I have obtained it is considered that there are some 60 countries in the world with approximately 1,500 television transmission stations, and with some 90,000,000 television receivers. And that involves it is estimated some 300,000,000 television viewers. The only countries in the whole of the Western world without television to-day are Albania and Iceland. The only continent in the world which is what one might almost call a blank as far as television is concerned is the African continent. I use the words “ almost a blank ” because there are certain exceptions. I refer to a country like Western Nigeria which introduced a television service last year. I understand that Northern Nigeria is now busy with the installation of a similar service. We had the introduction of a television service last year in our immediate neighbour, the Federation. We have seen that this year Egypt, the United Arab Republic, will introduce a television service. Even Ghana, having established a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the merits of television now proposes to introduce a television service towards the end of this year. There can be no doubt in my mind that television is a powerful medium of education and entertainment and is here to stay in Africa. Yet our country, the most modern Western state in the African continent, lags far behind any development of this nature. With all these millions of viewers throughout the whole of the Western world there is little or no evidence to show, from surveys that have been made, that there have been any disastrous effects whatsoever on the populations of the many countries served by these services to-day. Their morals have not been lowered, nor have their spiritual values been reduced to the level of the worship oí Satan and all his works, which is the impression that the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs attempted to create in this country in respect of this little bioscope as he has referred to it. He said it was nothing but a little piece of glass in the home. That is an out-of-date argument. It is a Mother Grundy type of argument produced in this sophisticated world of the 20th century.

This argument advanced by the hon. the Minister can be likened to the argument heard at the beginning of the century that the motor car would destroy the home. When motor vehicle transportation was first introduced a man had to walk in front of a motor car with a red flag because it was purported to be such a danger. Then later we heard the cry that the development of motor transportation was destroying home life, and taking people away from their homes. Was that true, or has the motor car to-day become part of the home? And can we use the same argument in respect of radio transmission? Can we say that the wireless has made of the minds of men nothing but receptive dummies? Neither argument will be accepted by any hon. member in this House as reasonable, either in regard to the development of the motor car or in regard to the development of the radio. Why then, in regard to an electronic marvel of the 20th century, television, apply arguments of such a nature?

Mr. Speaker, no one will deny that the radio receiver in the home has brought the cultural fruits of mankind to the masses. Through the wireless the world has been brought closer together. It has brought the man in the street, through his sense of hearing, into daily touch with the events of the day. What is evil or wrong in using not only our sense of hearing but also our sense of seeing and our sense of motion to enjoy the field of entertainment, information and education? That is what television offers us. It is a vivid and compelling medium which can be harnessed. [Quorum.] Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I am in order in drawing your attention to the quorum bell, but it was common talk by Government members that this would be a good way to sabotage the discussion of this Bill on television.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order!

Mr. DURRANT:

There is no doubt that television is a vivid compelling medium which can be harnessed to help in raising the standard of hygiene of our nation, of child welfare, of soil conservation, of farming methods, of economic thinking. It could even be an instrument to help solve the problem of literacy. Television can be the most compelling medium with which to raise the cultural level of our nation with its two languages. In the English language we have a ready made cultural heritage, a rich heritage which can be exploited; a culture for which there is so little outlet for our English-speaking people of talent. I could cite the tremendous advantages of presenting the works of South African authors and poets in a vivid fashion onto the public of South Africa, to the widest possible audience, in a manner that could not possibly be done through the mediums we have to-day. I do not want to mention any names, but one could take as an example the work of Mr. Tony Delius. Just imagine his cynicism, his language, the flowing words which we read practically daily, presented in a live way to the people of South Africa, and the tremendous impact it would make upon the public. The English language has a heritage and there is a great deal to draw upon. But what about Afrikaans?

It has often been said—and I think the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs on one occasion used the argument that with the introduction of television it would bring about a threat to the spread and the development of our Afrikaans culture. That argument is based on the fear of Afrikaans culture being dominated by its more powerful brother, English culture. But does not television give the opportunity to Afrikaans culture to expand? It is a wonderful opportunity for Afrikaans playwrights and authors and actors who are to-day restricted to small audiences spread over vast distances, to spread their talents and bring the benefits of Afrikaans culture to the people of the country. Limited audiences make uneconomic large scale cultural development. That is proved by the fact that Afrikaans drama is the least highly developed part of Afrikaans literature. Indeed, one may say that what exists of Afrikaans drama today is a result of the sacrifices of the devoted few, and let me mention a few names: Paul de Groot, Hendrik Hanekom, Wena Naudé and André Hugenot. Many of them have faced bankruptcy and starvation; they have sacrificed themselves for Afrikaans culture and many are living in dire poverty. But overnight, with the introduction of television our best Afrikaans culture could be brought to the homes of millions. What is more, it could create vast opportunities for the latent talents that at present have no means of expression.

I think I have said enough to show that the Mother Grundy argument that television is a danger to the morals of the nation, can be termed as nothing but unsound and foolish; an argument which cannot in any way be substantiated.

I then want to turn to the second main principle on which the objectors to television base their arguments. They say it is dangerous to place in the hands of private enterprise such a powerful instrument for reaching the masses. Such an argument is based on the false premise that commercial television is completely free of any control both in regard to the nature of the programmes and the type of advertising that is put over in order to make a programme pay. Not one single country out of the 60 I have mentioned has found this to be the case. Hon. members will note that the Bill emphasizes this point in subsection (2) of Clause 1. The Minister is there empowered to prescribe the terms and conditions in this regard in the event of the Broadcasting Corporation not being able to carry out the functions of introducing a television service and the Minister then handing over the development of this service to the initiative of private enterprise. Strict controls and standards can be laid down for any commercial service. They can be laid down by the Broadcasting Corporation in consultation with the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. That is done to-day in our commercial service of the S.A.B.C. Any advertising, any programme put over by any sponsors on the commercial service to-day is subject to the approval of the S.A.B.C. Surely the same can be done in regard to a television service.

Most commercial television services in the world are under the control of broadcasting institutions. It is therefore interesting to note what happens in the Federation and the arrangements that were arrived at by the Federal Broadcasting Corporation with the Rhodesian Television Service. The Rhodesian Television Service is a privately owned company which was established with an initial capital of £110,000. I mention that figure because when you relate it to the globular sum of R150,000,000 mentioned by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs you realize how ridiculous is the argument that he has advanced. Here is an up-to-date modern television service established with an initial capital of £110,000 with a potential number of viewers of 150,000. This private company loaned money to the Federal Broadcasting Corporation to purchase transmitters, buildings and installations. They have also to pay the Federal Broadcasting Corporation for the operation of the transmitters. And all television licence fees accrue to the Federal Broadcasting Corporation, precisely the same can be done in the Union. In addition, there are further conditions laid down for the programming of the telecasts. There are no great dangers in a national corporation established to control broadcasting services. They can lay down the conditions for controlling sponsor’s programmes in their local programmes, in advertising time and hours of transmissions. They can all be controlled as indeed they are by the Federal Broadcasting Corporation as far as television is concerned in Rhodesia. [Quorum.]

All of these vital matters which have an impact on the public through a television viewer, although conducted by a private company, are controlled by a corporation established by the Government. And exactly the same principle could apply in our country. But the great point is this, that the Rhodesians now have television at no cost to themselves, having allowed private enterprise to exercise its initiative. There is no earthly reason why the same principle should not be applied in the Union. Rigid programme standards to ensure elimination of harmful material could be laid down by the Government as a condition for the granting of a licence. Even the claims of advertisers could be checked and a code of advertising ethics could be laid down by the Government in consultation with a body such as the Newspaper Press Union. This Bill provides precisely for that.

I now come to the third main opposition argument that is presented to us whenever the question of television is raised. That is that the benefits of television do not justify the so-called enormous costs involved. I will not deny that there are costs, and considerable costs involved in the introduction of a television service. But they are most certainly nothing like those that have been quoted in this House on other occasions when this subject has been discussed. I do not intend today to go into the details of these costs for the very important reason that the Government has already committed themselves to the costs involved.

I would be very pleased if the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel), who may have no interest in this subject, would allow the hon. the Minister to take some interest in this debate. And I think it is most discourteous of the Minister to conduct a private conversation when I am putting a case to him on behalf of this side of the House.

As I have said, I do not wish to go into details of the costs that would be involved because the Government has already committed itself to the cost of introducing V.H.F. Now what does V.H.F. mean in simple terminology? It means radio broadcasts on wave lengths between 4 and 8 metres. And it is on these V.H. frequencies that television is broadcast, with one slight difference. Television receivers receive two wave lengths at the same time, one carrying the image and the other carrying the sound track. In a broadcast on 6 December 1960 to the radio listeners of our country the hon. the Minister said that the introduction of V.H.F. would cost something like R24,000,000. My information, and I have good cause to believe that it is authoritative, is that the actual cost of these services will eventually be as high as R30,000,000. What was the effect of the announcement made by the hon. the Minister on 6 December 1960? It had the effect of making out of date practically all radio receivers in South Africa. Every radio listener who had not purchased a new radio within the past 12 months discovered he owned an out-of-date radio overnight. The public are therefore being asked to spend millions of rand on new radio receivers when there is no need for it. With slight modifications to the V.H.F. service which it is intended to introduce at the end of 1961 and the addition of some small capital expenditure on the transmission of an image, the public could have television in South Africa within two years. Let me put it in the words of the hon. the Prime Minister and I quote—

The private individual who buys a set and then finds in a year or two that his set is obsolete and useless, will have wasted £100 or £120 or whatever he may have spent, because the State allowed a certain system to be introduced and did not have the foresight to realize that its citizens would be wasting their money because, within a year or two, they would have to buy a different set. Such persons would have a justifiable reproach against the State.

The hon. the Prime Minister on that occasion was referring to television and he was using the argument that we should wait for the best development in television before introducing it. But surely the same argument applies to the vast expenditure envisaged for V.H.F.? And these costs could be used by the country for the introduction of television. The fact is that the taxpayer is being asked to finance the S.A.B.C. for Very High Frequency to the tune of millions of pounds, and he is being asked to pay this money on a hoax or a bluff by the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. He is being asked to have two expensive bites at the cherry. It is in order to expose what I will refer to in a minute as a public scandal that I have introduced this Bill.

I said earlier that I would call for the resignation of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. But I do not wish to be unfair to the Minister. I want to ask him a question across the floor of the House. When the hon. the Minister was approached by the S.A.B.C. for this loan of R30,000,000 he must have acquainted himself with the full implications and the full details of what it was required for. I now want to ask, with respect, if the hon. the Minister will deny that in the introduction of complete V.H.F., directives were given by the Board of the S.A.B.C. that whenever practicable due allowance was to be made for a future television service? I do not want to be unfair to the Minister and would like to ask him that question again: Will he deny that in the introduction of a complete V.H.F. system, directives were given by the Board of the S.A.B.C. that wherever practicable due allowance was to be made for a future television service?

The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

I will give an answer at the appropriate time.

Mr. DURRANT:

I do not want to be unfair to the hon. the Minister and I would be glad if he would indicate yes or no.

The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

I have said I will give the answer at the appropriate time.

Mr. DURRANT:

The hon. the Minister now compels me to bring other matters to the attention of the House and of the country. He leaves me no alternative because I have to imply from that answer that he is running away from the issue. I ask for the Minister’s resignation on two grounds, firstly, that he has misled the country by not giving the full facts in regard to V.H.F. and thereby involving the citizens in considerable expense and additional taxation; and, secondly, which I think is even more serious, that whilst he knew the full implications of V.H.F., in seeking Cabinet approval for the expenditure the Minister did not impart the full information to the Cabinet and the Prime Minister. In regard to my first contention, whilst V.H.F. has been discussed in this House last year, the public were given their first official information in the broadcast announcement by the Minister last year of the introduction of V.H.F., in which he stated clearly that in order to listen to broadcasts on the news service—these are the Minister’s words-—“ they would have to acquire other receiving sets ”. Nowhere does any reference appear to television. I have before me, on official Broadcasting Corporation paper, a statement that states squarely that in a directive given to the S.A.B.C. engineering division—these are the exact words —“ wherever it was practicable due allowance was to be made for a future television service ”. I am prepared to submit this letter, but I do not want to disclose the signature of this high official, and those directives refer to the institution of V.H.F. The implications are clear, that the public are being duped to purchase one type of receiver whilst the actual installation of V.H.F. provides for television. I want to ask the Minister why was this vital information withheld from the public. Why has the information about the increase in licence fees to meet the increased burden calculated at 5½ per cent on the R30,000,000 loan to the S.A.B.C. for these new services, been withheld from the public? The revenue of the S.A.B.C., even if there was an increase of 100,000 in the number of listeners overnight, cannot meet the interest burden on this loan of R30,000,000 for V.H.F. Sir, I am driven to one conclusion, that where the Minister has landed himself in this mess, is it any wonder that the Minister said in this House a few days ago—and I quote again— “ It is my attitude that as long as the Government is willing to subsidize the Corporation in accordance with trends which are evident in the world to-day, it will not be necessary to increase licences.” Why did he not tell this to the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister last year gave as one of his main reasons for the refusal to introduce television the cost involved to the listener? The Prime Minister argued that it involved the listener in considerably more costs in licence fees and special fees for a television service. If the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs now adopts as his policy the subsidization of the S.A.B.C. for V.H.F., and there are instructions issued by the S.A.B.C. that there should be due regard to the institution of a television service, why does he want the Government to subsidize the S.A.B.C. to the tune of R30,000,000 for V.H.F. and not for the institution of a television service? And what about my second charge that the Minister failed to impart information to the Prime Minister and to tell him the full implications of what this service meant? I refuse to believe that the Prime Minister would have wilfully made his statement about the introduction of television and the Government’s refusal to do so and that he would have given the reason he gave on that occasion if he had been fully advised by the Minister. It is equally clear that he must have made his statement on the basis of the information supplied by the Minister. I am quite sure that the Prime Minister was never acquainted with the uses of V.H.F., otherwise he would not have used the arguments or given the reasons that he did in this House. The question is: Was the Minister in possession of this information at the time when the Prime Minister made his statement in the House? There is no doubt that the Minister has all the available information, and these directives of the Corporation to the technical department that there should be due regard for the introduction of a television service, when the Prime Minister made that statement, because the Prime Minister made his statement on 9 March 1960 and on a question put to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs on 13 May 1960, about the introduction of V.H.F. he said—and I quote from Col. 7586 of Hansard of last year—

As regards V.H.F., the hon. member will also understand that as the result of the disturbances in recent times it was not possible for the Government to come to any decision.

The clear implication of this is that the Minister had already some time before that date placed the matter before the Cabinet. Sir, I view this matter as nothing but a public scandal, revealing the stark and naked incompetence of the Minister, and I hope he will do the honourable thing and resign his portfolio because there is no doubt that in regard to this matter the millions that are involved as far as public expenditure is concerned that is an additional burden which is placed on the taxpayer … [Interjection.] There is no doubt that it is a scandal in the fullest sense of the word. That is why I ask the House to support this measure, because by supporting the Bill as it stands it will enable the Government to go to the S.A.B.C. and ask for the introduction of this service on the plans which have already been conceived with these planned 123 V.H.F. stations throughout the country at the cost of R30,000,000, which with small additional cost can give us television services overnight, and it would save the public a double expenditure and a double bite out of the cherry at the same time.

I think I have said enough to make a case for the acceptance by the House of this measure, but there are one or two other minor points I would like to deal with in conclusion. I took the trouble to notify the Minister through his Private Secretary of an obvious misprint that exists in regard to sub-sec. (1) of the first clause of the Bill, which should read “ sub-sec. (3) ” instead of “ sub-sec. (2) ”. It is an obvious misprint. But we are accustomed also to having this Minister taking hold of minor points in order to make a case for himself, and in anticipation of that I am compelled to deal with this point. The Minister will attempt to argue that the S.A.B.C. does not need to come to him or to have a yearly renewal of their licence. Be that as it may, let me point out to the Minister that before he uses that argument there is in fact in the existing Act no legal provision in that regard other than that the Minister in terms of Section 15 of the Act, which is now being amended, has the power by modification and regulation to instruct the Postmaster-General to grant a continuous licence to the S.A.B.C. to enable them to carry on, and they do not necessarily have to apply every year. I anticipate this point being raised by the Minister because he may attempt to argue that the provisions of the Bill as I am presenting them are worthless because this continuing licence is already provided for.

Let me conclude by saying that this side of the House is completely convinced that there is a universal public demand in the country for the introduction of television services and that a considerable saving in useless expenditure by the public can be effected by the Minister agreeing to the acceptance of the Bill and by the introduction of television. We have the firm conviction and belief that the introduction of television will be a further step forward to the cultural advantage and development of our people, no matter to which language group they may belong.

*The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

Mr. Speaker, having listened to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) I do not think he has in any way benefited the cause of television in South Africa; I think he has harmed it considerably. He has, in the first place, made certain wild statements which are characteristic of him, wild bombastic statements to the effect, for example, that I have misinformed and misled the Prime Minister. Can he tell me in what way I have misled the Prime Minister? That is typical of the bombastic and rude arguments for which he is well known.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

On a point of order, may I ask whether the Minister is entitled to say that it is a rude argument?

*The DEPUTY SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

*The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

I withdraw it, Sir, and I say it was an unmannerly argument. He then advanced the voluble argument that the whole country demanded television. This was the first occasion on which he has spoken like that. The people on whose behalf he speaks, a small group of radio merchants, have for years threatened to come to the Government with a formidable petition, but we are still waiting for that petition. At some places where they did their utmost they only succeeded in getting 200 signatures and they felt so ashamed that they did not have the courage to submit that to the Government, because they know that the public of South Africa is wiser than that hon. member and understands what the implications are. The opposite is the truth, namely that I have been requested by the prominent economic interests in South Africa in the interests of the country never to think of introducing it. I have received petitions from the biggest trade unions in the country not to agree in any circumstance to the introduction of television in South Africa. Those are the facts and not what the hon. member is trying to make this House believe. In a manner typical of that hon. member who usually makes baseless accusations, he spoke about the so-called instruction “ to make allowances for television ” which the S.A.B.C. is alleged to have issued to its engineers. Well, I did not issue such an instruction. If the S.A.B.C. issued it, it is their affair, but they are not the people to decide whether or not we are to have television in South Africa. It is only the Government who has the power to make such a decision. He now tries to use that argument in an attempt to make the public believe that the Government is misleading and deceiving them. Because of that hon. member’s irresponsible attitude, Sir, one is reluctant to take any notice of his arguments. I am surprised at his mentality, which is typical of him and his friends opposite. One of his main objections against the introduction of a V.H.F. radio service is that we should rather introduce television. If he were at all interested in the welfare of the Black man he would realize that they cannot afford television; it will therefore be a service for the White man alone. If he does not know that, it is needless to argue any further with him. One of the main reasons why we are introducing V.H.F. is to provide a service to the Black man. It is typical of this side of the House to say that we grant the Black man what we grant ourselves. But that hon. member and the people whom he represents think only of themselves. They have a great deal to say about the Black man when they wish to stir up feelings in the world outside against South Africa, but in point of fact they are not at all concerned about the Black man. It is essential that we introduce this service because it will have a civilizing effect which may promote goodwill; it may lead to a better understanding between the different peoples, but he does not want that; he wants a service for the rich man at the expense of that essential service. Something else which strikes me about that hon. member is that he is apparently indifferent to the influence television may exercise, that television about which he had so much to say this afternoon. He is indifferent to the effects of television and the problems connected with it. The hon. member apparently does not know that in England the Pilkington Commission is at the moment conducting an investigation into the effects of television.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

Do they want to abolish it?

*The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

It will not be so easy to abolish it, because very big financial interests are already involved to-day. The commission was, however, appointed because the public was deeply concerned about the effects of television in England and in the whole world. Leading educationists in England gave evidence before this commission—

Leaders of the Association of Educational Committees which speaks for all the 145 local authorities in England and Wales operating all types of council schools from infants to grammar schools …

They are so concerned about the decline in the educational standard that they have specifically asked the Government that if the particular television channel could not be stopped, it should not in any circumstances be left in private hands. That was the request made in recent years by prominent bodies in England, bodies who have seen the misery caused by television, and here we have the hon. member for Turffontein who does not know what he is talking about and who does not know what the effects are of the television that he is asking for. He introduces a motion whose object is not only to allow the S.A.B.C. to introduce television but even to allow a private undertaking to do so. That is the crux of his Bill. That to my mind, Sir, is a very irresponsible attitude. It accounts for two things, in the first place that it is mainly due to ignorance on his part and secondly that he is not only the mouthpiece of certain radio interests who have been trying for many years to introduce television into South Africa …

*Mr. DURRANT:

That is untrue.

*The DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

*Mr. DURRANT:

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. the Minister entitled to put words into my mouth and to say that I am the mouthpiece of radio dealers?

*The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

I did not say that the hon. member had used those words, Mr. Speaker. I say he is the mouthpiece of those interests. If there is anybody in South Africa whose opinion probably carries weight with that side of the House, it is the opinion of a person whom they hold in fairly high regard, a prominent journalist, Mr. Gary Allighan. He said the following to the Rotary Club the other day in Johannesburg after he had again been to England and studied television.

Mr. DURRANT:

Does the hon. the Minister know that Mr. Allighan was thrown out of the British Parliament?

*The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

Many members have also been thrown out of this House. He said this—

There is nothing wrong or bad in television as a social institution and I do not think that its introduction in South Africa is opposed on any such grounds, but in most overseas countries what could be a blessing to mankind has been converted into a curse by evil-inspired direction, the use of T.V. for massive advertising purposes. Africa must be preserved and protected from it.

This is a former British Member of Parliament who is interested in the British nation who tells us what a curse it is in England and that he hopes South Africa will be protected from the misery of that evil. Mr. Speaker, I know the House is anxious to rise …

*HON. MEMBERS:

No, no.

*The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

When we talk about television, we must do so as sensible people, because we are dealing with something which is a social force and it may be a bad or a good force. You have to consider both sides of any question, Sir, and everything has a good and a bad side. A price has to be paid for everything and everything has its credit side and its debit side and you have to weigh the debit side against the credit side. If the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, you may decide in favour of such a thing, but if the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, only a fool would decide in favour of it. The hon. member employed the tactic, which is typical of all people who ask for television in South Africa, of presenting television as something wonderful, something that will bring civilization, a wonderful charm that will improve everything in the world. Let us try to make a rational analysis of that veil which the hon. member has thrown over it. Television is nothing more than a miniature cinema in your home. [Laughter.] Can you tell me what else it is? Hon. members laugh and try to ridicule the position, but it is nothing more than that. It is a cinema in miniature with a screen that is usually 18 in. × 24 in., and the picture is transmitted from somewhere else, whereas in the case of the ordinary cinema, even the cinema which the child has in his class-room, is 6 ft. × 8 ft. I am not even talking about the big cinemas. Television, therefore, is largely the same as a cinema. There are differences, of course, and I shall come to them. The so-called live shows which you see are not always live shows. In most cases they are reproductions of films, sound films, which are transmitted over the television service at a convenient time. This even happens to-day in the case of sports meetings because the organizers of such sports meetings do not wish the sports to be televised while they are in progress. Even in the case of sports meetings to-day they are first recorded on sound films and broadcast subsequently. Even interviews and narratives are in most cases first filmed.

*Mr. DURRANT:

What is your argument?

*The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

The hon. member does not wish to understand it and neither will he understand. In England the Nuffield Foundation recently appointed a commission, under the chairmanship of Dr. Himmelweit, to inquire into television and they say this in their report—

In content television shows little that is not offered by films, radio programmes or magazines.

Television is for the greater part merely a convenient cinema within the home. There has to be a reason why you introduce it. While television in the main offers what a cinema offers, and in view of the fact that big costs are involved in television, you must surely have a reason for regarding the cinema ineffective and why you want it in your home every day of your life. Let me read what one of our prominent South African journalists, who has just returned from overseas, have to say—

Having seen it is operation last year, I am still in a quandary, trying to discover what television has that the good old cinema has not, in effect, if not in time. I visited London, Paris, Rome, Edinburgh, Newcastle-on-Tyne, and Glasgow. In all the hotels I stayed at they had television sets in full operation at all times of the day. I watched horse races, football-matches, boxing contests, sundry street processions and many different public events. Later I saw most of these scenes on the current newsreels in cinemas. All the films gave me a much better idea of the passing show than television. What is more, many of the films were in colour and I am still wondering what do we want television for.

The hon. member has not replied to that question at all. He wants us to spend huge amounts of money on television but he does not reply to the crucial question. He should tell us why the cinema is not good enough and why we should introduce it into our homes.

Let me go further, Sir. I want to point out the differences between television and the cinema, because that is important when it comes to the question of the introduction or non-introduction of television. Firstly in the case of the cinema you usually have one programme per week lasting for 2½ hours, or sometimes two programmes. Let us assume that television will only operate for five hours per day; that means it will have to offer two programmes every day. In other words it must offer 14 programmes of 2½ hours per week instead of one. That means immediately, in the case of television, that its choice of programme is much narrower and more difficult. It means that whereas an ordinary cinema uses 52 programmes per annum, in the case of television they will require twice 365 programmes per annum. In other words they will need 730 programmes per annum and if you show the same programme twice a day you require at least 365 programmes, and that Sir, gives you an idea of the problem which faces the person who introduces television, the problem of providing a decent programme over that period. If we also take into account the fact that we have a Bantu nation who will also be looking at those programmes and that we will have to be careful to ensure that we do not show programmes which will teach them how to commit murder or crime, you realize, Sir, that the task of providing a sufficiently effective programme poses a problem of the utmost magnitude. There is another problem namely this that the figures in the case of television are far less stable than the figures which you see on the screen in the cinema. There is always a certain amount of flickering. The fact that the small figures are less stable than the figures on the screen, causes children to strain their eyes. This has become so serious that the British Medical Association have submitted a report to 25,000 physicians in England to impress upon them the detrimental effect of television on the eyes of children. But let me go further. I do not intend dealing with the social aspect of the problem; in the first place I wish to say something in general. The effect of television is more intensive than in the case of a cinema because you are in a more intimate relationship with it; you sit in a darkened room close to the television set. It makes a deep impression upon you with the result that television is an excellent advertising medium.

*Mr. DURRANT:

As in the case of a cinema.

*The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

I said that it had a more intensive effect than the cinema. Because its effect is so intensive it constitutes a very big danger to any country if it is abused. Indeed the Royal Commission on Television of Australia warned against that and said—

Television is so effective as a medium that the wrong use of it would do tremendous harm.

That is of general interest. What I really want to do is to deal with the economic burden and the economic consequences that will face South Africa if we introduce television.

*Mr. DURRANT:

Does that compare with your V.H.F. programme?

*The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

The hon. member for Turffontein has quite rightly said that you could erect a television station at a cost of £100,000, a station which will probably only be capable of serving an area of a few miles in extent. You can erect a television station that will serve a bigger area and a station that will serve the whole country. The costs involved vary considerably, of course. The price can be anything, but that is not the test. The question in South Africa is not whether it is possible to introduce television. You can introduce a limited system and the programmes can be cheap or expensive, the programme can consist of “ cowboy ” films or they can be of real cultural value, and the radio dealers for whom the hon. member is the mouthpiece today, have indeed suggested …

*Mr. DURRANT:

That is not true.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member cannot say that it is not true; he must withdraw that.

*Mr. DURRANT:

I still say it is not true, but I withdraw the accusation.

Mr. RAW:

On a point of order, is the hon. the Minister entitled to insinuate that the hon. member has introduced a measure in the economic interests of a group in which he has an interest?

*The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

I never said that.

Mr. DURRANT:

On a point of order, I told the Minister that his allegation was not true. Is the hon. Minister not obliged to take my word?

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! That has nothing to do with anything that has happened in this House. The hon. the Minister may continue.

*The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

The radio dealers, those people who are so anxious to have television for their own benefit, say—

The American television films are comparatively cheap, particularly the cowboy type.

They want to introduce a cheap television system, and suggest that we can introduce it cheaply by _ showing “ cowboy ” films on a large scale in South Africa. However, if you wish to offer a decent programme you cannot possibly use cowboy films or crime films because you must remember that those films may be seen by our Native population. The hon. member is quite right; a television film programme can be cheap. It can cost £100 per hour, but you will not get a decent programme for less than £2,000 up to £4,000 per hour. Let us, as sensible, people, ask ourselves a few questions: If we wish to introduce television into South Africa it has to comply with certain requirements and I think every sensible person agrees with me in this respect. In the first place it will be unfair to serve one city only or a few cities. You will have to serve all the densely populated areas of South Africa.

*Mr. DURRANT:

You do not do that in the case of the Springbok radio service?

*The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

The second requirement is this: There are two White sections in this country who will probably use that service and it will be wrong to introduce a service which will not be equally good in both Afrikaans and English. Then there is a third requirement namely that it should operate for a reasonable number of hours, because if that time is too short the public will simply not buy television sets; they will not consider it worth their while looking at it, and consequently the service will not serve its purpose; on the other hand if you introduce a service which takes up too much time it will not be a payable proposition. I want to remind hon. members that the National Broadcasting Corporation of America which operates practically day and night runs at a big loss. According to advice given to us, it is desirable for South Africa to introduce a service in South Africa of approximately five hours per day, in other words, a service tantamount to two cinema performances of 2i hours each. I wish to make a few calculations however, firstly, on the basis that if television is introduced into South Africa, it will be introduced in all cities in South Africa; secondly that the service will be equally good in Afrikaans and in English and thirdly that it will operate for five hours per day. A few years ago a joint committee was appointed which consisted of experts from the S.A.B.C. and the post office to make certain calculations in connection with the possible introduction of television in South Africa, including the economic and financial implications. That committee made careful calculations and after having allowed for sites, buildings, such as studios and offices, television terminals, sound tracks, transmission cables and all the equipment, they calculated that it would require approximately £20,000,000 capital, that is to say, calculated at present-day values. Of that £20,000,000, £17,000,000 is capital which depreciates fast and which one will probably have to replace every ten years. But let us now look at the running expenses. The running expenses per hour in South Africa will not be cheaper than it is in England. England is in a much more favourable position than South Africa. It is a small country with a concentrated population and with few hills, and for the most part it is level, so that one station, the Crystal Palace, can to-day serve the whole of South-Western England. We also have to take into consideration that Britain has only one language group to be served, whilst we have at least two language groups, and if that is taken into account, the financial experts say we can take it that the cost of a television system in South Africa will not be cheaper than in England. What is the position in England? I do not want to take the latest figures; I want to take the figures for which I can find comparative figures. In the year 1956-7 the cost of television in England was £3,265 per hour. If we calculate that at the same cost in South Africa, at five hours per day, it will cost us approximately £6,000,000 per annum on the basis of the costs in 1956-7.

*Mr. DURRANT:

Is that the position in Rhodesia?

*The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

This expenditure of £6,000,000 per annum must be covered by the revenue of the television system, and that can be done in four possible ways, firstly out of the licence fees of the viewers; secondly, out of a purchase tax on radio sets, thirdly, out of advertising, and fourthly, if the Minister of Finance would ever be agreeable to it, by a subsidy which will in fact amount to this, that the rest of the population will have to be taxed to subsidize television, and I do not think that he will agree to that. If this system develops over a period of ten years and the number of licence holders increases according to the Committee’s estimates, and they accept that every licence holder will pay a licence fee of £8 per annum, which is not exorbitant —it cannot be less—and that in addition they pay a purchase tax of £20 on every set, which according to the opinion of the Committee will also not be too much or too little, and if we assume that no subsidy will be paid by the Government, then the total revenue in ten years’ time will be approximately £2,000,000 per annum.

*Mr. DURRANT:

But the revenue of the S.A.B.C. to-day is £2,500,000 per annum, and half of it comes from the commercial programmes.

*The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

I have not even referred to advertising yet. I have hitherto referred only to revenue derived from licence fees and purchase tax on the sets. The rest of that £6,000,000, i.e. £4,000,000, will have to come from advertising. If one wants to introduce this system one would, in other words, have to collect £4,000,000 from advertising on television. But now we are faced with another problem. One cannot use that 2½ or 5 hours exclusively for advertising. There is an optimum time which one can devote to advertising, and that optimum time is six minutes in every hour. That does not mean that one can show advertisements for more than six minutes consecutively; the optimum time, according to experts right throughout the world, is six minutes every hour. In other words, out of a five-hour programme day one will be able to devote half an hour to advertising, and out of that half-hour per day one must collect £4,000,000. At half an hour a day— and I take it that one would be able to advertise also for half an hour on Sundays—the advertising revenue would be £11,000 per hour. I hope hon. members will not think that this is too high. Until recently the tariff in England was £60,000 per hour. It varies from hour to hour, but on an average it is approximately £60,000 per hour.

*Mr. DURRANT:

But that is for 53,000,000 people.

*The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

In America it is approximately £100,000 per hour. In other words, you must get £11,000 per hour, or £200 per minute from the advertisers. Then one comes to the next problem. If one has to charge £200 per minute for advertising, one will not get the small man to advertise on television. Therefore only the big companies will be able to make use of it. Some of the big companies have told me that in other countries they originally did not even dare to advertise on television—and that was not in America or in Britain but in countries where tariffs were much lower. Therefore if television should be introduced in South Africa only the big companies will benefit. In other words, we would then have introduced a system in South Africa by which the big companies would be enabled to squeeze out the small man to a larger extent.

But let us go further. I want to show the economic consequences of television. I have now shown what effect it will have on the small business man. Let me now show the effect of another section of the commercial community. The annual amount spent by commerce on advertising is to-day approximately £16,500,000 per annum. That is the money spent by firms to advertise their goods, and of that amount approximately £10,000,000 goes to the daily Press. If, therefore, they advertise on television, the Press in South Africa will be the first to suffer as a result. In other words, of the amount of £10,000,000 paid to the newspapers for advertisements today, approximately £4,000,000 will go to television. What will then be the consequences to the newspapers in South Africa? It will probably be the same as in the case of the newspapers in England, viz. that many of the newspapers would simply go under. Various newspapers will probably have to close down. But let us now consider a further consequence. I would like hon. members also to have regard for the economic consequences to the public. The people who will mostly buy television sets will not be the rich people; nor will they be the intellectuals. Experience in America and Britain has shown that the people who in the first place buy television sets are the poor people, the workers.

*Mr. DURRANT:

They are buying radio sets to-day.

*The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

Let me quote from the Cape Times, if the hon. member does not want to believe me. The Cape Times published the following report—

What struck South Africans lately in London is that many poor tenement houses and shabby, prefabricated hut-dwellings sport T.V. aerials above their roofs.
Mr. MOORE:

And why not?

*The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

It shows that the man who looks at television to-day is the poor man.

*Mr. DURRANT:

But the poor man to-day also listens to the radio.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member for Turffontein has already made his speech and he is now making a second speech by way of interjections.

*The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

The Cape Times, a newspaper in which hon. members opposite have great confidence, said this about television—

Seventy per cent of the fellows who spend most time watching T.V. finished their schooling when they were 14 or 15.

It is important that these facts should be remembered. The man who watches television is the one who will have to bear the costs of television, and he is the poor man. Let me now make a calculation as to what it will cost the poor man. It has been proved that the owner of a television set does not keep that set for longer than eight to ten years because then the set is obsolete either technically or in its design. He then buys a new or a better set. If we now take it that he has to buy a new television set every ten years and pays, say, £100 for it in cash, which is relatively low, or £120 if he pays it in installments, as the workers usually do, and if it is taken that over that ten-year period he has to pay licence fees of £8 per annum, and that his repairs will amount to about £3 to £4 per annum, and that in addition he continually has to replace the valves, because they generally do not last longer than three years and cost about £25, one finds that the television set over a period of ten years, together with the licence fees, costs the man £310 or more. If one takes into consideration the fact that the man to whom the set is sold is usually a worker with a salary of approximately £60 a month who has to support a family, one can realize how difficult it will be for him to set aside £2 10s. a month from his salary in order to enjoy television. His cost of living is increased by more than 4 per cent, or almost 4y per cent. That is not the only effect it has on the poor man. The effect on this man is even much greater, because the television advertiser, who has to pay tremendous sums of money for the advertisements— £11,000 per hour—will only be able to afford to advertise if he can recover the additional cost from the sale of the product he advertises in this way, and it is a fact that the prices of such goods are often increased by from 10 per cent to 25 per cent. In other words, the consumer must pay from 10 per cent to 25 per cent more for the goods he buys—he is paying for those advertisements. Hon. members therefore want to lay a tremendous burden on the shoulders of the worker, and that is the reason why the trade unions approached me with the request not to agree to the introduction of television in South Africa at this stage.

But let me go further. The Commission to which I referred and which made the calculations in regard to the possible introduction of television in South Africa estimated that after the system had been in operation in South Africa for ten years, there would be approximately 305,000 sets, which are sold or hired out, and consequently the costs of those 305,000 sets together with the running expenses for each licence holder which I have mentioned will over this period of ten years amount to a total expenditure of approximately £94,000,000. If we had the capital expenditure on equipment in the television broadcasting stations which recur every ten years—not the £20,000,000, but only the £17,000,000 to which I referred—and if one then still adds the ordinary running costs over a period of ten years, television will cost South Africa approximately £151,000,000, or in other words, about £15,000,000 per annum. The cost to the population of the country will be £15,000,000 per annum, and where will that come from? We would simply be impoverishing the other sections of the community by enriching the radio trade. That is also the reason why the radio trade stated that “ they must get a shot in the arm ”. They must now suddenly be enriched, but they will be enriched at the cost of the other sections of the commercial community. And then we should never forget that the cost of television never remains constant; it increases every year. Let us take Britain as an example. From 1956 to 1957 the cost of television there increased by 29 per cent, i.e. from £7,000,000 per annum to £9,000,000 per annum. The cost will increase every year; it will never diminish. Now I ask myself: Does that justify the so-called advantages which the hon. member never explained, the cost we will have to incur to introduce television, the advantage of watching a film every evening instead of going to the cinema once a week. Is that advantage so great that we should put this extra burden on the people for this luxury, a burden which will amount to an extra £15,000,000 per annum and which will gradually increase.

Mr. MOORE:

Give us an opportunity to participate in the debate.

*The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

And now I want to quote the opinion of somebody who can state the case better than the hon. member, viz. the Star. Listen to what the Star said two years ago—

The deputation from the Associated Chambers of Commerce which will interview the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs this week to urge the Government to reconsider their attitude to television, will have to be well armed with facts and figures. It will not be sufficient to say that the country wants T.V. (as the hon. member said), that it is one of the few countries without it (as the hon. member said) and that it is an important cultural influence that cannot be neglected (as the hon. member said). These things are well known, but the difficulties standing in the way, some of them peculiar to South Africa, are formidable. Most of them come down in the end to the question of cost, for in comparison with radio and indeed any other form of entertainment, television is fabulously expensive. It is of course possible to operate some sort of television service on potted programmes almost exclusively (as the hon. member has suggested). This means in practice the continuous showing of films, but they would be old films, because those in current circulation in cinemas would not be available. As soon as a live show is presented, the costs shoot up enormously. The effect in South Africa would be that Afrikaans programmes would be prohibitively expensive because there are hardly any Afrikaans films. Broadcasts of outside events such as sport present difficulties of their own. One is that sporting bodies are reluctant to allow their attendances to be drawn away to the T.V. sets and would demand very high fees if they agree to it at all. Expenditure on this scale is possible in countries where advertisers are prepared to pay something like £1,000 per minute for television time. No such rate would be feasible here with a comparatively small viewing public. This appears to leave the Government with the alternative of allowing private enterprise to launch television, or subsidizing their own service very heavily. Privately owned television would have to ignore bilingualism and would become a serious competitor of the State-owned commercial radio. It can almost certainly be ruled out. It would be very hard to justify a subsidy to a service catering for a limited audience and competing with other advertising media.

That was not said by me, but by the Star.

Mr. Speaker, when I see the impatience of the House, I think that it will be welcomed by all sides if I move—

That the debate be now adjourned.
*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

I second.

Mr. DURRANT:

Mr. Speaker, I wish to oppose the motion for the adjournment of the debate. I think that it is most unreasonable on the part of the hon. the Minister to move a motion for the adjournment of the debate at this stage. There are members on this side of the House who have strong views about these matters and who wish to express those views quite apart from the fact that there are other parties in the House who have not yet had the opportunity of expressing their views on the matter. Here we are dealing with an extremely important issue of considerable public interest, and the hon. the Minister is taking this opportunity to terminate the discussion before full expression can be given to the wishes of the House about this matter. There is also the additional reason that there is no other opportunity as far as private members are concerned for a discussion of this matter. The Government have already taken private members’ time. But I am prepared to accept the motion for the adjournment if the hon. Minister will give an assurance that the Government will give time so that this matter can be further discussed in the House. But unless such an assurance is given, I must oppose the adjournment of this debate.

Mr. MOORE:

I should like to address the House on the motion for the adjournment of the debate. Mr. Speaker, this subject television has been brought forward in this House on many occasions, generally on the hon. the Minister’s Vote, and on every occasion, the hon. the Minister himself has talked it out by giving us the same kind of speech as we have had to-day, 80 per cent of which is irrelevant. We have had that every year, and this is the first time that we have had an opportunity to discuss this thoroughly because there is a definite Bill before the House. I think it is most unreasonable that the hon. the Minister should have taken up this attitude. I think that the very least he could do is to give a day to this House for a debate on television. This subject has been raised throughout the country. The hon. the Minister quotes to-day the Star as the final word. He could quote the Vaderland, he could quote other newspapers. They don’t like advertisements on T.V.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the motion for the adjournment of the debate.

Dr. DE BEER:

I wish to associate myself with much of what the hon. member has just said on the motion for the adjournment of the debate. We are here debating a matter of very great public importance. The time is not such that it is essential in the normal course of events for hon. members to get away. There are a number of members here who would like to take part in the debate. They are not all as voluble as the hon. the Minister, and there will be every chance before the normal time for the adjournment of the House arrives, for several further speeches, and the cause of the public interest can scarcely be served by having two speeches in a debate of this sort, and there seems to be no reason at all for the Minister after monopolizing the floor for this length of time, to suddenly, without showing any sign of finishing his speech, move the adjournment of the debate, thereby stopping other hon. members from taking part.

Mr. OLDFIELD:

Mr. Speaker, I also would like to address you on the motion before the House, that is the motion for the adjournment of the debate. We as public representatives here when a matter of vital importance to the country, comes before the House, should be entitled to put our point of view in the manner which we think is the correct manner, and to represent that point of view. The hon. Minister has taken part in this debate and has put forward certain arguments which we would like to reply to, and we would like to continue this debate. Therefore I register my strongest protest against the adjournment of the debate.

*The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

May I just say that this is the customary time to adjourn and we felt that whilst there was no opportunity for a full discussion, because that would surely take a day, it was fair to allow the case for and the case against to be stated. It is on that basis that it was discussed with the Whips this morning, and they accepted it as a reasonable basis, that we should give each side an opportunity and then adjourn more or less at the usual time. That is the only reason. It cannot be discussed finally and fully to-day. Hon. members who still want to express their opinions about the matter can do so when the Minister’s Vote comes to be debated. Then they can express their views. But we felt that it was necessary that the case for and against should be stated properly. I think the two hon. speakers devoted about the same amount of time to stating their cases. Therefore I agree that the adjournment should now be moved.

Mr. HOPEWELL:

I would not like the House to be under the impression that there is a Whips’ agreement that we should adjourn at half past five. What was made quite clear was that this was a private member’s Bill, and the hon. the Minister advised me that he intended the House to adjourn at about this time, and I replied that as this was a private member’s Bill I would note the desire of the Minister that this was his intention, but I made it perfectly clear to him that it was a private member’s Bill and that the matter was not in the hands of the party but in the hands of the private member who was moving the Bill. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that I made that perfectly clear to him at that time, and I also made that perfectly clear to the Chief Whip on the other side. There was no agreement.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

That is so.

Mr. HOPEWELL:

I am glad the hon. Minister concedes that because I would not like the House to get the impression that there was any agreement. I will concede that the hon. the Minister who is leader of the House, conveyed to me that it was his intention to suggest to his side that the House should be adjourned at about this time.

*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

I do not want there to be any misapprehension either. I know that no agreement was arrived at, but still there was a mutual discussion and it was felt that if the matter was discussed here today and the hon. member stated his case and the Minister replied, we would bear in mind that it is practically a tradition of this House to adjourn at about 6 p.m. on Friday afternoon. I also want to point out that the quorum bells have had to be rung several times already and I feel that it is a matter of good taste that the debate should now be adjourned. The hon. member also knows quite well that, in view of the fact that the Minister has now stated his case, there is plenty of opportunity to discuss the matter later during the debate on the Minister’s Vote and to react to what the Minister said. That is how all experienced parliamentarians feel, and I think the hon. Chief Whip of the Opposition also feels the same, although no agreement was arrived at, and that is why I think we should now go home quietly.

Motion for the adjournment of the debate put and the House divided:

Ayes—64: Bekker, H. T. van G.j Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Çoetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Pisanie, J.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Erasmus, F. C.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. L; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; 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 Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: J. J. Fouché and J. von S. von Moltke.

Noes—30: Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Butcher, R. R.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Beer, Z. J.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eglin, C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Higgerty, J. W.; Horak, J. L.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W V.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swart, R. A. F.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Williams, T. O.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Debate adjourned until Friday, 14 April.

The House adjourned at 5.50 p.m.

MONDAY, 27 MARCH 1961 Mr. SPEAKER took the Chair at 2.20 p.m. SECOND REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER, as Chairman, brought up the Second Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts on the Appropriation Accounts, etc., for 1959-60.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed.

SUPPLY

First Order read: Adjourned debate on motion for House to go into Committee of Supply and into Committee of Ways and Means (on taxation proposals) to be resumed.

[Debate on motion by the Minister of Finance, upon which amendments had been moved by Mr. Waterson and by Mr. Williams, adjourned on 24 March, resumed.]

Mr. RAW:

Mr. Speaker, before the debate was adjourned on Friday we listened to a harangue in this House from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Education, Arts and Science, who admittedly is an expert in some of the arts, particularly the art of emotionalism, and an expert in at least one science, the science of the exploitation of emotion. But that hon. Deputy Minister gave us a lecture on patriotism to our country and our duty to our country.

HON. MEMBER:

Hear, hear!

Mr. RAW:

I am glad hon. members say “Hear, hear”, because I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister who are “ ons volk ”? He said that if our people are to be (destroyed, let us go down because it is our lot. Who are the “ our people ” to whom he referred? Was the people of the enemies of South Africa for whom that Deputy Minister was interned during the last war, or was it the people of South Africa for whom we on this side of the House fought? Who are the people to whom he is loyal to-day? Are they the same people to whom he was loyal when South Africa was tested? It is easy for that hon. Minister to whine and to chatter of patriotism; it is easy to whine and to chatter if you have never heard the whine of an “ 88 ” or the chatter of a spandau, but I do not think he has any right to give us on this side of the House a lecture on patriotism towards South Africa. As I said before this debate was adjourned, we on this side of the House will yet be called upon to save those hon. members and South Africa from the catastrophe in which their Prime Minister has plunged us. Before proceeding I want to say this—I want to say it in the clear est possible language—and I want to address this to the enemies of South Africa, whether they be within or without our borders. I want to warn them that they should not believe that because we place the blame for the catastrophe that has overtaken South Africa fairly and squarely where it belongs, on the shoulders of this Prime Minister, because we differ from this Government, that they will find in the ranks of the United Party a fifth column if ever South Africa should be attacked or should have to face aggression. The United Party and its supporters have always known their duty towards South Africa, and if such a tragic day should dawn through the actions of this Prime Minister, when our country is threatened, there will be no traitors in the ranks of this side of the House to aid or to comfort an enemy. Furthermore, if the Black man in this country should reject the idea of harmonious co-existence and try to destroy or to oust the civilization which has been built up here over 300 years, then I believe the White men of South Africa will stand together shoulder to shoulder to preserve that civilization and that way of life. My leader said in plain and in unequivocal terms that the United Party would brook no interference in our domestic affairs. That is what has shocked us, Mr. Speaker; we are shocked that our Prime Minister, the Prime Minister of South Africa, should not only have allowed but should have invited interference in our domestic affairs. The hon. the Prime Minister’s intentions may have been good; it may have been his intention to clear the air, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and it is not of material importance today what his intentions were. The fact is that by his own admission he allowed and permitted and invited interference in the domestic policies of South Africa. Let me say this too: We ourselves have opposed the policies of this Government for 13 years; we have opposed them not because the rest of the world dislike them. We have opposed them because we believed that they were fatal to the interests and the welfare of South Africa. We believed that they would bring about the doom of South Africa if they were followed. But that is our fight with this Government; it is our family fight in South Africa, and we will deal with this Government as between South African and South African. Let our enemies keep out of our domestic differences. We are not and never will be slaves to this Prime Minister and his way of life. We and the people of South Africa will deal with him in our own way for what he has done to our people and to our country. But let me give the Prime Minister one warning. His own actions will determine the road ahead. This is not a threat but a plain statement of fact. We are a democratic people in South Africa, and we believe in democracy. We pray that this Prime Minister, whether he believes in it or not, will follow the road of democracy in the testing times that lie ahead, because South Africa’s attitude will be determined by his attitude, as to whether the methods and ways of democracy are the methods and ways by which we will solve our problems; the choice lies with the Prime Minister. What shakes me is that the Government seems to have no shame in this hour of South Africa’s isolation and humiliation. Sir, to think that we should live to see the day when the Prime Minister of our country should withdraw us from the association of the Commonwealth because of criticism and attack! I think hon. members opposite will remember the words of General Smuts which he used on many occasions; “ The dogs may bark but the caravan moves on.” Now we have a new motto for South Africa, the Prime Minister’s motto, a motto which runs like this: “ When the dogs bark, abandon the caravan of South Africa to our foes and run home with a tame bulldog on a piece of string.” Is that lonely bulldog to be the memorial to the friendship which he has thrown away, Sir?

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! I do not think the hon. member should be so personal.

*An HON. MEMBER:

He is being petty.

Mr. RAW:

Sir, they have brought isolation upon South Africa, and we are faced with a long and lonely road to tread, a long and lonely road about which we warned the Government. One’s mind goes back to better days for this country, better days when one was proud to be a South African. All South Africans shared that pride because it was earned by the men and women of South Africa, and the price that the men and women of South Africa paid for our position in the world, can be found here in the Houses of Parliament, in two books which stand open to remind the country of the supreme penalty which so many paid in serving the freedom and the democracy which South Africa enjoys to-day. If you look at the history of this country names will come back to you, names like Delville Wood, names like South West Africa, which is to-day the Achilles’ heel of our country, but which this Government’s predecessor won by conquest for South Africa, which was won not by that Government but by the South African Party Government. One’s mind goes back to other names, later names in our history, names like Mega, El Alamein and Castiglione, names which earned for South Africa the proud place we have to-day amongst our friends. Sir, those were days when South Africans were not only proud to wear the red tab, but even added to it the words “ South Africa ” so that none could doubt where they came from. Those were days when we had real friends. Yet we have moved from that pride to this shame in a matter of 13 years, 13 years of a tragic closed-mind Government in South Africa. Can the supporters of the Prime Minister blame us if we are bitter—bitter because we have to wallow in the dregs of our nation’s shame to-day—the shame of running away from the criticism and attacks which have been made on us and of being left to stand alone? But they may well ask, and they are entitled to ask, whether it would have been different if the United Party had been the government; why should we then have been accepted into the Commonwealth? I submit that it would have been very different, different because there were other ghosts which stalked the Prime Ministers’ Conference, other ghosts apart from those which my leader mentioned. We must remember that every single one of the nations represented there, every one of the countries in one way or another took part in the struggle to preserve the democratic way of life in the world. Even though they may not practise it to-day they were part of that world struggle for freedom. Must we expect that they will forget as soon as many people in this country forget? Sir, all Government speakers make three points. They plead for national unity between the peoples of South Africa. National unity has no value to us merely as a slogan. National unity as a slogan cannot save South Africa. It can only save South Africa, if it is based upon realism, if it is based upon a common ideal and a common striving for our country. Is it to be the unity of the Gadarene swines who together jumped into the sea and drowned? Are we to stand united and so bring about our own destruction? That is not the unity we seek. They speak of patriotism, and above all now, they speak of friendship with Great Britain. Sir, I want to test these three issues round which this debate has turned. I see the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) is here; perhaps he can give us a lecture on patriotism, on unity and on friendship with Britain. Let us see what he thinks of unity. Let me quote what he said—

Ons gaan nie weer vergewe en vergeet nie, want as gevolg van die vergewe-en-vergeet-storie het die Afrikaner byna ’n slaaf geword in sy eie land.

Let us see what he though of friendship with Britain—

Ons sal nou weer ’n slag vir die Engelsman in hierdie land vra om te vergewe en te vergeet en die eerste ding wat by moet vergeet is Brittanje.

Yes, Sir, unity and friendships with Britain! But he went further in seeking friendship with Britain. I quoted that from the Burger of the 15 July 1940, not long enough ago to have been forgotten. This is what he thinks of friendship with Britain—

Ja, meneer, ek voel oortuig dat Groot Brittanje die oorlog verloor het en dat Britse imperialisme ’n groot nekslag toegedien is. Dit is nie net my opinie nie maar dit is ook my wens.

It is not only his opinion but also his hope. We seek friendship, Mr. Speaker! Let us look at unity again. The same hon. member for Mossel Bay said—

Met betrekking tot die kakieridders en Hanskakies het spreker gesé dat by hulle nie as deel van ons volk wil tel nie want as daar nou nog Afrikaners is wie se oë toe is en wat nie die H.N.P. steyn nie, dan kan hulle nie goeie Afrikaners wees nie.
*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCE:

What is a “ kakieridder ”?

Mr. RAW:

Let me tell the hon. member that I was one of those to whom he referred as “ kakieridders ”, one of those who wore the uniform of my country with pride, and so did thousands and tens of thousands of others, and that hon. member said that there was no place for us in this country and amongst his people. But let me turn to a more allegedly responsible source. I want to deal with the problem of the Minister of External Affairs who himself is engaged to-day in seeking this friendship with Great Britain. The Minister of External Affairs who last week pleaded for unity in this House said this not so long ago—

Ons sal afreken met die jingo-pers, die Jode en die “ Loyal Dutch ”.
*The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

When was that?

Mr. RAW:

That was reported in the Burger of 19 July 1940.

*The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

You will be back at the Anglo-Boer War in a moment or two.

Mr. RAW:

No, I do not go back as far as that hon. Minister goes. I go back to what is remembered by the people with whom we are dealing to-day. I go back to the history which is still alive, because the people who made it are still alive and active in the making of history, to the people who still remember those days and to whom those days are still alive and a realistic memory. The hon. the Minister of External Affairs said—

In die verlede het die Afrikaner te gou vergewe en vergeet. Ons wil nie weer daardie fout begaan nie. Ook hier is ’n waaksaam-heidskomitee gestig. Die kakieridders hou swart lyste; ons gaan rooi lyste hou.

Mr. Speaker, is that the way to build unity? But let us look at patriotism. The hon. the Minister called upon us to be patriotic, and this is what he did when he was tested in his patriotism. He said—

Vir ons bly daar net een uitweg oor en dit is dat generaal Smuts piek moet maak vir die Nasionale Party wat ’n vrye, onafhanklike republiek sal teweeg bring om met Hitler en Mussolini te onderhandel.

Mr. Speaker, you heard the cheers. This is the pattern that we are seeing to-day. This is the pattern which is now being carried out— the creation of a republic “ om met Hitler en Mussolini te onderhandel ”. Here we have a test for patriotism when patriotism was really needed. But let us look at the friendship of Great Britain which we are seeking to-day.

*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

We do not make that type of speech at this juncture.

Mr. RAW:

The Chief Whip on the Government side says that it was all right to make this type of speech …

Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

No.

Mr. RAW:

… when South Africa was at war with her enemies and when they were the Opposition, but to-day it is not all right.

*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

You do not want national unity.

Mr. RAW:

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. That is what members of that party did, and they cannot now demand that we must not remind them of it. But I want to refer to the hon. the Minister of External Affairs, whose task it is to create friendly relations with Great Britain. He is reported in the Burger as saying—

Ek het tot die slotsom geraak dat Engeland alleenlik veg vir sy eie belange en nie, soos by te kenne gee, om die demokrasie en vryheid te waarborg nie. Geni. Smuts moet padgee vir ’n Nasionale Regering en die vol-gende dag sal ons vir Duitsland en Italië om vrede vra.

That is the Minister who, to-day, seeks friendship. The same Minister who, to-day, seeks friendship with Britain said—

Die Britse Empire en sy Geallieerdes kry die wind sterk van voor, en hoe sterker die “Empire” die wind van voor kry, hoe vinniger vorder die skip van die Afrikanerdom se inspirasies na sy uiteindelike bestem-ming vir ’n vrye Afrikaner republiek.
*An HON. MEMBER:

You are a Rip van Winkel.

Mr. RAW:

A “vrye Afrikaner republiek” built upon misfortunes, which are held up here as one of the things which will bring to this Government what they are now about to create, namely, a republic created, not on unity, but on misfortune, for our friends. Sir, one could quote example after example. I recognize that the hon. the Prime Minister had a very difficult task when he had to go to London to deal with this issue.

*An HON. MEMBER:

With such a dirty Opposition, his task was difficult, of course.

Mr. RAW:

He had to deal with the memories and the ghosts to which I have referred. But, Sir, there were other memories and other ghosts. There were statements such as the following—

The Herenigde Nasionale Party has always proclaimed that South Africa throughout its history has had only one enemy of its freedom, namely, Great Britain.

That comes from the pen of the hon. the Prime Minister himself, who said that South Africa, throughout her history, had had only one enemy, namely, Great Britain. But let us go further. That same Prime Minister said—

England pretends that it is the protector of small nations; but, in fact, it tries to inspan them for British interests. Do we not know this from our own experience?

He went on to say—

The continued belief by the British people in the false news with which they are fed is said to evidence, not only their blindness, but also their gross arrogance and ungrounded self-satisfaction. He, the Briton, cannot understand that the whole world so learns to know him and derides him for these characteristics and calls his nation a nation of hypocrites.

Again, from the pen of the Prime Minister— not from anyone else, but from the Prime Minister.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

What is the point?

Mr. RAW:

Now he has the difficult task of seeking friendship with this nation of hypocrites, this suppressor and enemy of the South African people.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

Do you not want their friendship?

Mr. RAW:

What is worse is that we are told to shut up. We may not say what we feel or think. But what did the Prime Minister think about that creed that your opponents must be silenced? He said the following—

It is not his fault. He appeals to the principles of free speech and a free Press and a democratic country as justifying him in writing as he did in support of his policy of neutrality and a separate peace between the Union and Germany as a means towards a republic in South Africa.

Again, the object of a republic is a separate treaty in time of war with the enemies of South Africa. He went on to say—

He argued that if he had to consider whether what he said would be useful to the Germans, the effect would be to silence him, and the law does not compel him to be silent.

Those are the words of the Judge who had to consider whether these statements and others were, in fact, aiding and abetting the enemies of South Africa. He found that there had been proved—

… two very grave cases of the publication of false news in reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. Six cases were less serious, but were still clear cases of falsification.

Mr. Speaker, what is being said about us today by these followers of the Prime Minister, who, not so long ago, made the statements which I have just quoted? What do his followers think of the position in which they find themselves, seeking friendship with the country and with the people whom they were prepared to malign in this way not so long ago, people who remember very clearly what happened in those years? To-day there are only two facts which remain absolutely clear, two facts from which this Government cannot escape. Those two facts are that the Prime Minister went to London with a mandate from the people of South Africa to remain in the Commonwealth. That is the first fact, and the second fact is that he failed to carry out that mandate. The rest is excuses, evasions and reasons, not facts. The two facts that cannot be evaded are the mandate and the failure to carry out that mandate. Sir, we are asked whether it would have been different if we had been there. I believe it would have been different, and one of the reasons is that, unlike this Government, the United Party in its whole attitude to South Africa’s problem has not refused to recognize the dignity and the individualism of every person, the feelings and the sentiments of every person as a human being. The second reason is that this Government has failed to find a pattern for harmonious coexistence of our multi-racial people. But, what is more, it has failed to realize that you cannot dam the flow of human progress with walls of prejudice and fear, and, despite all this, there is still a fund of good will left to South Africa, a lingering memory amongst our friends of the South Africa we used to be. People ask what choice the Prime Minister had, what else he could have done. Sir, there were five other roads he could have taken. He need not have gone ahead with this referendum. He need not have allowed the discussion on apartheid to take place, the discussion on our domestic policies. Thirdly, he could have fought for South Africa instead of surrendering, and if,, as has been said in this debate, Ghana would then have left the Commonwealth, is it more important that South Africa should retain her membership, or is it more important that Ghana should retain her membership? Who can make the biggest contribution in retaining the character of the Commonwealth— South Africa or Ghana? Was it not our duty to try to retain the character of the Commonwealth as we have always known it? But this Prime Minister surrendered to the pressure and to the attacks on him. Finally he could have shown a glimmer of realization of what is happening in his own country. And to-day he still has two roads open to him. He can withdraw the Bill before this House for the establishment of a republic, but, what is far better, he could resign and allow the United Party to bring South Africa back into her place of honour amongst the peoples of the world. Sir, we are also criticized for our policies. We reject utterly the principle of “ one man one vote ”, but we have put forward policies, and my Leader has put forward an ideal for South Africa which can create harmonious co-existence, and which will be accepted by the countries of the world who are our friends. We do not regard it as strength to be unable to negotiate. That is weakness, not strength. It is strength to be able to deal with a problem realistically as a fact. It is strength to be able to deal with a problem, not to close your eyes and to say that the problem does not exist. It is that sort of strength, the strength to be able to negotiate, which South Africa needs, not the kind of strength which says: “ I close my eyes; I am not prepared to budge an inch, because I am satisfied that I, and I alone, am right.”

Mr. B. COETZEE:

You should open your eyes and close your mouth.

Mr. RAW:

Sir, that is one of the strange hon. members who was bitterly opposed to a republic, a member who was offering 100 to 1 odds that we would be in the Commonwealth …

Mr. B. COETZEE:

And you were afraid to take it.

Mr. RAW:

… a member who has now done another somersault, one of the consistent somersaults which form part of his political life, the somersault of turning the defeat of the Prime Minister into a victory for the Nationalist Party. Sir, that somersaulting member can go and wave this flag and cheer the defeat of his own country. It is his right to do so. We deplore it, and we wish to try to overcome this tragedy and to restore South Africa’s security and to bring her back into the free association of nations from which we have been drawn away by this Prime Minister.

Mr. VON MOLTKE:

You are not standing in Hyde Park now.

Mr. RAW:

Sir, that hon. member does not like the truth; he does not like the facts. He does not like to be reminded of reality.

*An HON. MEMBER:

He is trying to be another Mitchell.

Mr. RAW:

Let me remind the hon. the Prime Minister, in the words of a Coloured man—

How sweet is mortal sovereignty, think some They talk of some strict testing of us—Pish! He’s a good fellow—and ’twill all be well.

That is the philosophy which this Government is following “ He’s a good fellow and ’twill all be well ”. But I would like to quote something else from that same poet who said—

The moving finger writes and having writ,
Moves on, nor all thy piety nor wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a line
Nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.

The reaction of hon. members on that side of the House to-day shows how they wish that the moving finger had not writ, how they wish that they could wipe out even half a line of the history which they wrote for South Africa in her time of testing, and now that South Africa is again tested, now that we again face danger, and catastrophe, once again it will be this side of the House, under the leadership of our great Leader, who will bring South Africa back on to the road of sanity and preserve for future generations the security which this Government is trying to destroy.

*Dr. VAN NIEROP:

The speech which has just been made proves one thing, namely that there is hope for South Africa. I noticed that whilst the hon. member was speaking, not a single member of the United Party, from whom we differ widely, shouted “ Hear, hear ”.

*An HON. MEMBER:

You have not been listening.

*Dr. VAN NIEROP:

Mr. Speaker, General Smuts was Prime Minister of South Africa during the time to which the hon. member referred. We differed from General Smuts, but I wonder what he would have said if he had had to listen to a speech made by a member of his party such as the one that hon. member has just made. The hon. member quoted what members on this side said in 1940 about certain matters. I wonder why he did not go back further. If we on this side were to adopt the same attitude and start quoting from the “ eeu van onreg ” I wonder whether it would promote National Unity in South Africa. In this dangerous time in which we are living to-day it is the duty of every one of us to set aside party propaganda and to stop glorifying our own party. I want to assure hon. members opposite that I, as an ordinary member of this party, have not yet heard that there will be an election within the near future. Instead of telling the people outside what really happened at the Conference, hon. members opposite go back to 1940, almost 21 years ago, in an attempt to find something to show that we are anti-British. If we are to quote things and delve into the past, let us mention other facts also.

At that time Great Britain had a great friend, one of the greatest nations in the world. I can say to-day with a clear conscience that they were never my friends. Why does the hon. member not quote how our people, our party, landed in trouble because we were opposed to Russia and would not display the Russian flag on our motor cars and other places? If it were not for that war and for that period, we would not to-day be in the trouble in which we are as the result of Russia’s attitude. It is true that to-day dark clouds are gathering over South Africa, but to blame each other and to ask who is the cause of it will not help us much. But one thing is clear, namely that when the Prime Minister left South Africa to go to that conference many eyes were directed towards him, because everybody realized that much would depend on his actions there. The overseas Press, which is inimical towards South Africa—I do not want to go into the question as to why they are inimical, because then we might perhaps land in the sphere of party politics—but the Press and most members of the Commonwealth were against us. The Prime Minister had to go overseas under those circumstances to try to obtain what we all thought at the time was best for South Africa, viz. to be in the Commonwealth as a republic. But things have changed. Hardly had the Prime Minister gone overseas before the foreign Press started sending out personal reports about the Prime Minister and what he had already achieved at the Conference. Here in South Africa and overseas people began to realize that whatever the policy of the Prime Minister may be, he was really sincere in his attempt to protect the best interests of South Africa. After the Conference and what took place there we hoped that the position would be understood and that it would be realized what the Prime Minister had tried to do. But what do we get in this country? There the Leader of the Opposition made his first great mistake. Before we even knew what had happened at the Conference or what the Prime Minister had done there, before we had any facts to go on, the Leader of the Opposition and the United Party as such condemned everything because they looked to the interests of their party and not to those of the country. The Leader of the Opposition immediately had motions of urgent public importance moved here and in the Senate, and in the Provincial Council, to condemn what had taken place. That was before we knew what the Prime Minister had done there. Is that honest? Is that in the interests of South Africa? Mr. Speaker, you correctly ruled that the matter could be discussed later, but I ask whether it was done in the welfare of South Africa, or were the interests of that party the prime consideration? I want to go further. We had hoped that the Leader of the Opposition would, after the statement made by the Prime Minister in this House, condemn the attitude adopted by certain of the member states, but instead of that he quoted what our enemies had said about us, and not what was said by member states who were friendly towards us.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

What enemies did our leader quote?

*Dr. VAN NIEROP:

I will come to that in the course of my speech and I will tell the hon. member about Ghana and about the hon. member’s leaders.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Just remember!

*Dr. VAN NIEROP:

We had hoped that the Leader of the Opposition would deprecate what was said by certain states there, and that he would be glad that there were White members of the Commonwealth who said that they could appreciate the attitude of South Africa and of the Prime Minister. But I think that then the Natal influence began to operate in the United Party. The leader of the United Party in Natal before the conference, and even before the referendum and during the referendum campaign, made certain statements, and the Press in South Africa reflected our country in an unfavourable light. I had hoped that the Press would also change, but after the explanation given by the Prime Minister about what happened at the conference and after his speech, the Cape Times had a placard the next day, and I will tell hon. members what it said. It said that the Leader of the Opposition had pleaded for unity and for co-operation. We got the reply to-day from the hon. member who has just spoken. Did he plead for unity and co-operation? The hon. the Prime Minister gave a message to the Afrikaans-speaking people and appealed to the English-speaking people and appealed to the non-Whites and the Coloureds in South Africa. Not a word was said about that in this placard of the Cape Times. The impression had to be created that it was the United Party which wanted cooperation and unity. If one studies the speeches of the leaders opposite, in the first place I just want to refer to what was said by the Leader of the Opposition and what he suggested as the solution. He said that all the Prime Minister had to do was just to sit quiet. The hon. member for Natal South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) had a different solution. He did not say that the Prime Minister should just have sat quiet. He generally makes wild statements, and in passing I would just like to ask the hon. member whether I am quoting him correctly. He made a speech in Pinelands during the week-end and the headline of the report is—

Mitchell on two ways of ousting Government.

And according to the report in the Argus of 25 March 1961, he said this—

Mr. Mitchell said that Priority No. I was to get rid of the present Government. There are two ways of doing it—shoot it out, or vote it out.

Then somebody shouted “ Shoot it out! ” Mr. Mitchell replied—

No, that is not the answer. Though I may say “ My friend, please don’t tempt me ”.

Apart from the fact that they will never manage to get rid of this Government, I want to ask whether that reveals love for South Africa. This comes from people who pretend to be patriots because they fought in the war. I see the hon. member over there is busy yawning. No wonder, because he did not fight; he did the same as I did and stayed at home. But he advised other people to go and fight, which I did not do. According to this report, Mr. Mitchell further said—

Dr. Verwoerd had withdrawn South Africa’s application because of criticism by Ghana of his apartheid policy. Dr. Verwoerd made the grossest kind of blunder. He could have told Ghana to go and jump in the Bay of Biscay, and we would still have been in the Commonwealth.

What nonsense! Dr. Nkrumah returned from the conference and made a speech in his Parliament, that democratic Parliament of his, all the Opposition members of which are in gaol. One wonders sometimes whether that is not a good system—and there he gave a reply which should be enough for the marching member for South Coast …

Mr. MITCHELL:

May I put a question?

Dr. VAN NIEROP:

No, I am afraid … [Laughter.] I am afraid the hon. member will say: “ Go and be damned! ” The hon. member has already said that in public, and he told the Prime Minister: “ Be damned.” The only one whom he has not yet told to “ be damned ” is himself, but Natal will do that for him. Dr. Nkrumah came back and said that if it were to have happened that South Africa did not withdraw at the conference, they would not have allowed us to remain a member of the Commonwealth. Hon. members opposite ought to accept his word. The hon. member for South Coast said that he was very disappointed because we did not accept Mr. Diefenbaker’s word in connection with what happened at the conference. He did not refer to the Prime Minister of Australia. He did not accept Dr. Verwoerd’s word. Why did he refer to Mr. Diefenbaker? The hon. member said that we should have listened to him, because he had fought together with Mr. Diefenbaker.

*Mr. G. L. H. VAN NIEKERK:

Where?

*Dr. VAN NIEROP:

I do not know. But seeing that he is so fond of accepting the word of people who served in the military forces, and does not want to accept the Prime Minister’s word, I would like to read something to him which was said by a man who was in the war, and I want to ask him whether he believes that man or not. I am quoting from the Cape Times of 27 December 1959. This person said—

I met Dr. Verwoerd and from what I saw I believe he is straight and honest. He knows what he is after and he is carrying out his policy with sincerity.

The question was put to him—

What are you going to tell the people of England about South Africa?

His reply was—

That is none of your business. What I would like to say is that I came out to South Africa to see the good side and not the bad, and I was tremendously impressed. Too many people come out here and see only the bad side, Members of Parliament and journalists after sensational headlines. In Johannesburg I saw what was being done for Native housing and hospitalization. It is absurd to say that South Africa is a police state. In a police state the Press is censored; here it is free. You can say what you like.

Mr. Speaker, one can even make speeches such as that hon. member made without anything happening to one. If one were to have made the speech made by the hon. member outside during the régime of the previous Government, one would have landed in the internment camp, without appearing before a court and without being asked whether one had said it or not. One was just interned without any reason.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

You were never interned.

*Dr. VAN NIEROP:

I still remember clearly that when the hon. member was Minister of Justice in those days—which thank God are past—I spoke to him in the Lobby and one of his members came past and said: “ Harry, why don’t you intern Van Nierop? ” His reply was: “ I would like to, but where am I going to get a policeman who will do it? ” The hon. member may laugh, but he knows that he interned numbers of people without trial. At that time one could not make a speech such as that hon. member has just made. One could not even belong to the Voortrekker movement. The Voortrekkers were not even allowed to camp out. They could not play “ jukskei ” in South Africa. That was regarded as being terribly wrong.

But I want to go further. I know why the hon. member for South Coast is so concerned about the Commonwealth. I believe sincerely, Sir, that our withdrawal from the Commonwealth may perhaps still be a blessing for South Africa. I want to quote here from the News of the World of 26 February. It is a paper which is not well disposed towards South Africa. They quote what Mr. Macmillan said in a speech to the Young Conservatives in Britain—

Mr. Macmillan attacked the croakers, the moaners, the faint-hearted and the cynical who thought that they saw the decline and fall of the British Empire.

Then he continued—

What they are actually witnessing, if only they had eyes to see, is something vastly different, a rebirth, an Empire is transforming itself into a free Commonwealth family.

My time has expired, but I would have liked to deal with certain other aspects of the speech of the hon. member for South Coast, but I will conclude by briefly mentioning just two other points. Firstly, I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that he should take no notice of what the Opposition says; he should take no notice of the speeches made here. Those hon. members believe that an election will still be held this year. I want to tell the Prime Minister that a large number of people support his actions, even though they might not support his party; they support him in the fight he fought in the interest of South Africa. I want to read a letter from an English-speaking person, which I am prepared to hand to Mr. Speaker so that he can see that it is genuine. Without having been asked to do so, he wrote to me as follows—

I am one who loves South Africa and for this reason am anxious to see unity and progress. Not politically minded, nor a leader in any group, I have nevertheless put in much spade-work amongst friends for the co-operation you have asked for and feel that almost all I have spoken to will co-operate with their fellow citizens to make the Festival the success I hope it will be.
*Mr. RAW:

On what date?

*Dr. VAN NIEROP:

19 March 1961. I want to read a further letter from another English-speaking person—

As South Africans we are all prepared to participate in this Festival. However, we would like to have some further information as to what we would be expected to do.

I want to give the Prime Minister the assurance that he enjoys more support from the people outside than ever before. If the Prime Minister were to ask me what he were to do, I would say that he should immediately hold an election, because if ever one hoped to see the United Party disappear it would happen then. They tried here to give the Prime Minister the impression that the people have lost their confidence in the Government. Since 1958, i.e. since the last general election, until to-day there have been 14 by-elections, and there we see the new members sitting in a row, all on the side of the Nationalist Party, without the United Party having had the courage to put up a single candidate against them. Now there are two places where the Opposition is going to put up a candidate, and I want to give you the assurance that the new members elected will not sit on the opposite side, but here. Hon. members opposite hope and pray that there will be no election, so that they may retain for another three years those members whom they still have on their side. That mock fight of theirs is just a farce. If another general election should be held, I want to predict that the leaders of the various Opposition parties will make an agreement and that they will all vote against the Nationalist Party, i.e. not only the United Party supporters but the Liberals and the communists will all vote for the United Party and still it will not help them. But then the United Party still comes along and says they polled so many votes.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

Where do the communists come from?

*Dr. VAN NIEROP:

Does the hon. member not remember that when Sam Kahn sat in this House and said he was a communist, hon. members opposite said: “ You are not.” They did not believe that Sam Kahn was a communist. But those who vote for this side of the House are people who really believe in one fatherland and one country, South Africa. I want to appeal to the English-speaking people, and I have the right to do so just as much as any hon. member opposite. I am Afrikaans-speaking, but in my home I also have someone who is English-speaking, and I have as much right as some people who have never been in an English home or who have never been overseas but who know more about Britain than people who have already been there. I want to appeal to the English-speaking people, whatever is said in this House, to act in co-operation with us to cope with the dangers facing us. Unless that happens, it will not only be the White Nationalists who will go under, but also the people opposite. We must stand together or go under. In spite of the jeers from hon. members opposite, I want to ask the people outside to stand together even though they belong to the other party, and to tell the Prime Minister: Continue; you will not be rejected by the people; you will be honoured in the country God has given to us.

*Mr. STANDER:

We got some clarity during the past week on what happened at the Commonwealth Conference. We got it from the statement in the Assembly by the hon. the Prime Minister, we got it from Mr. Macmillan in the British Parliament and we got it from Press reports which mentioned what various Prime Ministers had said at the Conference. In spite of that there are still certain hon. members of the Opposition who continue to give distorted versions, who make irresponsible statements and who make inciting speeches. I think in particular of one like the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell). A few moments ago he tried to make a joke about having spoken about shooting at Pinelands. I know that he will not shoot under any circumstances. But he cannot prevent irresponsible people from shooting when they have been incited. Is it necessary to remind the hon. member that there has already been shooting? The hon. member should be more careful and should not incite racial feelings in such an irresponsible manner. Let us put a stop to this sort of adolescent action which reminds one of that of ducktails.

Let us look at the facts again. We will become a republic on 31 May. That is the will of the people. The matter has been tested and a large majority decided in favour of a republic. Neither this Government nor any other Government can do anything about it. In the second place, we are forced to leave the Commonwealth. It was not our desire, it was the wish of the Afro-Asian block in the Commonwealth, that group which is now in the majority and which in the near future will even dictate to England what her actions at UN should be. We regret that Canada was a party in the fight against South Africa, but there is nothing we can do about it. Britain had to sit and watch while, probably for the first time in the history of the Commonwealth, the Afro-Asian group dictated to her. We regret it. We cannot remedy it. We are only sorry that it has come to the stage where she is helpless and unable to prevent such a thing.

There are certain implications resulting from this which we do not want to minimize or ignore. In the first instance those implications are of an economic nature. Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his followers during the referendum campaign laid particular emphasis on this aspect of the matter. As they put it: “ Our apples will lie and rot.” The reply we already have to that from the United Kingdom is that our trade relations and tariff preferences will be retained and that South Africa will remain in the sterling area. This ought to satisfy both the United Party and the Progressive Party. They must not now tell us that it is crumbs of charity which have fallen from the table of the rich United Kingdom. That would be untrue. What is true is that it is to the mutual benefit of the two countries; that it is good business and that it will continue for as long as it remains good business. Good business is a British tradition and good business should also be sound common sense for South Africa.

The second implication is that we have been forced to sever our sentimental bonds with Britain, in so far as the Commonwealth is concerned with that aspect of the matter. It grieves us because a large section of our population, namely the English-speaking section, treasured it and we would have liked to have retained it for their sake. England is their country of origin. But the following considerations ought to be some consolation. The first is this. During the referendum campaign the United Party never advanced any sentimental argument in favour of the monarchy. On the contrary, they even held it against us if we called them monarchists. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was furious and said that he was not a monarchist. The wooing was concentrated on the Commonwealth and not on the monarchy as such. It was apparently, I say apparently, an ancillary matter. And if that was so, if it was a subordinate matter to the United Party and the Progressive Party, then they did not loose much and they should therefore accept the result for the sake of unity between the Afrikaans- and English-speaking sections.

The second consideration is this: It is the fact that the other section of the White population, the Afrikaans-speaking section, were forced to leave their country of origin a century and a half ago. We do not reproach them for it. But I want to say that for the first time in our history we are now in a position for both language groups to go forward together as South Africans, without the spoiling effect of a dual loyalty. If I view the matter from this point of view then I agree with the poet—

Sweet are the uses of adversity
Which, like the toad ugly and venomous,
Still wears a precious jewel in its head.

That “ precious jewel ” is our national unity. A third consideration is this. If our position in the world is to-day difficult and even dangerous—our hon. friends opposite have even said that it was perilous—then we have as consolation, if it can be consolation, that it is no more dangerous to-day than it was yesterday or the day before, and that it is no more dangerous than it would have been if we could have remained in the Commonwealth. That is so because the struggle is not about our form of government but about our colour policy. All the Prime Ministers who attended the Commonwealth Conference have now spoken. The Afro-Asian group is happy; they are rejoicing. They have reason for it. They have pushed one White State out of the Commonwealth and they have caught another, namely Canada, in their net. Canada, safe under the wings of that dollar-colossus in the West, thought she would be in harmony with America if she adopted that attitude. In future the Afro-Asian countries will follow up their success. They will even dictate to England. Macmillan is feeling the cold wind of change blowing over him. He complains that Dr. Verwoerd will not make any concession in South Africa’s racial policy which he describes as “ tragic, misguided and perverse ”. He now dreads that Frankenstein monster which the Commonwealth has become. Dr. Verwoerd succeeded in saving him on this occasion, but what he could envisage was that one by one he would have to throw the White members of the Commonwealth to the wolves in order to keep the Commonwealth going. This is what distresses the hearts of Australia, New Zealand and Rhodesia, and they have reason for it.

What is the reaction of the Opposition? Mr. Speaker, if a stranger had to sit in this gallery during the past few days and had to listen to the speeches from hon. members opposite he would not have believed that he was listening to a South African Opposition. He would have got the impression that he was listening to a debate between South Africa and the representatives of African or Asiatic states. What better proof of malice could there be than the speeches made at Sea Point, Green Point, and recently at Pinelands, both before and after the statement of the hon. the Prime Minister, which he made so clearly. Nowhere was there any rebuke of the speeches of the Prime Ministers of Ghana, Canada, Malaya or any other country. All the blame was put on the hon. the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister appealed to the Opposition to accept this unavoidable position. That is the least one can expect from any responsible Opposition under the circumstances. What was the reply of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? He said it could not be expected that the English-speaking section should support the republic because the assurance of the retention of Commonwealth membership no longer existed. That is the same man who said during the referendum campaign that he did not accept any republic, whether it was inside or outside of the Commonwealth. But he goes further. Now he promises to crawl back to the Commonwealth with South Africa. How? On his bended knees he will have to offer Nkrumah and Co. the following: Equal political rights for the Coloureds. He does not say whether it will also be equal social rights. To the Asiatics he promises that they will be a permanent part of the population. He does not say whether they will get the franchise, neither does he say whether he consulted the hon. member for South Coast on it. To the urban Natives he promises representation in Parliament. He does not say on what basis, neither does he say how many of those people there will be or whether they will be Black or White. The last one is figurative: The Bantustans get self-government and are federally incorporated with the White areas. We still remember how the Opposition fought against the creation of Bantustans—independent Bantustans. This is the new look of their colour policy. The Cape Times stepped in immediately and this was its comment. These proposals to the Commonwealth will not work because it is mid-nineteenth century, says the paper. It is good enough for 1850 but it is not good enough for 1961. But yet the Cape Times says it welcomes it because it is a start in the right direction, allegedly the direction of the Progressive Party. Perhaps the Black states also think so and they may allow South Africa to return to put her foot in the trap which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to set for her. In my opinion the possibility that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will ever, as Prime Minister, arrive at the Commonwealth with South Africa is out of the question and therefore we need not reject his proposal in loto. His new vision in respect of the reserves interested me. If I understood him correctly he is now prepared to concede that the reserves should not only be developed economically but also politically and that self-government would be granted to such an extent that he even envisages a federation between the Black states and the White section of the country, something which he opposed most strongly in the past. Mr. Speaker, that is progress. That is something we can talk about. But there are conditions attached to it. Will the United Party now stop accusing us of breaking up the country and of giving certain parts of the country to the Bantu? Will they assist in consolidating those territories? For that purpose extra land is required. Are they prepared to amend their decision not to purchase any further land—a decision they were forced to take by the hon. member for South Coast? If so then we have a fertile basis for discussion which can lead to co-operation on at least one aspect of our Native policy on which we have hitherto always been divided.

In the rest of this “ new look ” there are also a few points about which we can talk. But then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not go and trade with it at the Commonwealth, because what he can sell there he cannot sell to the National Party. And while the hon. member is in this mood let him also go into other spheres and assist in bringing the Afrikaans- and the English-speaking sections closer together. I have already mentioned one. He can, for example, think about accepting unconditionally the advent of a republic on 31 May as he will have to do in any case, and thereby end the political battle which we have been waging in this country for the past 150 years. He can also help in another sphere. He can, if he wishes to do so, help us in the language and cultural struggle. He can assist in stopping it, especially if he can convince his Natal colleagues, particularly the hon. member for South Coast, that the old British policy of cultural assimilation of the vanquished has now become an anachronism, and that Natal will have to learn like other provinces have already learned, that it is possible for the two language groups to live together in peace.

Mr. Speaker, I want to end with a reference to an American book in which the comparison between Briton and American is dealt with— “ America Comes Across ”. The author, Hay, says inter alia in a chapter under the title of “ The ancient grudge ”—talking about the English and the Americans—

Here are two great nations who would like to be cordial friends, but are held apart. Why? Three reasons suggest themselves: The first is that we parted in anger 150 years ago. The second that we are still to a certain extent blood relations, and everyone feels privileged to criticize his relations more frankly than his friends. The third, that we enjoy the extremely doubtful blessing of a common language …

In the case of South Africa it would be “ two related languages ”. Then he continues—

It is unlikely that we shall ever quite understand one another. Our respective national characteristics are too robust for that. But good will and tolerance can achieve marvels, and so can common honesty of purpose.

The adaptability of this to conditions in South Africa I leave to hon. members. What I want to emphasize here, however, is “ common honesty of purpose ”.

Dr. DE BEER:

Mr. Speaker, some little time has now passed since the events of 15 March in London and one is in the increasingly advantageous position of becoming able to gauge in some measure what took place. I think it is possible, already, to discern certain reactions and trends which are, in South Africa, virtually unanimous between people of all sorts of different points of view. Firstly it is quite clear—and this debate would have made it clear had nothing else done so—that no person underestimates the seriousness and the dangers of the position in which South Africa now finds herself. From both sides of this House there has been abundant evidence of that. All of us, I think, see the economic, the financial dangers, the risks of harm to our prosperity and our development. For the world to see there is the increase of the hostility against us of nations who have always been hostile towards us, and the increasing difficulties with which those races who still retain some friendly feelings for us, can rally to our defence. Events in the United Nations over the last ten days have made it quite plain that the already desperately difficult problem of South West Africa and our relations with the United Nations in connection with it is becoming more difficult than ever.

Finally under the surface, if not so much spoken about, but perhaps the most important of all as a sort of anxiety to all of us in this country is the feeling that a repetition of the internal disturbances that this country went through a year or so ago may now again be threatened. In this connection the Government has made it abundantly clear that they are aware of such a danger and that they are, after their fashion, doing what they think is necessary to cope with it. I do not wish, on this occasion, to say how I think it should be dealt with; I wish only to emphasize that the awareness of this risk, internal as well as external, is obviously present on all sides of this House.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop), only a few minutes ago referred to the dark clouds that there are about us at the present moment. And the hon. the Deputy Minister for Education, Arts and Science, when he spoke in this debate, made it abundantly clear that he regarded South Africa’s situation as extremely dangerous. I do want to say that whatever I may think of the conclusion to which the hon. the Deputy Minister came, I think that he deserves congratulation for the clarity with which he saw the danger in which this country is now placed.

The last thing that I want to do is to indulge in a lot of recriminations and a lot of analysis on what has happened in the past, whether the remote past or even the recent past. I think it is only worth while to look into the past to the extent that from it one may get the guiding line to take for the future. Very briefly, I think it is necessary to ask oneself why and how we have reached this stage in which, we are all agreed, we are in a very serious situation. The argument has been advanced that all this has come about because last year there was a republican referendum and the voters at that referendum voted in favour of South Africa becoming a republic. In a limited sense I believe this is true. I believe that had we not done that last year the events that took place in London last week might have been avoided. But when the hon. the Prime Minister says that it could only have been a matter of time until this crisis which has been precipitated, in fact occurred, I believe he is right. I do not think any of us can assess how much time there would have been, but it does seem to me to be apparent that the crisis which took place between South Africa and the other members of the Commonwealth would have taken place even had we not decided to become a republic. It is suggested that the hon. the Prime Minister should have been prepared, at the Prime Ministers’ Conference, to make certain concessions in his policy in an attempt to meet and find agreement with the other Prime Ministers. I believe this is true too, and I believe that the disaster of 1961 might have been averted had he been prepared to do so. But for any of us who have sat in this House with the hon. gentleman for a few years, it is quite clear that when he says to us here that he feared to make any concessions because he believed the law of concessions would then apply, and he would end up giving far more than he was prepared to, we know this is the hon. the Prime Minister’s attitude, and we cannot be surprised that this was the line he took up. Again, I do not want to say that there is not considerable truth in it, although, as I shall show later, I believe the Prime Minister takes that line too far.

It is suggested that the hon. the Prime Minister made a great mistake by permitting discussion to take place at the Prime Ministers’ Conference on South Africa’s racial policy. I want to say that, as far as I am concerned, at any rate, I do not believe the hon. the Prime Minister had any choice but to allow that discussion to take place. I believe it is a measure of the seriousness of the situation that had arisen that, not only according to the accounts of our own Prime Minister, but also quite clearly according to the account of Mr. Macmillan given to the House of Commons, there simply was no prospect of that Conference carrying on unless a discussion of that sort did take place.

When one has examined these and other minor reasons that are suggested for why we now find ourselves in this predicament, it becomes clearer and clearer as the days go by that it was only the question of South Africa’s race policy that really was important in precipitating this crisis. All these other matters played their part, I am not suggesting that they did not; but the crisis arose because of our race policy, and the crisis would have arisen because of our race policy, sooner or later, whatever we did in any other field.

There is another matter which, I think, has become agreed, and it is interesting that it has become agreed between all sorts of people in South Africa over the last week or so. And that is that the question of Commonwealth membership, vital though it is, is not in its own right the whole of the question that we have to solve. It is not the whole of the crisis in which we find ourselves. It is a crisis of isolation in the world in which we find ourselves. And isolation from the Commonwealth is only part—albeit an extremely important part—of that isolation. I mention this because I believe in looking forward, as I want to try to do in the few minutes I have to address the House to-day, it is necessary not only to think of getting back into the Commonwealth, but it is necessary to think of winning back the respect of the world for our country. Membership of the Commonwealth is extremely important, because it is a test and a symbol—it is, if you like, a criterion— and the events which led to the loss of our Commonwealth membership have led, just as surely, to our loss of respect and friendship of the civilized world.

That is all the looking back that I want to do. I believe that this, above all, is a time when we should be looking forward, peering forward into the darkness to try and see where our path lies. And I make no apology for quoting again some lines which I quoted quite recently in this House, because I believe the need to quote them and the need to express this sentiment has grown since that time some weeks ago. I quote certain lines from the poet MacNeice written as the crisis before the 1939 war was building up—

We have not even an hour to spend repenting our sins;
The Court has chimed and every minute is its own alarm clock;
And what we are about to do is of vastly more importance
Than what we have done or not done in the hitherto.

I do not think these lines could ever have been truer of South Africa’s history than they are to-day. What we are about to do is of vastly more importance than what we have done or not done hitherto. And, at this time, we have to try to decide what is necessary in order, if not to overcome entirely the anxieties with which we are beset, at least to shift them a little away and give us some breathing space in the process.

It seems to me that the first sine quo non before we can begin to think in terms of action is to begin to see the facts of the situation. I have been struck by nothing more during this debate than by an obiter dicta by the hon. the Prime Minister in which he said, quite en passant, when talking about something else, and which was repeated a little while ago by the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander), when they made reference to South Africa as a White country. I know what the hon. gentleman means, but the fact that we do say this without thinking indicates the first fundamental error in our approach to our own problem. We are not a White country. There is a White people in this country. This is a White Parliament. This is a country ruled by Whites. But nobody can hold that South Africa is a White country. It simply is not. It never has been, it is not to-day and it never will be. It is a multi-racial country. I am sorry if it sounds terribly elementary, but I think it is necessary to say that unless, all the time we think about our country, we are thinking about it as it is, we are bound to make the errors which seem to create the gulfs between us and anybody else who thinks about our country, whether from within or from without.

This is a multi-racial country, and we have to do something in this multi-racial country in order to deliver it from the dangers in which it finds itself. The hon. the Prime Minister has told us quite plainly that the Conference of Prime Ministers in London would have been content, for the time being, to receive some minor concession from him in terms of his race policy. But he has argued that that concession would lead to another and so to another, and, before very long, we would be forced into the position of conceding everything from his point of view, of conceding, in fact, a policy of one man one vote in South Africa. I have already said that I do not believe that simply a minor concession could be permanently satisfactory in solving our problem. But I dispute that there is any evidence at the moment that South Africa, in order to regain Commonwealth membership or the respect of the world, must adopt a policy of one man one vote. When the hon. the Prime Minister of England was here last year he endeavoured—and he has again recently referred to that speech—he endeavoured courteously, but quite firmly, to put to us what he believes to be the attitude of Britain at all events, and what must also be the opinion of many of the peoples of Western Europe. What he told us was that individual merit should be the test of a man’s advancement. Categorically he did not tell us that we must have a policy of one man one vote. Mr. Macmillan has referred again this week to that speech; he has referred to it with approval and has confirmed that that is his attitude. At the moment within the Commonwealth you have the British Government applying the policy that it is applying to the Federation, which is certainly not a policy of one man one vote. That they are having difficulties is true, but that is beside the point. The fact as that they are not being threatened with expulsion from the Commonwealth because they are applying these policies in the Federation. The hon. the Prime Minister referred to Kenya, and said he was afraid that what happened in Kenya might happen here. I would observe in passing that, if you look at the population ratio of White to Black in Kenya and in South Africa, the Prime Minister would almost be wiser to draw a parallel between Kenya and Basutoland, about which he said something quite different, than between Kenya and South Africa, but the point I am concerned to make is that even in Kenya the policy being applied is very far from being a policy of one man one vote. Finally, I think it is worth while referring to what was said by the Tunku Abdul Rahman since the Conference and also on a former occasion. I do not suggest that he has the right to speak for the whole Commonwealth, but he represents one of the nations there, and he says that what he believes is necessary is that there should be ten non-Whites representing non-Whites in this Parliament, and that certainly will not be the result of a policy of one man one vote. I suggest that what is needed for South Africa is that we should look firmly to that concept on which Western standards are founded, and they are founded on the belief that the individual human being has the right to be judged according to his own merits, and has the right to achieve for himself and his family and his people what he can achieve in the world. It is as simple as that. If you are a Western civilized thinker, you think in terms of the individual. The moment you begin to think in terms of groups and to classify them as groups, as is being done in South Africa now, you are departing from that standard and creating the opportunities for injustice and frustration and all the unpleasant results that flow from policies of this kind. I firmly believe, on the basis of all the information I have been able to gather, that what we talk of this House when we talk of Western civilized people and Western civilized countries, Western civilized thought wants that from us, and not something a great deal more, but certainly nothing less.

In regard to the advisability of our making a move in these dark days towards something of the kind, there is of course the division between us in the House. Hon. members on the Government benches are prepared to make no change whatever in their present policy. The hon. the Prime Minister has referred to it as a policy which strives for “ nie-onderhorig-heid ”, a policy which strives somehow for the right of the individual to realize himself, and I shall return to that, but apparently there is to be no change whatsoever in the policy of the Prime Minister. On this side of the House, in various and sometimes in differing ways, we do all propose that changes should be made in an attempt to get South Africa out of the difficulties she is in, not primarily externally, but internally, and incidentally also externally. We on these benches have made our policy clear enough ever since we have been in this House and there is no need for me to add anything to it. In this debate a most interesting and worthwhile suggestion has come from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who has suggested that in this predicament it may be helpful for us to implement a policy of federation in South Africa. Now of course we believe that there is very great merit in the federal idea. We have had it written into our policy from the time we founded this party, but I do not think this is the occasion or that anyone would wish me to argue the merits of federation in vacuo as a form of government. I think that what we are concerned with at the moment is federation as it applies to the solution of the race problem which has brought so much anxiety upon us now, federation as it may be a means of granting the individual what we know he must have and what he deserves, and doing it in such a way that the fears and the prejudices of those who are now entrenched in positions of privilege can be overcome. In that sense I think a system of federation has something to be said for it, but what one must emphasize is that federation may be a method towards bringing about the end we must seek, a federation in itself, not the end. Federation as such does not bring about the freedom and liberty and dignity of the individual. It may be a means of doing so more easily than one can do it without federation. I would say that the simple test when we propose that there should be decentralization of power on federal lines—we envisage that there might be different arrangements in regard to political and other opportunities from one province to the other, but one thing must be perfectly clear, that federation presupposes a Central Parliament and that there can be no discrimination on arbitrary grounds between citizens as to their representation or their voting rights in that Central Parliament. If federation is to be a method to help us—and I believe it can be—to get over the problem we have, of achieving Western standards of government in our country, then there must be a Central Assembly for which all races can vote and in which all races can be represented, and the test of either representation or the voting power for that Central Assembly must be the merit of the individual. If it is not, if one federates on the basis of keeping one or other province or unit more or less in a state of subjugation to another, one might as well not bother with federation at all because the discriminatory element, the denial of opportunities to the individual, is still there.

The hon. the Prime Minister has told us that at the Prime Ministers’ Conference he put his policy forward as one of “ nie-onderhorigheid ”. I take it that he means by that a policy which allows the individual to reach out and to satisfy himself as far as his abilities allow him to do. One can only assume—and this is a line of argument with which we are familiar in this House—that the Prime Minister is arguing that the best way to achieve “nie-onderhorigheid” is through partition which he holds out as his ultimate policy. I have said this before, and I want to say it again, although I do not like doing so, that after 13 years of observing the Government applying their policy in practice, it is extremely difficult to believe, and is in fact impossible to believe, that the policy being followed is one of “ nie-onderhorigheid ”. On the contrary, it is a practice of “ onderhorigheid ” for most of the people in the country. If I am wrong, and if in fact the Prime Minister’s first principle is to achieve non-subjugation, then let him prove it by applying the principle of non-subjugation to some of the Africans whom he has not yet succeeded in getting into the reserves. Let him show that he does not believe in “ onderhorigheid ” by allowing rights to Africans who are, according to him, temporarily residing outside the Native reserves. I do not say they are there temporarily, but the hon. gentleman does. Life for these people for 13 years already and for 50 years ahead consists in “ onderhorigheid ”, and in being in a position where you are denied rights and must accept the mandates of others. Even in the reserves, as far as the policy of the Prime Minister has gone, the Minister of Bantu Administration knows that he has complete control over the Bantu Authorities there, and that their position even there is one of “ onderhorigheid ”, and if we do not have “ nie-onderhorigheid ” there it is time that we began to get a move on with it. I am driven to say that the policy being practised in South Africa is one of baasskap, the domination of one race over another. It has been rejected by the civilized world and that is why we are having this debate to-day. But much more important than its rejection by the civilized world is the fact that it must prove fatal to South Africa internally. Like the hon. the Deputy Minister of Education, I would defend what I believe is right for South Africa, even if it were condemned by the rest of the outside world, but I cannot and I will not and I must not in the interests of my country defend what I know to be wrong, and what is being done now is wrong. It is wrong that there are people in South Africa who by our laws are forced to be separated from their wives and families. It is wrong that in terms of statutes there are families which are being broken up along racial lines…

Mr. VON MOLTKE:

May I ask a question?

Dr. DE BEER:

No. There are in South Africa people who can do jobs which are more productive and which are better paid than the jobs they are doing, but they are being denied the opportunity to do those jobs because of the colour of their skins. Finally, there are in South Africa people whose level of education and civilization measured by any objective standard is at least equal or considerably in excess of that of those hon. members or myself, but those people are not only denied the right to come and sit in this House but they are denied the right to vote for the election of members of this House. I say that these things are wrong and that the position we are in threatens us firstly and most dangerously with internal strife, and secondly with economic impoverishment, and thirdly with external hostility, and finally it is threatening us in our own consciences as we sit here, because we cannot face what we are doing. If this is to continue, I can only say as Jefferson said long ago: “ I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just”.

*Mr. VOSLOO:

Mr. Speaker, we have now had the admission from the hon. member for Maitland (Dr. de Beer) that at some time or other South Africa’s colour policy would have been raised at the Commonwealth Conference, whether we had become a republic or not. We are pleased to have that admission from the hon. member. So far, during the past two weeks, the cry has been that our colour policy would not have been raised if we had not become a republic. I agree with the hon. member for Maitland that our colour policy would have been discussed by the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth whether we had become a republic or not.

The hon. member for Maitland made a few other statements to which I want to come back. He says that our membership of the Commonwealth is not our only problem but that there are other factors as the result of which we have problems not only internally but also externally. I should like to come back to that again in the course of my speech. The other point which he made here is that we had said —and he referred to various persons—that South Africa was a White man’s country. He says it is not a White man’s country but that we have a mixed population, that we are a multi-racial state. I concede that we have more than one race in this country, but I want to tell the hon. member immediately that in this country of ours with its mixed population we have areas which we regard as White areas, and in those White areas we believe that the Whites should continue to have control, otherwise White civilization in South Africa will be doomed. We concede that there are reserves where the Bantu can be given a say and where, in due course, he can attain self-government, but if we were to accept a multi-racial government, as the hon. member advocates, then White civilization here would be doomed. I do not want to deal at any length with the hon. member’s remarks, but I just want to refer to two other points that he made here.

The one is that the Commonwealth Conference did not expect us to adopt the policy of “ one man one vote.” The hon. member endorsed the remarks of United Party speakers to the effect that all the Commonwealth Conference expects from us is a change of heart; some sign that we do not want to continue on the basis of the National Party’s policy. But does the hon. member want to pretend that he is so naïve, as the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) was, as to believe that if we had one or two Natives in this Parliament, or that if the Coloureds were represented here by Coloureds, it would put an end to the demands made upon South Africa? [Interjections.] The hon. member says that this would have changed the attitude of the Commonwealth towards us, but after all we know which members of the Commonwealth are represented at the Conference. How can the hon. member suggest that if we had had a token representation here, those members would have been satisfied with it? He knows in his heart of hearts that they would not have been satisfied and that that would simply be the first step that would lead to further demands from time to time.

The last point to which I want to refer in the speech of the hon. member for Maitland before I carry on with my own speech is his reference to the granting of the franchise on a basis of merit, which was one of the demands made by the Commonwealth, namely that we should not withhold the vote from people who comply with certain qualifications. The Progressive Party is a small party, a handful of chosen people who left the United Party, a party which thinks along the same lines. From their own ranks they then appointed a small committee, also consisting of picked men, to determine the basis of merit on which the franchise should be given. Sir, I read the report of that committee with interest, and not even that small, select committee could agree on the basis of merit to be laid down to determine who should have the vote and who should not be given the vote. The hon. member for Maitland is one of those who brought out a minority report. His report was signed by himself only. In other words, even in that small party he is a voice calling out in the wilderness and he stands alone. How on earth are you going to determine what qualifications a person should have in order to be given the vote? I leave it at that, but if merit is to decide who should have the vote, that is to say, if they can ever agree within that party on the basis of merit to be applied, I want to ask them whether they can give any assurance that the White man will be able to retain control in what I prefer to call the White area. I hope that other members of the Progressive Party are still going to speak and give us the reply to this question.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Japie will also be speaking.

*Mr. VOSLOO:

I would not call him a member of the Progressive Party. At this stage I would place him with the United Party. The time will come when the Progressive Party will have to tell us what basis of merit is to be applied so as to enable the White man to retain the control in the White area of South Africa. We would all have liked to remain a member of the Commonwealth. There are various reasons for that attitude. One of the first reasons is that to the English-speaking section it would have been a symbol of the retention of their British connection. It would have made it possible for the republic to be established with the least dislocation. It would have made it possible for the existing agreement with Britain and other Commonwealth countries to continue unchanged, which would also have met with the wishes of the Afrikaans-speaking section that the change in our Constitution should not be accompanied by far-reaching changes. But it so happens that if we had remained a member of the Commonwealth it would have caused greater dislocation in South Africa than our withdrawal is causing.

During the past two weeks the cry from the Opposition and from the English-language Press has been that we are out of the Commonwealth because 13 years of National Government rule has brought us to a point where we have been obliged to withdraw from the Commonwealth; we have allegedly lost all our friends through the actions of this Government; we are standing alone and we are going to lose our trade. Opposition speakers went so far as to ask the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance to frame new Budgets because our trade will allegedly be affected to such a far-reaching extent that it will not be possible for us to implement the proposals contained in the Budgets as framed by these two Ministers. But it is significant that the same persons who have advanced these arguments also plead for improved pensions and better salary scales. It looks as though they do not entirely believe themselves when they suggest that it will not be possible to carry out the proposals contained in these two Budgets. However, there were some Opposition members who were a little more accommodating. They say that it is not the National Party’s policy which has placed us in this critical position, but that we have been placed in this position by this hard-hearted granitelike leader, Dr. Verwoerd, who is followed by his supporters either because of ignorance on their part or because they are forced to follow him. They then proceed to mention all the Acts which have been passed in the past 13 years at the instance of this hard leader of the National Party and which are allegedly responsible for the fact that we had to withdraw from the Commonwealth. I do not propose to mention those Acts in the same chronological order in which they mentioned them in order to show that it was because of this legislation that we had to withdraw from the Commonwealth. I just want to refer to a few.

One of the first Acts mentioned by the Opposition is the Group Areas Act. Throughout the years, whenever amendments have been made to that Act, they have consistently opposed them. This is one of the measures which is referred to abroad as an unjust measure, as one causing hardships for which we are blamed. But have the Opposition still not realized that the voters of South Africa want separate residential areas and that you cannot establish separate residential areas unless there is a Group Areas Act to achieve that ideal? Have the Opposition not realized yet that the Group Areas Act does not owe its birth to a hard Prime Minister or to the leadership of the National Party but to the demands of the electorate? Is it not this same Act which has enabled us to clear up our slums and to remove the black spots from the White areas? Is it not this Act which has enabled us to remove Windermere at the entrance to Cape Town and to convert Newclare and Sophiatown and Martindale and similar areas of Johannesburg into White areas and to clear up Korsten in Port Elizabeth and to establish Native townships there with good housing? But when the Opposition talk about the Group Areas Act and when we are besmirched abroad, this is one of the things that they mention which cause our friends to talk about us with “ abhorrence, revulsion and loathing ”. This is a measure which was born in the hearts of the voters; it is not something with which the National Party Government came forward as a mere whim.

Another Act—as I have said, I am not going to mention all the Acts in chronological order— which the Government passed and which has allegedly also placed us in the position in which we find ourselves to-day, is the legislation with regard to separate representation for the Coloureds. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party says that that was a disgrace. This is a struggle which was waged over many years. It began in 1948 and only came to an end in 1956. Have the Opposition not yet realized that this is what the White voters demanded? The White voters demanded that there should be separate representation for Coloureds; that the Coloured should be removed from the political struggle of the White man and that he should no longer be used as a political football in the political quarrels of the White man. We are now told by the United Party—and this is endorsed by the Progressive Party—that if they come into power they are going to put the Coloureds back on the Common Roll and give them direct representation in this House. Do the Opposition not realize that the electorate demanded those measures that were passed by the Government and that it is because the Government pass these measures that the governing party has become stronger and stronger at every election since 1948? The hon. member for Queenstown (Dr. Steytler) is now beginning to realize this, but it is too late for him.

*Dr. STEYTLER:

And what price did we pay for it?

*Mr. VOSLOO:

The price is the loss of our Commonwealth membership, but it is the duty of the White voters of South Africa to retain their White identity in the White area of South Africa. As I know the White voter, he is not prepared to sell his birthright for a mess of pottage and he is not prepared to buy Commonwealth membership at the cost of his identity. We are now told by the Opposition that South Africa is in a quandary, that she has lost all her friends, that she is out of the Commonwealth and standing alone. They are prepared to sacrifice She White man’s identity and they want to seek the friendship again of their old friends. They want to be recognized by the Commonwealth and admitted as a member of the Commonwealth, and to that end they suggest certain remedies. But what do those remedies that they suggest amount to? The hon. member for Houghton said the other day that if we had only been prepared to tolerate one Native in this House it would have ensured continued membership of the Commonwealth for us. The United Party on the other hand, says, “ Accept our proposal of eight White representatives for the Natives in this House and six in the Senate, then we shall be allowed to remain in the Commonwealth ”. I want to repeat this question: Is the United Party so naive as to believe that? Do they believe that if we allow eight representatives—to begin with eight White representatives—of the Natives in this House, it will change the world attitude towards us? Do they believe that? Once those eight representatives are here, would they not demand that the Natives should be given direct representation? Just as the Leader of the Opposition has already admitted that he is prepared to give direct representation to the Coloureds, the demand would also be made that the Native should be given direct representation. Once eight Native representatives have been allowed in a House of Assembly consisting of 160 members, would the next demand not be that the Natives should be given greater representation here on a proportional basis.? Even if we followed the policy of the hon. member for Queenstown and used merit as the yardstick, it would not put an end to the demands made upon South Africa.

*Dr. STEYTLER:

What is your proof for saying that?

*Mr. VOSLOO:

The hon. member asks me what proof I have. That proof is to be found in the whole of Africa and in the East. Let him go to the East; there he will find the proof. After all, South Africa is not the first country in which the demand is being made that more representation should be given to the Natives. Does he not know what is going on across our borders in the Federation? What he is prepared to accept here has already been accepted in Kenya and the Federation, and what was the net result there? That is my proof, in reply to the hon. member for Queenstown; but now I want to put this question to him: What proof has he that if his policy is accepted no further demands will be made? What proof has the United Party that if their policy is accepted no further demands will be made by the Black man and by the Coloured man? Mr. Speaker, they themselves do not always believe what they say. Not very long ago an Opposition member, when this matter came under discussion here, when we dealt with certain powers demanded by the Bantu, said—

To give this tremendous power to the Native people without applying the test the Progressive Party themselves deem necessary in the case of political power, is a denial of their own principles and they do not realize, with respect, the fire they will be setting alight in the economic and public life of South Africa. I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member who seconded the motion again indicating that the Progressive Party’s policy is that there should be no residential segregation whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to quote this whole passage, but it amounts to this that even the United Party admits that there must be residential segregation, that the Natives cannot be allowed freedom of movement. I do, however, also want to read out the following passage—

I was confirmed in this conviction when I saw in some of the great cities of the United States of America the problems that arise where their Negroes move into White cities, Negroes of a higher standard of civilization compared with the mass of our Natives. In a liberal city like the city of Chicago, special foundations are established to make it more difficult for Negroes to enter certain residential areas, not because the Americans are racialists, not because they want to persecute their Negroes, but because the inhabitants of those areas have to face the fact that where these people move in, there is a depreciation of the value of property and friction does arise. And if that happens in the United States of America with its highly developed liberal conscience, how much more is it necessary in the Union of South Africa to avoid such friction and to avoid economic losses resulting therefrom?

I could go on quoting, but here from the ranks of the United Party we have this speech on our policy of apartheid, the sort of speech which I myself might have delivered on a public platform at Somerset East, in which the hon. member says that we cannot allow this influx into our White areas to continue unchecked, that these people must not have the freedom to live wherever they, like, but that there should be demarcated areas for the various races. This United Party member says this because he knows and realizes that that is what the White voters of this country demand. This United Party member is a man who occupies a very responsible position in the United Party. It is none other than the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). I notice that the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) is looking at me covertly. He himself is ashamed of the fact that they come forward in this House sometimes with proposals in connection with which they opposed us tooth and nail on other occasions. The hon. member shakes his head. I wish he would tell me what is really the attitude of the United Party. Is it the attitude which was announced here on 17 February of this year by the hon. member for Yeoville, or is it the attitude which has been stated by the United Party in this debate? Can the hon. member tell me which one it is? No, the hon. member does not want to tell me now. I trust that he will tell me at a later stage which of the two is really their policy. But the point I want to make is that the United Party is just as aware of the fact as we are that the electorate of South Africa is determined to keep White this White area of South Africa, this White man’s land, if I may put it that way, and to that end the electorate is prepared to make every sacrifice. In the policy of the National Party the electorate sees the last bastion of the White man, and that view is held not only by the electorate of the Union of South Africa; the whole of Africa regards South Africa as the last bastion of White civilization. As I have said, the electorate sees this policy of the National Party as the last bastion of the White man and to that end they are prepared, against their wishes and with a feeling of regret and sorrow, to sacrifice membership of the Commonwealth; to that end they are prepared to endure abuse from their friends. They are sorry about it, but White South Africa is not going to allow the future of the White man to be speculated with; hence the tremendous reaction that we have had in the past two weeks from people outside the ranks of the National Party, people outside the ranks of the Afrikaans-speaking section of the nation, people who are prepared to give us their support, who are prepared to give Dr. Verwoerd every support in the future because in the policy of the National Party, in the establishment of the republic, they see the preservation of White South Africa.

*Mr. M. C. VAN NIEKERK:

I should like to associate myself wholeheartedly with the remarks of the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) who has just sat down. He has once again and for the umpteenth time set out the policy of this side of the House in a discerning way, and as far as I am concerned, I do not believe that at this stage any new light can be thrown on the policy of this side of the House and the policy of the other side of the House. I do not consider it necessary therefore to set out our policy again but I want to say at once that I believe that every member in this House fully appreciates the seriousness of our withdrawal from the Commonwealth after the establishment of the republic. I do not want to accuse the United Party of being frivolous and of not appreciating the seriousness of this matter but listening to their statements here that is the only conclusion to which one can come. But we cannot help differing radically from the attitude of the two Opposition parties in these days of crisis in which the survival of the Whites, English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking, is at stake. I just want to say to hon. members on that side who want to frighten us with all sorts of stories as to what will happen in the future unless we change our policy, that if we are chopped to pieces and roasted, as happened to the nun in East London, they will share that fate with us. I say therefore that these accusations which are being made here that we are responsible and will be responsible for such a threat in the future, are devoid of all substance. I want to express my appreciation here of the great honour which our Prime Minister has earned for South Africa, in spite of the disparaging and insulting way in which the Opposition referred to him here. He has earned great honour and fame for South Africa and in particular for this side of the House which has loyally stood by him in this struggle on behalf of our beloved South Africa. Sir, I have travelled a long road—I say this just in passing—and I go as far back as the year 1914. I know what happened in our country. There was fraternal discord, there was war, there were compounds and prisons and forts and internment camps and humiliation for the Afrikaner. Once again we are faced with a crisis, a River Jordan which our nation has to cross, and we are certainly not going to commit suicide. We prefer, if it should come to that, to die honourably. We as a nation have a proud history and, if it is necessary to do so, we would rather die honourably, in a way which is fit and proper having regard to our proud history of 300 years in this country. Our hon. Prime Minister, at the Prime Ministers’ Conference, adopted an attitude which inspired all of us on this side of the House and outside. We want to give him the assurance that we are not going to allow ourselves to be frightened by this scare-mongering on the part of the Opposition. I want to add that never in our history has it been more necessary for the two main White population groups—and I should like to include all other White groups of the population —to stand together than it is to-day. Members who try in this House to drive a wedge between the White population groups and who try to cause ill-feeling and bitterness are, in my opinion, making themselves guilty of treason. I have already said that what will happen to the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population will also happen to the English-speaking section of the population, and that is why we should be loyal to one another. We should bury the past; we should try to forget the past, however difficult it may be for us on this side, particularly when we have to listen day after day to the political speeches of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell). We also have wounds that we are still licking; we are still struggling to heal those wounds, but we are prepared to bury the past and to shake hands in view of this threat which hangs over all of us like a black cloud. I should like to read out a telegram that I received from a voter in my constituency. The person who sent this telegram is one of the most respected United Party supporters in the Lichtenburg constituency. He is well known for it amongst his friends in the whole district. He is well-known in organized agriculture and in politics, and in the Lichtenburg constituency he is one of the spiritual fathers of the United Party, but he expresses his convictions in such a way that we have always remained friends throughout the years. A few days ago I received the following telegram from him—

Notwithstanding our having to leave the Commonwealth I, an English-speaking but fully bilingual South African who voted against the republic, take off my hat to Dr. Verwoerd. Please convey my appreciation to him for the patriotic stand he has taken in the interests of White South Africa at the recent Prime Ministers’ Conference.

The telegram is signed “ Vardy ”. I shall hand it in so that there can be no doubt as to the contents of this telegram. Mr. Speaker, there we have the spirit which South Africa needs to-day, and I want to say this to the United Party and particularly to the hon. member for South Coast. I am pleased that he has now returned to his seat. I asked one of his Whips to inform him that I proposed to attack him here this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, if national unity and nation-building in South Africa were to be dependent upon the hon. member over there, I make bold to say this afternoon that national unity would be doomed for all time. He is the greatest instigator, the greatest political deceiver to whom I have ever had to listen in my life.

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member cannot refer to another hon. member as an instigator. He must withdraw that.

*Mr. M. C. VAN NIEKERK:

May I use the word “ opruier ” (inciter)?

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

No.

*Mr. M. C. VAN NIEKERK:

Then I substitute the word “ opruier ”.

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to do that; he must withdraw that word.

*Mr. M. C. VAN NIEKERK:

Then I withdraw it but I say that he is inciting them.

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

*Mr. M. C. VAN NIEKERK:

I bow to your ruling.

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

The hon. member must withdraw the word “ opsweep ” (incite) unconditionally.

*Mr. M. C. VAN NIEKERK:

I withdraw it unconditionally. I say again that my experience in politics covers a long period and I have witnessed all the political crises in this country since 1914 and throughout this time I have never had to listen to greater irresponsibility and greater recklessness than that revealed here by the hon. member for South Coast—and then he still speaks in his capacity as provincial leader of a political party. I want to say to the hon. member that this “ Natal stand ” with which he continually provokes us here ad nauseam, is shameful. It is more than human tolerance can bear. The time has arrived for the hon. member to bear in mind that we also have a “ stand ”. I have a “ stand ” in Lichtenburg which does not stand back one inch for the “ Natal stand ”. What does the hon. member really achieve with the hullabaloo which he raises here and with this tirade and with the disparaging way in which he talks about the hon. the Prime Minister, about the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population, and about our spiritual possessions which are sacred to us as a nation? He ought to ask himself whether in doing this sort of thing he makes any contribution to the building up of our nation and to national unity which is absolutely necessary in this country? There are many other things which are necessary and essential in our country, but what stands out above everything else, now that we as a nation are standing with our backs to the wall, is the necessity to stop making this type of reproach. In earlier debates here we had to listen to talk about a rebellion; we had to listen here to expressions such as “ go and be damned”, and during the week-end we had to read in the newspapers about “ shooting them out if the Government cannot be voted out”. Mr. Speaker, it is scandalous for a member of this House to make such statements, particularly in the days in which we are living —and I say that with all the emphasis and with all the seriousness at my command.

Mr. TUCKER:

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to misquote the hon. member for South Coast here? Because what he has just said is in conflict with what the hon. member did say.

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

The hon. member may proceed.

*Mr. M. C. VAN NIEKERK:

I repeat what I have said. At this meeting a questioner asked the hon. member, “ Did you say ‘ shoot them out’?” and he replied, “Don’t tempt me ”. What other inference can one draw from that? The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) himself, if he wants to be fair, cannot draw any other inference from it. As I have already said we need each other and we must be tolerant instead of using this inflammatory language.

I leave the hon. member. Mr. Speaker, there are certain members on that side of the House to whom I give full credit for their good intentions and sincerity towards our country and people, in spite of the differences between us as far as policy is concerned. The history of a nation is the map and the compass of national tolerance, particularly in the times in which we are living to-day. I conclude with this quotation: This is not the first time that our little nation is enduring hardship in loneliness; we shall survive these things. We know our history and we draw our strength from it. We know that we have often been steeled and that we have endured hardships, but on every occasion we have come out of the struggle with our steel more finely tempered, and in this case too, although the future looks dark, the Afrikaner will come out of this struggle, but then Mitchells and the Raws will not be with us.

I want to confine myself now to statements that were made here by hon. members of the Opposition in the course of debates on motions introduced during private members’ days. Sir, these private members’ days, in my opinion, are really a farce in this House; they are only used to make political propaganda. Here and there we do get a motion which is an exception, such as the motion of the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) about soil fertility, for example, but all we regard about soil fertility in the whole of that debate came from the lips of the mover of the motion himself and for the rest the Government was simply attacked, criticized and accused. In my opinion therefore these private members’ days do not serve the purpose at all for which they were originally introduced.

I want to come back now to the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk). I am sorry that she is not in her seat. I asked her to be here, if possible, but she informed me that she could not be present. The hon. member shines out in the United Party in the first place as the member who makes all sorts of accusations against the Government, and in the second place she talks in the most disparaging way about our farmers. I have received letters in which I have been requested by constituents of mine to take exception to the stories that she propagates in this House. Let me deal first with the allegations that were made here during the debate on a private members’ day. The hon. members for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) and Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) did the same thing and I am sorry that they are not here at the moment. The allegation was made here that the farmers were all bankrupt. One of the greatest insults that one can offer a farmer is to tell him that he is bankrupt, and it was stated here in clear language, and confirmed by the hon. member for Drakensberg, that £120,000,000 had had to be spent in order to save the farmers from complete ruin and bankruptcy. That statement is devoid of all truth and I propose to prove it. I want to say that if the Drakensberg farmers are bankrupt— I do not believe it—then the hon. member dare not say it about the farmers of Lichtenburg, and she dare not say it either about the farmers of the rest of the country. I do not believe that the financial position of the farmers in the Drakensberg constituency is as bad as she suggests. As far as the second accusation against the Government is concerned, namely that the Government is allegedly not doing enough for the farmers, I am prepared to say that there has never been a government which has done as much for the farmers as the present Government. I just want to refer briefly to the various schemes under which farmers can obtain assistance. In every sphere there is some sort of scheme to assist the farmer, and the Government is always prepared to assist the farmer, but in spite of that the accusation is made against the Government that it is not sufficiently sympathetic and that it is not assisting the farmers. In the first place there is the amended Land Bank Act. I had the privilege of dubbing that Act the “ Dönges Act ”. Under the old Land Bank Act, the farmer could get a loan up to two-thirds of the value of the farm that he wished to buy. Under this amended Act that assistance was extended to four-fifths of the valuation of the purchase. But I want to go further and mention a large number, a whole series of other schemes: mortgage loans, advances to co-operative societies, crop loan schemes, loans to farmers who have to contend with foot and mouth disease, consolidation of debts, assistance through the Farmers’ Assistance Board, the grass leys scheme, subsidies for boreholes under the soil conservation scheme, as well as for inner camps, dams, fodder loans; transportation of stock by the Railways from drought-stricken districts; the carting of water and fodder by the Department of Defence to help the farmers to have their stock; the provision of insecticides for the combating of insect plagues. I have here a list of 38 schemes under which the farmer can be assisted by the State under various circumstances. Never before have so many facilities been made available to assist farmers who are in distress, whether they have got into difficulties through the freaks of nature, which no party or Government can prevent, or through any other cause. We are grateful to learn of the rain which has now fallen in these dry areas. We rejoice with those people who have been given relief, but the Government has always been ready during this period of emergency to come to their assistance. Where does this story come from that all the farmers are bankrupt, and in the second place that the Government is unsympathetic and not giving them sufficient assistance? Where assistance was needed, it was made available 101 per cent by the Government. I want to tell the United Party that this story of theirs will cost them many votes, many more than they think. The farmers cannot support a party which comes along in this House with the story that they are all bankrupt. After all, that is not the truth. I take my own constituency as the barometer. I had one farmer whose financial position became so difficult that I had to obtain support for him through the Farmers’ Assistance Board. How can people say here in public that all the farmers in South Africa are bankrupt? Surely that is the greatest insult that can be offered to the farmer.

*Mr. MILLER:

Who said that?

*Mr. M. C. VAN NIEKERK:

The hon. member for Drakensberg said so.

*Mr. H. G. SWART:

Read it out.

*Mr. M. C. VAN NIEKERK:

Let the hon. member read the Hansard report if he does not believe me. I challenge the United Party to tell us why they have no representatives of the platteland in this House. The farmers have pushed them out. They are now trying to curry favour with the farmers by saying that they are bankrupt which is a gross insult to the farming community. There we have a good Free State farmer on the Opposition benches. Where is his constituency? In Florida. The Free State has no room for him. Then there is the hon. member for Sea Point. I understand that he is a good farmer, but his constituency is Sea Point. That is the barometer. And as long as the United Party continue with this nonsense and try to make capital out of the position of the farmers, so long they will simply be acting as organizers for the National Party and for this Government. I want to ask the United Party to carry on with these stories. The farmers know what the truth is. I say that the financial position of the farmers in South Africa is as good as it has ever been before, and I think I know just as much about these matters as any hon. member on the other side. This telegram that I received is a barometer of the feeling of United Party supporters in the Lichtenburg constituency, and I invite any member of the United Party to come and pay me a visit and he can then find out whether the position differs in any way from what I have outlined here. But if the hon. member for South Coast comes to Lichtenburg, he will go back tarred and feathered to his “ Natal stand ”.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. M. C. van Niekerk) will forgive me if I do not deal with what he has said in detail, not because I wish to insult or ignore him, but because he has dealt with matters with which I do not propose to deal at this stage. However, I want to refer to two points which he has raised, particularly the last one, when he alleged that the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) had said that all the farmers were bankrupt. As far as I know, neither Mrs. van Niekerk nor I am bankrupt. She, of course, never made such an irresponsible statement that all the farmers were bankrupt. If the farmers are as prosperous as the hon. member said they were, why the 14 assistance schemes that he mentioned? If the farmers are financially in such a sound position, why should there be assistance schemes?

Right at the outset I wish to thank the hon. member for having admitted one fact, namely, that South Africa was going through a crisis at the present time. Some hon. member on the other side of the House accused this side of the House of treating the crisis in which South Africa finds herself to-day in a lighthearted manner. I reject that. Personally, I feel that South Africa is to-day in such a critical position that it would be wrong on our part if we did not approach the position with the greatest sense of responsibility. But that, however, does not deprive us of the right to criticize and, if necessary, condemn the actions of the Government. You cannot deprive us of that right. And we will do so.

Judging from the speeches which we have had from that side of the House during the last few days, it seems to me that my friends do not wish to discuss the actual state of affairs and face up to the position. In other words, I accuse them of running away from the real position which has arisen as a result of what had happened at London. One hon. member on the Government side practically went so far the other day as to say that we, on this side of the House, were responsible for the critical position in which South Africa finds herself to-day, and at its best, we were told by another hon. member on that side that the United Party was responsible for it. Why must we look for whipping boys. Sir? There they sit on the other side, with their leader. Dr. Verwoerd, the Prime Minister. The whipping boys are there. We are not looking for whipping boys. We have them in front of us; we need not look for them. That is the aspect that I want to discuss. It does not benefit us, and it is irrelevant to fling accusations at one another across the floor of the House, or to contradict what the Prime Minister had said overseas or what other Prime Ministers had said. That is not relevant. What is relevant is this: What is the cause of the predicament in which South Africa finds herself to-day? We cannot get away from one fact (to use the words of the hon. member for Mossel Bay)—and this is as clear as a pikestaff—that, apart from the British bulldog which the hon. the Prime Minister has brought to our country, he has for the rest returned empty-handed to South Africa. He has failed in his mission. He has failed to carry out the mandate given to him by the people to remain within the Commonwealth and to ensure that South Africa does not leave the Commonwealth. He has failed tragically, fatally, and, if we are not careful, this may have serious consequences for South Africa. These are the matters that we want to discuss, namely, the serious consequences of his mission, one of which may be that South Africa will be forced into isolation, isolation not only in respect of UNO, not only as far as the other nations of the world generally are concerned, but isolation also as far as our friends in the Commonwealth of Nations are concerned. The fact that the hon. the Prime Minister has failed in his attempt to keep South Africa within the Commonwealth, also means that he has failed to honour his word to our English-speaking fellow-citizens. You will remember, Sir, that he told them that the Nationalist Party wanted to make sacrifices, but that they, too, would have to make sacrifices. It was on that basis that he went on and said: “ I will see to it that we remain within the Commonwealth.”

*Mr. VAN RENSBURG:

But that is not true. He never said that.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

It is so. I am coming to that. Since the day when the question of a republic first cropped up in South Africa, years ago, and also during the referendum campaign, particularly when the referendum was announced, we on this side of the House issued the warning. Not only did we warn the Prime Minister, but we warned South Africa and especially the Nationalist Party that if we succeeded in getting what was probably very dear to us, also to me, namely a republic, we might be placing South Africa in a risky and dangerous position; that as a result of getting something which could not give us more freedom than we already had, more freedom than we have had during the past 30, 40 years, it might result in our losing some of our friends and we might find ourselves outside the Commonwealth. That is precisely what has happened. We also said that the actions of the Prime Minister and of the Nationalist Party may lead to it that South Africa finds herself outside her circle of friends, such as Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which may have serious consequences for South Africa. We also referred to the procedure that would be followed at the Conference (if South Africa should decide to change her form of Government. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that we said that a certain procedure would be followed if South Africa became a republic. You will remember that we said that the moment South Africa did so, her membership of the Commonwealth would automatically be terminated, and that she would therefore be outside and you will remember, Sir, as opposed to that what the attitude of the Nationalist Party was; you will remember, Sir, that the Nationalist Party machinery, the members and the leaders of the Nationalist Party ridiculed our attitude. They said that we in the United Party did not know what we were talking about when we said that the moment we changed our form of government, we would have to re-apply for membership because that had become a convention. That attitude was ridiculed.

I do not want to quote from “ Statebonds-verhoudinge ” which was issued by the Nationalist Party during the referendum campaign because I have sufficient other material. I have enough material to quote from, but I do want to quote from a few speeches of leaders of the party opposite. In the first instance I refer to the Chief Whip of the Nationalist Party, the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter). When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the following in a speech—

…it may do hon. members opposite well to remember that some of our severest critics are amongst those to be consulted.

the hon. member for Brits interjected—(Hansard Col. 5891, I960)—

It is just a formal matter.
*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

May I give a personal explanation?

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

No. Then I come to the hon. the Minister of Finance (Col. 5902)—

The whole of the National Party is united in its attitude that there shall be one test only when the republican issue is put to the electorate… At that stage the test will be what is in the true interests of South Africa … The Prime Minister has stated perfectly clearly on this point that before any voter in South Africa will be asked to vote, he will have certainty on this question as to whether the republic is or is not to be a member of the Commonwealth.

He went on to say this (Col. 5904)—

To-day it can be regarded as a sort of convention of the constitution of the Commonwealth.

In other words, the whole matter was, according to the hon. the Minister of Finance, a mere formality. He went on to say—

The unwritten constitution of the Commonwealth contains certain traditions and customs. As far as membership of the Commonwealth is concerned the custom was established in 1949 that a member of the Commonwealth asked whether he could remain a member when he became a republic. It is customary not to refuse permission in such a case (the Burger, 3 April 1960).

The Minister went on to say this—

Nor is there any question that South Africa will have to apply for re-admission to the Commonwealth because South Africa has never ceased to be a member of the Commonwealth (the Burger, 25 July 1960).

At a republican meeting at Zastron the hon. the Minister of Finance explained the type of republic the Nationalist Party was guaranteeing and he said, inter alia

The republic will be a member of the Commonwealth. That is what the republicans want (Die Burger, 1 August 1960).

He went on—

Apart from that, Lord Home had said that everybody should now do his best to keep South Africa within the Commonwealth (Die Burger, 26 September 1960).

On another occasion the Minister said—

South Africa could not be expelled from the Commonwealth and she would be just as well off economically as a republic (The Cape Argus, 10 September 1960). The referendum was not a party issue. It was a vote for South African national unity.

In reply to a question he said—

We cannot lose our place in the Commonwealth because all the precedents are against it (The Cape Argus, 26 September 1960).

What a good prophet he proved to be!

I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Justice is not here. In order to convince his audience how impossible it would be to kick us out of the Commonwealth, Mr. Erasmus said—

If South Africa as a republic were expelled from the Commonwealth, as the monarchists predict, it would be the duty of the Chairman, the British Prime Minister, to do so. He alone makes the final decision (the Burger, 29 September 1960).

What a display of knowledge, Sir! Then he goes on—

Both the Prime Minister and Lord Home have stated openly what the position will be, namely that they would do their best to see that South Africa remains a full member. As far as we are concerned …

Mr. Speaker, this is priceless! —

… their best is good enough to ensure that a South African republic will remain inside the Commonwealth (Cape Times, 29 September 1960).

I now come to Minister Sauer, the Leader of the House. It is a pity that he is not here and we hope that he will soon recover and be back with us—

The Union was a member of the Commonwealth and therefore did not have to re-apply for membership. If she became a republic, she simply had to notify the Commonwealth that she had become one (the Cape Argus, 13 September 1960).

Mr. Sauer at Somerset West—

… gave the assurance that the republic would remain a member of the Commonwealth (Cape Times, 9 September 1960).

A last one—

The anti-republicans say that if we become a republic we must re-apply for membership. That is not the case. There is no machinery for putting anyone out of the Commonwealth, except a substantive motion to the effect that membership should cease. If such a motion is vetoed it falls away. And we have enough friends in the Commonwealth to veto any such motion by Ghana or Malaya (Cape Times, 9 September 1960).

That was the Minister of Lands. That shows you, Sir, how the people of South Africa were misled and deceived as far as this matter is concerned, how they were led up the garden path by the Nationalist Party machine, by the Nationalist Party leaders opposite and by other party leaders opposite. In addition to that they called in the help of the radio in a disgraceful manner. The radio was mis-used for party political purposes to allow this propaganda, which was completely incorrect, to filter through to the people of South Africa. The fact remains, however, that the United Party was right and the Nationalist Party completely wrong, that South Africa finds herself in the wilderness to-day, that Dr. Verwoerd has completely and tragically failed as far as this matter is concerned, and that South Africa is on the road to isolation. The responsibility for this rests not only on the shoulders of the Nationalist Party, but it rests particularly on the shoulders of the hon. the Prime Minister.

But we went further. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, how we warned our friends against this kind of apartheid, how we warned them against certain actions, particularly in connection with their apartheid policy. You will remember how we pointed out to them what effects their apartheid policy would have, not only on our own indigenous Native and non-White populations in general, but also on the rest of the world. Mr. Speaker, we cannot expect the rest of the world, which has been criticizing us for the past 300 years, to ignore legislation such as the Representation of Voters’ Act. We cannot expect the rest of the world, and less so our own non-Whites, to understand why the Coloured people have been deprived of their vote and that in order to do that we had to resort to such immoral measures as a High Court of Parliament and an enlarged Senate.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member cannot speak about “ immoral measures ”.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker. We cannot expect the rest of the world to understand the methods, the drastic methods, that are employed in implementing the Group Areas Act.

*Mr. GROBLER:

There are many other things which they do not understand either.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

This is the first occasion that I have heard a Minister of religion allowing a member of his congregation to interrupt him when he is speaking! Otherwise he would not have done so to-day. We cannot expect the rest of the world to understand why the Union Government has taken the step of abolishing the political rights of the Bantu without giving them something in return. The rest of the world simply cannot understand that. They cannot understand, and I have experience of this, how a Government can have the banning laws which we have, under which a man has no right to go to court or to note an appeal before he has already been sent away. They simply cannot understand how any nation in the world can have a Church clause amongst its laws. Those are things that they cannot understand. The result has been that not only have we lost the confidence of our indigeneous non-White population, but we have lost the friendship and confidence of our friends and other people overseas.

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

Which friends have we lost?

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

We have lost the friendship of the whole world. We haven’t a friend left.

Last week the voting at UNO was 79/0, 74/0 and 78/0 and the hon. member asks me that stupid question!

When the United Party criticized the apartheid policy and drew attention to its consequences the other side of the House said, “You are negrophilists; do you wish your daughters to marry Niggers?” and “We shall not give way.” Never as yet has any suggestion put forward by this side of the House in connection with this serious matter, been accepted. And then they tell us that we are co-responsible! Now they say: Please, help us, stand by us. Mr. Speaker we have no option. We will stand by the people of South Africa. But we are entitled to condemn and to criticize the people who are responsible for the position in which we find ourselves to-day. As I have said, the result is that South Africa stands alone to-day. It is impossible for the hon. the Prime Minister to give way! He simply has to push ahead, no matter what happens! He simply cannot give way! He dare not give way, he dare not compromise! He finds himself on the back of a tiger and he dare not get off! In doing that he is marching to his doom, taking with him the United Party, the whole of South Africa, particularly the White section.

Nobody can deny that the hon. the Prime Minister—and for the sake of South Africa—I am very sorry about this—has committed two great blunders, when he agreed that our internal policy could be discussed at the Conference. What made him do that? He said he did so on the advice of Mr. Macmillan.

An HON. MEMBER:

Members opposite said he must do it.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

What nonsense to say that we on this side of the House asked that our domestic affairs should be discussed at the Conference. The same attempt was made two years ago at the Prime Ministers’ Conference at Canberra. On that occasion the South African representatives took a firm stand and did not allow it. They refused to allow it. And here our Prime Minister allowed a discussion—to please Mr. Macmillan!

*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

You will get a reply to-morrow.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

To please, Mr. Macmillan he has sent South Africa into the wilderness! That is what he has done. But he goes further. He walks out because he says we will embarrass the Commonwealth! Imagine, Sir, he does not wish to embarrass the Commonwealth, Ghana, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Malaya and the West Indies, but he embarrasses South Africa! No, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but here we have to criticize the hon. the Prime Minister severely for the unfortunate and tragic attitude he adopted. That is something which I cannot understand.

After he had failed the Prime Minister returned. He had a mandate from the entire nation of South Africa, Black and White, to remain within the Commonwealth. We are out of it but he returns very pleased with himself; he is pleased that we are out, why? I quote from a report on his arrival in Cape Town which appeared in the Burger of 21 March 1961—

He (Dr. Verwoerd) said that he and Mr. Louw were not returning as people who had suffered a defeat. In reality it is a happy day for South Africa. What happened was nothing less than a miracle. So many nations only acquire perfect freedom after the use of force. We achieved it by a miracle which we did not expect. South Africa is out of the Commonwealth (Cheers). She is standing on her own feet (Cheers).

Mr. Speaker, I now want to ask questions. I suppose the hon. the Prime Minister is engaged somewhere else and I hope the Chief Whip of the Nationalist Party will respectfully convey these questions to him.

*An HON. MEMBER:

He will reply tomorrow.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

Yes, that is why I am asking the Chief Whip to convey the questions to him. What did the hon. the Prime Minister mean with that speech?

*Mr. J. F. KOTZE:

Only good.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

The second question: How does the Prime Minister convert a defeat into a victory? Third question: In what way is this tragic failure of his mission a happy day, after he had failed to carry out the task which he had to? After he has failed to carry out his mandate, he says it is a happy day! Fourth: In what way is a miserable failure a miracle? Fifth question: In what way is it a miracle? We know Providence performs miracles. Sixth question: In what way does the fact that we are out of the Commonwealth mean greater freedom? I thought South Africa had been free since 1934. As far as I know South Africa has in no way since then been subordinate to anyone or any other country in the world. Now we are told that South Africa has attained her freedom! Why was a salute of 21 guns sounded after he had failed hopelessly? Mr. Speaker, what made that gathering, which included the Minister of Finance, cheer?

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

He said it had been a failure.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

Yes, but he was probably one of those who cheered. It is also his newspaper who reported that gathering. What gave rise to it? We on this side demand satisfactory replies to these questions. Otherwise we are entitled to be suspicious, as I said somewhere else, and to conclude that our hon. friends opposite were not sincere when they said that they too wanted to remain within the Commonwealth; that the hon. the Prime Minister was not sincere when he stated that he wanted to remain within the Commonwealth. I do not want to go as far as my hon. friend over there who talked about treason!

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

We did not talk about that; it was the hon. member for South Coast.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

No, it was done this afternoon. I sincerely hope and trust that the hon. the Prime Minister will reply effectively to these questions.

Mr. Speaker, South Africa is still within the Commonwealth; we are not out of it as yet. We have till 31 May. There is still hope. But now we will have to give way; we shall have to bend the knee slightly; we will have to make a small concession, we will have to say to ourselves: If we take it to the third reading, and if we finally declare South Africa a republic, we are doing so with our eyes open, in the ful knowledge that South Africa will be out of the Commonwealth. I now ask my hon. friends this in all seriousness, as a South African and Afrikaner: Let us give ourselves a chance; let us postpone it for a while. Let us give each other an opportunity to understand each other. My hon. friends also seek co-operation.

*Dr. MULDER:

Postponing will lead us nowhere.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

They too ask that we should stand together. Come, let us wait for a while, so that it may perhaps be possible for a Mitchell and a De Wet, for example, to come together, so that we may reach a stage where we can act jointly and introduce a policy in South Africa which will be to the benefit of South Africa as a whole and not only to one section. That is the reason why we are asking this. But if my hon. friends do not want to do that, then I together with my leader ask the South African nation with all respect and in all earnestness, to give us a Government that will be prepared to work in the interests of South Africa as well, that will give way when necessary, that will be more flexible in its actions and which will in its approach to its own citizens, particularly the non-Whites, a spirit of greater kindliness. The Government which we should like to have is the one that will be willing in a critical time like the present, to seek the co-operation of everybody who can possibly help us out of the precarious position in which we find ourselves, irrespective of his political convictions. Mr. Speaker, we have to act in such a manner within the short space of time at our disposal, that the agitation against South Africa in the world will die down completely, that the agitation against the White man in South Africa will die down immediately; we must act in such a manner that we will regain and retain the goodwill of those friends of ours, friends like Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

*The MINISTER OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) will forgive me if I do not deal with his speech, firstly because I have not the time and secondly because I know that other hon. members on this side of the House will deal with him. I want to draw the attention of the House to a different matter to-day, viz. the following. When reading between the lines of the reports appearing in different parts of the world about South Africa, it seems to me that a new idea is emanating from the minds of thinking people to-day. It is the idea that the policy of separate development of the non-Whites in South Africa is not a passing political whim, but a permanent and deep-rooted philosophy on the part of the White man. This philosophy is so deep-rooted that even the most splendid promises and the most serious threats will not make the White man discard that philosophy. In the past, and again recently, we have been accused of being obstinate and inflexible. People cannot realize why South Africa does not want to abandon this idea, when all our problems would be solved! Then we would be happy. This obstinacy, or rather as we prefer to call it, this steadfastness, has always been regarded as our biggest sin, as the hon. member opposite has now called it. If only we were a little more flexible in our policy! But it appears to me, when I read between the lines of these reports, that this argument which has always been used against us is now becoming an argument in our favour on the part of thinking people. People are beginning to ask themselves why South Africa adopts this attitude, why we are so inflexible and so steadfast? Just see what they have to endure for the sake of their steadfastness. They have the world Press against them. In UNO they must often fight a lonely battle. They have gained the enmity of the Asian states and this and many other things they have to endure. In addition, there is now the membership of the Commonwealth. As against that, people in the outside world have in the meantime become better acquainted with the White people in this country. They have met several of our Prime Ministers and were deeply impressed by the character of those people. They have learned to know our White people in the sphere of art and culture, science and technology, in which as a young nation we have achieved much. They have learned to know us on the sporting-fields, and they have learned to know us in numbers of spheres. These people have seen that the White South Africans are decent people, that they are not barbarians or oppressors but people of integrity and of sound morals. These people are to-day beginning to ask themselves how it is that such people can adopt such a racial policy and why they cling so tightly to that policy, in spite of the tremendous pressure being exerted on them, and in spite of the sacrifices it demands. Surely there must be a reason. Some thinking people are now beginning to realize that there must be something in our policy of separate development and segregation and that it is not just a political whim. They are beginning to realize that it is a deep-rooted philosophy. We cling to it because we sincerely believe in our hearts that our continued existence as a civilized Western nation depends on it and that this continued existence itself is a moral concept. That is why it is bound up with a sense of justice of other peoples. If we want to enjoy the favours of the world and the benefits it brings us, if we look for popularity, we can get it by throwing overboard this policy, but our joy will be of short duration because we ourselves will go under. Mr. Speaker, we are not concerned with trying to become popular with other nations. We are not concerned with agreeing with them or being on a “ hail fellow well met ” basis with them, but we are concerned with the existence of our nation. That is what counts most with any nation and also with those nations which oppose us.

Some people think this policy will not succeed. Mr. Menzies said something of the kind. That may be so. We believe that this course, correctly interpreted, has a much better chance of success than that other one which in any case will certainly lead to our doom. Others accuse us of standing alone, we are out of step with the rest of the world. I want to say here categorically that we have many more friends in the rest of the world than certain sections of the Press want to admit. Even though we should be out of step, it is essentially our existence and our lives which are affected, and not those of other nations. Surely it can be left to us, seeing that it affects our continued existence, to decide which course to adopt in future, because our circumstances are completely different from those of other nations and because the precepts which may suit them do not suit us in our unique position. Mr. Speaker, I believe and see that thinking people to-day are beginning to understand this standpoint increasingly, just because we cling to it so tenaciously, just because we do not give way in spite of all the pressure being brought to bear on us. Because we believe in it so firmly, others are also beginning to believe in it. What was always an argument to be used against us is now becoming an argument in our favour. Therefore we should particularly at this time stand more firmly than ever before, and any weakness at this time will be most dangerous. That also applies to the recent Commonwealth Conference.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister was not faced with the choice of being in or outside the Commonwealth. He had to choose between our continued existence or our doom as a White nation. He had to choose between the Afro-Asian policy and our traditional policy of separation in South Africa. That and that alone was the choice. It was not obstinacy. It was a decision in regard to our continued existence. That is how we see it as South Africans and also how a large part of the world sees it.

Then I come to the Commonwealth. Even to the hon. member who has just sat down it must be clear that this Commonwealth is not the same as it was before. The Commonwealth presupposes that there are things in common. The Commonwealth surely is a group of nations which actually have something in common. It is a group of nations which emphasizes those things which they have in common, and not the differences, and which does not interfere in domestic matters. What have we had? In this so-called Commonwealth we found the countries which in recent time have been our most strenuous opponents, countries which organized boycotts against us to a greater extent than any other countries outside the Commonwealth, countries which threatened to incite riots in our midst, which even threatened us with military power, countries which sought to free their policies on us, countries which were not free from communist inspiration. No longer is that a Commonwealth to us. With the older countries of the Commonwealth we still intend to co-operate, but we have nothing in common with the majority of these Commonwealth countries. The clash we have had would inevitably have had to come sooner or later.

Now, in the economic sphere and also for our eventual economic future—for the future of South Africa in that sphere not only now but in the years that lie ahead—our future as we see it depends on the White man retaining control in his hands. The cardinal question in the minds of investors here and abroad to-day is whether the White man in South Africa will keep the reins in his hands. If they are afraid that this will not happen nobody will regard South Africa as a safe country in future. If the Whites here should relinquish control, which is what the Afro-Asian members of the Commonwealth desire, then there is no economic future for South Africa. Therefore the decision taken by the Prime Minister is also the best one they could have taken with a view to our future economic position.

Now I want to turn to something more practical. I want to deal with the actual trade relations as they are now and as they will be in future. The question of the actual future we now foresee for South Africa in the economic sphere is this. In the first place, in regard to our trade with Britain and other Commonwealth countries, we can only repeat what we said at the time of the referendum, that we believe that if South Africa were to leave the Commonwealth, the bilateral trade agreements would be continued. We have bilateral trade agreements with the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand. The attitude we adopted then was confirmed by an important body like the Chamber of Commerce, which also said that these agreements would remain in existence. The Federated Chambers of Industries even went so far as to say that if South Africa were to be outside the Commonwealth and lose these preferences it would perhaps be to her advantage.

Now I just want to point out, in regard to the present position, that if hon. members have read what was stated recently both by the Governments of Britain and Canada, they would have noticed the following. The British Government, as represented by the Prime Minister, said—

Then there is the question of preferential arrangements which affect trade both ways. These are governed by bilateral agreements concluded after the Ottawa Conference in 1932 and will be unaffected by South Africa’s changed status. I am informed that the maintenance of these preferential arrangements is not affected by our obligations under G.A.T.T. There are other fields where we have co-operated with successive South African Governments and if both our Government regard it as mutually advantageous and if it is found that it is compatible with South Africa’s non-membership of the Commonwealth, I have no doubt this cooperation can and will be continued.
*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

May I put a question?

*The MINISTER OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS:

No, excuse me, but my time is limited. I may also refer to the statement made by the Minister of Commonwealth Relations and the Minister of State, who is the Chairman of the Board of Trade. They expressed the same sentiments, that these trade agreements would be continued, I can also refer briefly to what happened in Canada. Through the kindness of the Canadian High Commissioner I obtained the words of the relevant Minister in Canada—

Fact is that there is a bilateral trade agreement, as I have indicated earlier yesterday, between Canada and South Africa, signed in 1932, following the Imperial Economic Conference, and that the agreement provides for guarantees on rates of duties and in some instances margins of preference for specific products. The agreement extended initially for five years, and after that date was terminable on six months’ notice by either party. There is no clause in the agreement which states that preferential treatment ends with the withdrawal of either party from the Commonwealth. The agreement is still in existence and hon. members may be interested to learn that Canada sells more goods to South Africa than we buy from them.

So I can continue quoting also from newspapers in order to point out that those countries intend that trade should continue as before. Certain problems of detail will arise. We accept that. That is why the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom said that a “ standstill ” Act would be passed by Parliament, which would be in force for about a year, and which would then give us the time further to investigate all the details in connection with the matter and to iron out the difficulties.

I just want to say a word about sugar. In so far as any problems exist in connection with our sugar agreements, they will have to be investigated during that time also. In the meantime I can say this. The sugar agreement is to some extent a compensation by the British Government to our sugar producers for what they did in World War II, when they delivered sugar to Britain far below the world price. Secondly, the sugar agreement is not one between the British Government and the South African Government, but an agreement between the British Government and the sugar producers. It is more or less on the same footing with the agreement the South African Government has with the Union-Castle Line. We consider that our becoming a republic will not affect it in the least, because here we have an agreement between the British Government and the sugar producers. Thirdly, this agreement was entered into again recently for a period of eight years. It is valid for at least another eight years.

Now there are hon. members who say that the other members of the Commonwealth do not allow Britain to grant preferences to South Africa to which only Commonwealth countries are said to be entitled. My reply to that is: Firstly, Britain is a sovereign state and I cannot imagine that it would allow other Commonwealth countries to prescribe to it how and with whom and on what conditions it should carry on trade. In trade it is in the first place the advantage derived by one’s own state which is the decisive factor. I take it that England, as a state with a mature outlook, will trade and enter into agreements and retain agreements on such conditions as it considers to be in its own interests. In the second place, I want to point out that Britain, like almost every state in Europe lately, has a growing trade with Russia and with the communist bloc and has entered into agreements with them. Are we to take it then that Britain or any member of the Commonwealth will be prepared to trade with an arch enemy like Russia, but not with a country like South Africa which in the struggle against Communism always sided with the West? In passing, may I ask where those countries stood which to-day oppose us so strenuously? Where did they stand at the time of Korea? I think these countries will realize that if we lose the existing markets for our products we shall also have to look to other countries, and in fact we shall do so, and I am not so pessimistic as to believe that we will not manage to do so. However, I do not believe that those countries would like to see us being compelled to turn increasingly to the East and the countries behind the iron curtain, from which we have already had attractive offers.

In the third place, I want to point out that Britain plays the leading roll in E.F.T.A., the European Free Trade Association, and the object is to have absolutely free trade between those seven countries, in other words, to break down all tariff walls. In other words, Britain is now giving those seven countries greater privileges in regard to trade than to the Commonwealth countries, and did the latter raise any objection? Did we and other countries object? I tabled papers to-day to show that we and other countries even sacrificed some of our preferences to enable Britain to comply with its obligations to E.F.T.A. But I want to point out that the existing preferences are not merely one-sided. Those hon. members always pretend that Britain is doing us a favour by giving us certain preferences, but they forget about the favour we do Britain. They forget that there is a much greater export from Britain to South Africa than from South Africa to Britain. In 1960 South Africa’s exports to Britain amounted to R227,000,000, and the imports from Britain amounted to R315,000,000, and the nature of the products we bought from Britain was such that Britain could not easily sell those goods elsewhere. I am thinking, e.g., of electrical goods, textiles and motor cars. To-day South Africa, after America, is the greatest buyer of British motor cars. In this connection I wish to refer to Canada also. Our exports to Canada amount to R6,700,000. Canada’s exports to us amount to, R39,000,000. We have preferences on our exports in respect of R4,000,000 alone, whilst Canada has preferences in respect of R12,000,000. What is more, it is not only the exports and trade which are important. A whole number of other things are connected with the trade between Britain and South Africa. In the first place there is the shipping which carries the goods. These are British ships. Secondly, there are the insurance companies which to a large extent are British. Thirdly there are the financial institutions, and fourthly the numerous other services based on this trade, so that we should not merely look at the R315,000,000 which Britain exports to South Africa; millions of rand are involved in these other matters. It is stated that our trade with Britain provides a living for more than 500,000 people in Britain, and that if there is no trade with South Africa, half of Southampton would lie idle. Although these preferences are of value to us, and were very valuable in the past, in regard to the future we should not be blinded by these preferences. We cannot base our economy on them for the future because the value of these preferences has diminished considerably. In 1937 the value of the preferences was approximately from 10 per cent to 12 per cent. In 1957 it had already fallen to 4 per cent or 5 per cent. The role played by the Commonwealth in world trade is decreasing and other parts of the world are coming to the fore. We dare not shut our eyes to the fact that the role played in trade by the Commonwealth is diminishing and that other countries are increasing their trade. The six countries of the E.E.C. between 1950 and 1956 increased their exports and imports respectively by 116 per cent and 100 per cent. As against that, Britain increased her exports and imports by 47 per cent and 49 per cent. In 1938 our trade with the Commonwealth consisted of 80 per cent of our exports. In 1960 it was 49 per cent. In 1932 our exports to Britain constituted 75 per cent of our exports, and last year it was 28.7 per cent. The value of these preferences is diminishing. Before the war the United Party itself realized this. Shortly before the war the United Party put an item on the agenda for discussion at the Commonwealth Conference, in which they complained to England that South Africa had the shortest end of the stick in regard to this mutual trade. I have an extract from the Sunday Times of 5 March 1959, which said, inter alia, that the Government wanted to discuss the matter for various reasons—

One is that in the Union’s view the Ottawa Agreement conferred on Britain a bigger advantage in the Union than South Africa received in Britain.

Then it was stated that these preferences hinder us in finding markets elsewhere—

Efforts to find a bigger market for our products in France have not been favourably received, and only recently did the French Government include the Union in its trade blacklist as one of the countries from which he expected a bigger market.

I say that the value of these preferences is exaggerated, and the United Party itself realized it in 1937. The preferences diminished in value in recent times because many of them were in terms of specific rights and not ad valorem rights. Take the case of butter, 15s. less 1 per cent. When butter was Is a lb., the preference was 15 per cent. If butter rises to 3s. the preference is 5 per cent. Therefore, due to the fact that these preferences were specific rights, their value diminished in recent times with the increase in prices. It also diminished in effectiveness due to the repeal of dollar discrimination in Britain. Until recently Britain discriminated against the dollar countries. Recently this discrimination was waived, so that dollar goods can now freely enter the British market, particularly canned and fresh fruit. That affected us adversely and caused much of our troubles. We maintained our position on the British market not so much through the preferences but partly through the dollar discrimination.

Then I want to point out that South Africa is fast becoming an industrial country. We do not always want to continue to export raw materials and agricultural products, because then we will remain poor. We also want to export industrial products. The 1933 agreements at Ottawa particularly provided for raw materials and agricultural products, which Britain wanted to obtain cheaply, and in exchange for which Britain sold us machinery and capital goods and industrial products. As South Africa develops into a country exporting manufactured goods, to that extent these preferences will become increasingly less valuable to us.

Finally, these preferences are losing their value due to the establishment of E.F.T.A. to which I have already referred. England is granting increasing concessions to the six other countries of E.F.T.A. and they are breaking down the tariff walls. As these other countries gain free access to the British market, the relative value of our preferences will diminish. I can say many more things, but I just want to repeat that we should not stare ourselves blind at these preferences. They are of value, but their value has already been diminished and in future it will be much less valuable. The E.E.C. and particularly G.A.T.T. are exerting themselves in the direction of the total elimination of Commonwealth preferences. It is regarded as discrimination against certain countries. I would not be surprised if the day is not far distant when Britain will feel compelled to abolish these Commonwealth preferences completely in order to participate more freely in the free trade activities of Western Europe.

Now, where do we stand, and what of the future? My reply is: No disaster has struck us. No catastrophe awaits South Africa. We shall have to adapt ourselves to the problems. That will be an incitement and a challenge to a young nation. South Africa is basically still South Africa, basically still as sound and as safe, with the same opportunities for investment and for industrial development as before. South Africa still has all its potential. Political bonds may be changed, but there is no reason why economic relations should be severed and why the economic potential of South Africa should decrease. Who are we and what are we? Let us pay less attention to our weakness, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did when he went to Britain to see whether he could keep us in the Commonwealth, but he also failed. He said: Please do not dessert us; we are too small and too weak and we cannot stand alone. We should do less to attract attention to our smallness, and do more to show the world what strength South Africa has. Let me mention a few things.

We are the biggest producer of gold. We produce 60 per cent of the world’s gold by means of a mining industry which technically is the best in the world. This gold of ours has been of great assistance to Britain in times of crises. Neither Britain nor the Western nations can ever allow South Africa’s gold to fall into enemy hands. We have inexhaustible sources of gold and we are the seventh biggest producer in the world. We have unlimited supplies of the cheapest coal. Our mines are the most modern in the world, and it forms a valuable basis for a chemical industry. We have some of the cheapest power in the world. Our consumption of electrical power is equal to that of Europe, and we are now busy spending another R400,000,000 on providing power during the next ten years. We have a vital steel industry which is still developing. Our steel prices are the lowest in the world, which enables us to build up an engineering industry. We can export steel on a large scale and we are now considering plans involving the expenditure of R500,000,000 to R600,000,000 to expand the steel industry. We produce 39 per cent of the gem diamonds of the world, 48 per cent of the platinum, 21 per cent of the chrome, 34 per cent of the cement in Africa, and we are the largest producer of antimony in the Free World and the second largest producer of asbestos and manganese and the third largest of uranium. We can tell the world that we have a well organized agricultural industry and a fish and fruit canning industry second to none in the world. We have the two largest commercial explosives factories in the world, and the largest oil-from-coal plant in the world. We have 41 per cent of all the motor cars in Africa and 50 per cent of all the school transport in Africa. In that way we can continue to tell the world that we have great potentialities. South Africa is still South Africa. No disaster or catastrophe has struck us.

Mr. Speaker, my time has almost expired. I just want to express the hope that as South Africans we will continue on this basis and that we will realize that with our wonderful strategic situation, our mineral riches and the character and quality of our people, and with the confidence we have in our hearts in regard to the future of our country, we will face the future with courage. The world is still lying open and South Africa still has a great future ahead of her.

Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

Mr. Speaker, the time allocated to me is so limited that I shall almost have to speak in shorthand, but then everything seems to be running at short time for us these days, and most of all, I believe, the future of the White man in this country, if we continue arrogantly with the methods and policies which the Government employs in respect to human relations in South Africa.

The Government has now been in power for a long time, and in the course of this long period it has built up a considerable record of failures as far as the human problems of South Africa are concerned. In the first place it has failed completely on the most vital point of all, viz., to achieve national unity between the two language groups of the White population; and all the hurried calls now going out for the unity of the Whites has no meaning whatsoever as long as the basis is to be the existing spirit of Government, its anti-non-White approach and the very leadership which has led us into our present difficulties. Whoever calls upon the people to stand together must be prepared to tell us on what policies and under what leadership we must do so.

Secondly, in respect of the territorial Bantu, six years has elapsed since the Government’s own Tomlinson Commission mapped out the way for an imaginative solution for part of the problem. Children who are not yet born when the Commission presented its report are already going to school, and still the Government has not yet laid the foundations of what even remotely resembles successful large-scale territorial separation. A few months ago a leading Nationalist like Dr. A. L. Geyer had this to say about the matter—

Ons praat naamlik van Bantoetuislande, maar eintlik moet hulle nog geografles geskep word. Kyk ’n slag na die kaart! Afgesien van die Transkei, bestaan daar vandag nie ’n enkele aaneengeslote gebied wat tot self-besturende Bantoetuisland kan ontwikkel nie. In plaas daarvan het ons ’n paar honderd Bantoegebiede wat soos grotere of kleinere brokstukke op die wit kaart versprei lê … Daar kan nie selfbesturende Bantoetuislande kom as daardie kolle en kolletjies op die kaart nie eers in ’n paar min of meer aaneengeslote gebiede gekonsolideer word nie. (The Burger, 12 September 1960.)

Thirdly, as far as the extra-territorial Bantu are concerned, i.e. the Bantu born and bred in the cities and those permanently resident outside the reserves, the Government’s entire policy is based on the fallacy that they are there on a prolonged holiday which will miraculously come to an end sometime in the uncertain future. An in respect of the Coloured man and the South African Indian, the Prime Minister had this to say about his general policy when he addressed the S.A. Club in London a week ago—

We do not only seek and fight for a solution which will mean our survival, but one which will grant survival and full development, politically and economically, to each of the other racial groups as well.

What this means in terms of the Coloured man and the South African Indian the Prime Minister alone will be able to tell us. All we know is that up to now the Government has disregarded the South African Indian in its scheme of things to come and is unable to present the country with anything representing a clear picture as to the political future of the Coloured man.

Finally, as far as our relations with the rest of humanity are concerned, nothing has so underlined the record of failures of the Government as the inability of the Prime Minister to retain our position in the Commonwealth, the significant relief expressed in Bonn and Paris over the Prime Minister’s cancellation of his intended visit there, the utter abandonment we suffered in UN over the matter of South West Africa, and the encouragement all this has given to our adversaries and to Black and White extremists both inside and outside South Africa. No wonder that Michael Scott and his friends are celebrating our growing isolation with joy and delight everywhere in the world. As far as South West Africa particularly is concerned, its future is now more uncertain than ever before, and in the face of it the Government has no practical solution to present either to Parliament or to the people of the territory. This is where we stand at the end of almost three terms of Nationalist rule in respect of the human problems of South Africa. Recriminations against the Prime Minister and this Government there will naturally be, but to stop there would not help the country a single step forward. We must analyse what actions resulted in this unfortunate position and from there on try to find the way out.

As far as our relations with the Commonwealth are concerned, we know that it was not our desire to become a republic which led to our exclusion. I and those who support the National Union as a party voted for a republic as a matter of sound domestic policy. We believed and said that if the matter of our constitutional change remained the essential question to be decided by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, there was little danger of South Africa losing her membership; but at the same time we were well aware of a movement in the Commonwealth which was started before the referendum and which was aimed at our exclusion from the Commonwealth as the result of the Government’s extreme racial policies. We advised the voters accordingly and warned them that this movement could very well succeed irrespective of whether we became a republic or retained the status quo. If exclusion were to come, we felt, it would come in any case if there was not a change in the spirit of government or a change in the Government itself. All the events of the past two weeks proved that our analysis of the position was as accurate as it could be. It has since been made clear by several Prime Ministers and by many commentators that if the switch to a republic had not provided the technical opening for an attack on our Prime Minister and his policies, another would certainly have been found. Our membership was at stake, not so much our continued membership resulting from our constitutional change, although I must admit that few of us expected the breakdown in our external relations and particularly those of the Commonwealth to come quite as rapidly as it did. I am inclined to take the view that the Prime Minister’s complete and untimely rejection after the referendum of the impassioned pleas by the leading Churches in South Africa and by a strong section of his own party for a modification of his policy in regard to the Coloureds, served as final proof to the outside world that even in respect of a minority group which does not qualify for territorial separation and cannot possibly threaten the future of the White man in South Africa, the Prime Minister has no intention of following a policy which is Christian in principle, Western in tradition or civilized in spirit. In the light of what happened in London, I therefore believe that it would be dangerous for anyone to delude the public with the notion that the position could even now be remedied by a withdrawal of the Republican Bill. We are clearly not wanted in the Commonwealth while the country upholds the present Government, and the abandonment at this stage of the intention to establish a republic would not in itself mean a continuation of our membership, and if so, certainly not beyond the next Commonwealth Conference. Apart from this, it cannot in the existing circumstances be honourably expected of any Government to submit itself and the country it represents to such a procedure. Our remedy therefore does not lie in the field of a republic or a monarchy. In any case, for all practical purposes the republic is an accomplished fact, and as far as I am concerned the establishment of the republic on 31 May and the parliamentary formalities which precede it will continue to have my support.

As far as the question of our possible return to the Commonwealth is concerned, we must also be realistic. I speak as one who is a great admirer of the Commonwealth idea and who has always been a staunch supporter of our membership of this association of nations, and I consider our loss of membership as a calamity of the greatest magnitude, not so much the forfeiture of membership in itself, or the ultimate economic effects, if any, which it may have, as the political implications it brings in its trail; because however much some people on the Government side try minimize the effect of our exclusion, the plain fact is that we have gained nothing and stand to lose very much. In fact, our exclusion was a major diplomatic victory against us, the first of its kind on the international level, and it is bound to be followed up with a vengeance everywhere where the peoples of Africa or the nations of the world meet in conference. All the same, Sir, this is not the time for self-deceipt. We are out of the Commonwealth and we have no choice now but to accept it as a fact; and as no one can foresee what change of government there will be when there is one, and what our general position and that of the Commonwealth itself will be by that time, it is unrealistic and futile at this stage to discuss and consider the question and method of our possible return. I think it should best be left as an open matter.

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

Evening Sitting

Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

I want to go further and say that I have no quarrel with the Prime Minister’s general conduct in London. In the context of his extreme racial policies, he was faced with extreme condemnation and a firm indication that he was no longer welcome. I appreciate the fact that under such circumstances he had no alternative but eventually to withdraw his application for continued membership. I also appreciate the fact that there is a time and a place for everything and that Cape Town or Pretoria was the place for him to have modified his methods and policies and not London. But having resisted what is regarded as unwarranted interference in the domestic affairs of South Africa, I believe that he and all of us shall speedily have to wake up to the realization that a new situation has come upon us, in this respect that in the opinion of people everywhere the matter of human relationship has finally passed out of the narrow sphere of domestic policies. The Prime Minister’s own mouthpiece, the Transvaler was open enough to admit it and in a leading article written as long ago as 1 July 1958, the Transvaler said—

Die openbare mening (moet) opgevoed word tot die besef dat die rassevraagstuk onherroeplik vasgekoppel geraak het aan die groot wêreldgebeure.

As unpleasant as this state of affairs may be, we shall not for long be able to escape the consequences of this new outlook in the world.

While I appreciate the fact that speaking strictly in the context of his policies, the Prime Minister had no alternative but eventually to withdraw his application for our continued membership of the Commonwealth, it does not mean that we do not hold him and his Government fully responsible for our mounting plight. The French have a saying “ that to govern is to see ahead ”, And despite warning after warning the Government was unwilling to try to anticipate the effect its extreme racial policies were bound to have on our relations with other peoples, not only inside but particularly outside South Africa, and to take timely steps to avoid desperate actions against us. As it is the country is always called upon to pay for the Government it wishes to have, and never has South Africa realized it more abundantly than now. The first account has already been rendered and the price which we as a people, all the people of South Africa, have had to pay was our exclusion from the Commonwealth. A second account must be expected soon from the United Nations. Because from interference at the Commonwealth Conference the Prime Minister is heading straight for worse interference at the United Nations, and the price might well eventually be South West Africa and our membership of that organization. I have no doubt, that the longer the Government remains in power, the higher the price we shall have to pay not only in terms of our relations with the outside world but also in terms of internal peace and security. Because what is at fault basically in this country is the spirit of government. The Prime Minister tries his best to tell us and to let us believe that we are faced with one simple demand by everybody, namely, one man one vote. I am not prepared to accept it because the facts speak against it. As far as I know there has not been large-scale unrest in South Africa or riots or strikes over the question of political rights so much as over the unnecessary hardships imposed by the Government on the Natives in their daily walk of life.

Mr. VON MOLTKE:

Those were laws which you supported.

Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

People did not riot at Sharpeville or Langa for the right to vote. At root of our troubles undoubtedly, Sir, lies the harshness and the rigidity and the unfairness and the injustices committed by the Government in the day to day application of its racial policy which completely neutralizes the Government’s beneficial actions.

Let the Prime Minister not delude himself, Sir. He seems to be pinning all his hopes on the special friendship of Great Britain. I have no doubt as to the deep and genuine friendship which Britain has for South Africa and for the people of our country, but the Prime Minister is building on sand. In the face of the attitude of the British leaders who now openly express “ abhorrence ” and “ revulsion ” and “ loathing ” when referring to the Prime Minister’s policies, his own position even in relation to Great Britain has become impossible, to say the least of it.

The Prime Minister’s argument that he cannot deviate from principle cannot stand the test of an analysis, because he confuses the question of principle with the matter of method. Apartheid as applied is not a principle, it is a matter of method. The principle is the continued existence of the White man and the maintenance of White standards of civilization in South Africa. This principle we all support and we all support it most heartily, and nobody asks the Prime Minister or the National Party to sacrifice this principle. What is asked and what is also asked by our friends overseas, is a change of method. Mr. Speaker, my time is up. Electoral opinion in the country is clearly consolidating itself behind the following line of action as far as policy is concerned. Firstly, a National Government of Afrikaans- and English-speaking people. Secondly, an immediate return to what was the natural and traditional forms of White/ non-White relations in place of the present extreme and compulsory and un-traditional apartheid, with the State intervening and regulating and policing every aspect of the private lives of people; which implies the removal from the spheres of policy and administration those methods which cause unnecessary friction and hardship to the non-Whites and deny them recognition of human dignity. Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, the implementation of the lead given by the Tomlinson Commission and imaginative large-scale and rapid economic and political development of the Bantu territories and the political consolidation of smaller territories, the objective to be to create full opportunities and rights there for the majority of the Bantu in South Africa, the eventual constitutional goal to be a confederation of Southern African states. Fourthly, recognition of the fact that a minority of the Bantu are permanently settled outside the Bantu territories. Fifthly, the granting of direct election to Parliament to the Coloured people on the present basis of representation as a group. In the sixth place, the recognition of the South African Indian community as a permanent and valuable constituent of South African society. Finally, acceptance of the republic as a fact and leaving the question and method of a possible return to the Commonwealth an open matter for consideration if and when the time comes.

Mr. Speaker, we are heading for very difficult times and the Government should be told beforehand that while it is still in power it must not expect the assistance of its opponents, if it is not prepared to modify its ways; not for the sake of impressing the outside world, but for the sake of our own future and security, and because peaceful relations among our peoples in South Africa will naturally lead to peaceful relations between South Africa and the rest of the world.

*Mr. P. S. VAN DER MERWE:

Mr. Speaker, before crossing swords with the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) I must first welcome him here in this House. It is not often that we have the privilege of seeing him here. In this regard we are even more fortunate than his constituency because I think they last saw him in 1958. I have known the hon. member for Namib for a very long time, and I know him as someone who always chooses his words very carefully because he does not want one to be able to pin him down in any respect. One must never know exactly whether he is in favour or opposed to a certain point, but I have never heard him choose his words as carefully as he has done to-night. He was neither fish nor flesh; he tried to strike middle course; he tried to keep to the middle of the road where it is the bumpiest. I can understand why the hon. member for Namib has been so cautious to-day. I think the election which has just been held in South West Africa must have been a tremendous political shock for the hon. member. The result must have been a great revelation to him. I happen to have his newspaper here. This is what his newspaper has had to say about the result—

It is easy to comment on the election of 8 March. It represents an overwhelming victory for the National Party, and it is pointless concealing that fact.

The article goes on to say—

All attempts to work out on paper that the Opposition have gained a success must however fail. The people have made their will quite clear and have given the National Party a renewed mandate for the dark years which await us. We must accept this position.

All we need do is to examine the results.

In 1958 when the last election was held, the National Party had a majority of 4,822. On this occasion it increased its majority to 6,144. Just compare the position in Namib itself. In 1958 the result in Namib where the hon. member stood, was a majority of 689. On this occasion the National Party majority was 807. This is conclusive proof that the hon. member for Namib must have realized that he has chosen the wrong side. He wants to be like the proverbial rat and leave the ship timeously and moreover tried to do so. But when he was already drowning, he saw that the ship was still sailing; it was still as stable as ever.

The hon. member for Namib has caused great consternation in the ranks of the United Party in South West Africa. I understand that a violent dispute has broken out amongst those people. The hon. member for Namib says that the Windhoek District and Windhoek East seats which were retained with majorities of 68 and 66 respectively, were retained as a result of his alliance with that party. If that is so, Mr. Speaker—I concede to him that he may be correct—it means that the United Party should in fact have lost all the seats in South West Africa. The United Party in South West Africa deny it. They say that they retained those seats by virtue of their own strength. They must settle that dispute between themselves. Whatever the position may be, the National Party has not only conclusively defeated the United Party of South West Africa together with its ally, the hon. member for Namib, as the election has shown and as his mouthpiece has in fact admitted.

The hon. member has discussed the difficult position of South West Africa. I concede that South West Africa is not in a very easy position at the moment. I do not want to go into that matter, because it is sub judice, but I just want to explain to him the position which the Fourth Committee considered at the time. I want to say at the outset that I do not feel at all pessimistic about the future of South West Africa. I have too much faith in the fairmindedness of our international system of justice and I have too much faith in the inhabitants of South West Africa. I see that America for example has supported the proposal that a special committee should go to South West Africa, but that she has done so subject to a very important proviso. The American delegate, Jonathan Bingham, said—

America will give her support on condition that these measures should not be interpreted as envisaging the use of force or fraud.

Sir, this is a very important concession. I think that this is a standpoint which America has never adopted before. I do not know whether the Union Government intends allowing this one-man commission consisting of Enrigue Fabrigat to come here. I want to suggest that the Government should refuse to let him come here, in accordance with the good example which other countries have set us in refusing to allow UNO commissions to enter. I want to suggest that we should allow the one-man commission, consisting of Enrigue Fabrigat, to come here in his private capacity. He should bring his wife and his whole family with him and they should visit us for a while. During his travels through South West Africa we should give him a copy of Dr. Vedder’s book on the early history of South West Africa. In it he will read what the position was in South West Africa before the White man arrived and established order. He will read in that book how during the 60 years before the White man began to establish order, the Natives fought no less than 57 wars amongst themselves, not including the raids and the wars which they fought against the Whites. But what did the British delegate say on that Fourth Committee. Mr. Peter Smithers of Britain said—

… that it would not be in the true interests of the people of South West Africa if the United Nations should try to take a short cut along what is an admittedly long road, by ignoring the important deliberations of the World Court or by going beyond the scope of the mandate. The problem of South West Africa is in essence a tragically human problem, but in structure it is complex, legal and juridical.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important concession. The Fourth Committee has referred this proposal relating to South West Africa to the Security Council. The Security Council has not yet decided whether to place the matter on its agenda, but I want to say that if the Security Council should try to decide upon this matter while the decision of the World Court is still pending, it will be rendering the World Court a disservice; it will be telling the World Court in advance that it does not think anything of its judgments. In addition the Security Council should not think that when the World Court does eventually give its decision, South Africa must submit to that decision which America and the Security Council now hold in such disrespect.

Mr. Speaker, whose fault is it that South West Africa finds itself in this position? I want to quote the hon. member for Namib. In 1958 the hon. member for Namib summarized the position very well. I am reading from Hansard (Col. 4351, Vol. 98)—

When we add together all these liabilities in our external relations, we find that although we have good friends and that although we are not the only country with enemies, we of all countries are probably the greatest target in the world for criticism. And that is the position as the result of factors which are known to all of us and which have very little to do with the question as to which White Government is in power in South Africa at any particular stage. As a matter of fact, the remarkable thing is that most of these problems either arose or became burning issues before the present Government came into power.

But the hon. member for Namib has indicated even more clearly whose fault it is that South West Africa finds herself in this difficult position. I want to read what he said in 1954. He said—(Hansard, 4 May 1954)—

I want to emphasize here that they have every right …

“ They ” are the United Party—

… to attack the Nationalist Party. It is their political right but the harmful part of it is that they go so far as to sow hatred against the Union and against the idea of South African citizenship, and I want to have it placed on record that if ever in the future racial trouble arises in South West Africa the blame will lie at the door of the United Party of South West Africa.

And this, Mr. Speaker, is the same party with which the hon. member for Namib has now entered into a sacred alliance in order to defeat the National Party. I read further. He said—

This attitude of the leaders of the U.N.S.W.A.P. also has the effect that at present they are being classed abroad with the Hereros as forming part of a general resistance movement in South West Africa against the Union.

Mr. Speaker, if that is so, it is no longer the United Party who together with the Hereros and the enemies of South West Africa are working against the interests of South West Africa, but the hon. member for Namib has now also entered into this alliance and is now working against the interests of South West Africa in such a determined way.

The United Party of South West Africa with which the hon. member for Namib entered into an alliance during the last election, is a party which in various respects follows a policy which agrees with that of the United Nations. They say for example that the mandate still exists. The United Nations says so as well. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not say so in this House. The late General Smuts adopted the correct standpoint in this House and said that the mandate over South West Africa no longer existed. However, the United Party in South West recognizes the authority of UNO. I can submit proof of that. I can quote the hon. member chapter and verse if he disputes it. The United Party of South West wants to submit reports on South West Africa; the United Nations want that as well. The United Party in South West wants independence for the territory; UNO wants that as well. The United Party in that territory is opposed to apartheid, and so is UNO. But it is not only the United Party in South West who are opposed to apartheid. The hon. member for Namib recently stated in this House—

If one is a Native, then there are 10 additional regulations for every one to which a White man is subject.

He is opposed to the apartheid policy of the Government. He said—

The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development recently even issued regulations containing a provision which made it compulsory that if a Native dies and his family want to place a gravestone on his grave, they must obtain the permission of the local Director of Native Affairs regarding the wording of the inscription which they want to place on the stone.

Why did the hon. member for Namib not say that these regulations to which he has referred were municipal regulations which were drawn up in Walvis Bay where a United Party city council is in power at the moment? Why did the hon. member for Namib not say …

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

May I ask the hon. member whether it is not correct that the National Party has also sought the co-operation of the United Party in regard to South West’s foreign difficulties in general.

*Mr. P. S. VAN DER MERWE:

I shall still tackle the hon. member on that point. Just give me a moment to dispose of the point which I am discussing. The hon. member voted for this regulation on which the hon. the Minister has announced; he voted for the legislation which made that regulation possible.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

One does not vote on regulations.

*Mr. P. S. VAN DER MERWE:

And then he says that to-day we are being controlled from the cradle to the grave. He has said: “As far as I know there is not one country in the world, without exception, in which the citizens are subject to so many regulations in time of peace as the citizens of South Africa under the firm hand of the present Government”. That is exactly what the enemies of South Africa want. The hon. member has just referred to the difficulties which Michael Scott and our enemies are causing abroad. Mr. Speaker, I shall wager my hat that the next batch of cuttings with which Michael Scott will arrive at UNO, will consist of the speeches of the hon. member for Namib. I am sure that the Rev. Michael Scott will on some appropriate occasion present the hon. member for Namib with a leopard skin or something like that for the heroic services he has rendered. I want to suggest that when he selects an animal it should be one of those which dirties its own nest. He is providing Michael Scott and the enemies of South Africa with the poison which they can use to destroy South West Africa. That is what he is doing.

The Indian delegate stated clearly that the election in South West Africa was in fact being carefully watched by the outside world and that every vote cast against the National Party would give cause for jubilation. According to the Suid Wes Afrikaner of 4 October 1957, the Indian delegate, Ahmed, stated—

That the election which was fought in 1955 in South-West on the question of the future status of the territory and its relationship with the Union was “significant”. The election indicated that approximately 15,000 Whites—less than one-third of the White population, and less than 5 per cent of the total population—were in favour of integration. But another considerable minority of Whites, approximately 11,000 were in favour of maintaining the territory’s international status. Under these conditions the incorporation of the territory into the Union must be regarded not only as being unpopular amongst a large number of Whites, but as completely unacceptable to the Native population.

That is exactly the same attitude as that adopted by UNO in respect of South-West. They want to have as many votes cast against the National Party as possible, so that they can tell the world: “ Look, if we intervene in South West Africa, we are not only doing so in order to save the Hereros and the non-White races of South West Africa, but we are doing so in order to save 11,000 Whites in South West Africa.” And, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Namib is one of the people who is going from farm to farm in South West Africa seeking votes for this standpoint against South West Africa. The United Party in South-West must not say that it is a U.N.S.W. party. It is actually a UNO party. And the party of the hon. member for Namib is not a national union, it is actually a national scandal. I shall be glad if someone will give the hon. member for Namib a hat, so that he can pull it down over his eyes and be ashamed of himself because he has entered into this alliance to destroy the National Party in South West Africa.

If the United Party would clearly adopt the policy of supporting UNO in all its actions against South West Africa and against South Africa I would have nothing to say on the matter because then the voters of South West Africa would deal with them effectively. But what are they doing? When they go to the platteland they spread stories such as these: They assure the voters of South West Africa on the platteland that social separation between White and non-White will always be upheld by the United Party. This is what they are doing.

I want the hon. member for Namib to go to South West and he must tell them that they are playing with fire during the South West African elections. We cannot indulge in this type of dual game; we cannot first provide UNO with every conceivable weapon and then go to the platteland to gain votes for the United Party. The Union is very merciful to South West Africa. The Union would lose if it should lose control of South West Africa, but, Sir, South West Africa would lose twice as much; and I submit that if South West Africa goes on voting against the National Government in this way, the Union Government will eventually lose interest in South West Africa. No Government is so kindly disposed that it can continue taking a burden on its shoulders and then being attacked repeatedly by UNO as a result of that burden and then still be cheerful about it. For that reason the voters of South West Africa must be clearly warned that if we want to encourage the Union to stand by South West Africa then South West Africa must also stand by the Union. Mr. Speaker, my time is limited, but I just want to make this one point. The hon. member for Namib makes a great point of saying on every occasion: “ Look, what is the outside world saying?” If we were to take the opinions of the outside world into account in South Africa, where would we finish? I have never seen any country in the world which allows the outside world to deprive it of its internal sovereignty. I do not know of any such country. If we must trim our sails to suit the opinions of the outside world, why are we sitting in this House? Then we should leave this Chamber so that the outside world can govern the voters. If we do not have sufficient courage to say: “ Look, we represent the voters of South Africa, and we are going to do what we are instructed to do” then we should leave this House and we should give UNO and the foreign enemies of South Africa the opportunity to come to this Chamber to govern this country. Mr. Speaker, we find no country in the world which allows the outside world to influence its domestic policy. Why are we Members of Parliament; why have we been elected, if we must act in such a way that we satisfy the outside world? No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Namib is completely off the rails if he thinks that the voters of South Africa are going to give the National Party Government instructions and that we should then hand over those instructions to the mercies of foreign opinion. Because we know quite well that it is not the outside world which will have to render account to the voters of South Africa. It is not they who will be called to account by future generations; it is the White representatives who have been elected to this House. We cannot divest ourselves of our responsibilities and say: We are going to try to satisfy the outside world. The outside world has nothing to do with our domestic policies. What did the outside world do when great difficulties arose in the Congo; did the outside world come to the aid of those White people or did the outside world leave them in the lurch? The Whites in this country are fully determined to govern this country and if the hon. member for Namib wants to adopt a standpoint that the outside world should prescribe to us how we should vote and what we should do, he should resign his seat and then the voters of Namib should send a representative to this House who will really represent them.

*Dr. OTTO:

Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to bring the debate back to a calmer atmosphere than that which we have had this afternoon and to-night. I should like to return to one aspect of the Budget.

As the former principal of a large provincial high school in the Transvaal, and someone who is not only interested in provincial education, but also in Union education at the various levels and in various directions, and as someone who also takes a particular interest in higher education—and here I am referring to university education—in view of the fact that for several years I had the privilege of serving on the council of the University of Pretoria, it is a pleasure for me to be able to thank the Minister of Education, Arts and Science for the attention which the Education Vote enjoys in the present Budget. Mr. Speaker, not only is ample provision being made for additional expenditure on improved facilities for technical high schools, housecraft high schools, commercial high schools and industrial high schools, but ample provision is also being made for the extension and the establishment of university facilities. In addition the normal subsidy formula is retained. As hon. members know, this subsidy formula was revised in 1959 to meet the changed circumstances of the country and of the universities. As I have already mentioned, this new formula is being retained. I personally should like to urge in future the granting of still larger contributions to high schools and universities because I believe that this type of expenditure represents a sound investment. Anything that one spends on the youth of a nation is a sound investment for the future, and if we know that all is well with our youth, then we know too that all is well with the future of our country. For that reason the very best facilities are required for training our youth for the task which awaits them, and even the greatest possible expenditure would still not be sufficient to provide those facilities. Concern is often expressed from platforms and by various authorities at the fact that a particularly heavy erosion is taking place between the Standard VI and Standard X classes. In the large province of the Transvaal it was still the position recently that only 30 per cent of the students who entered Standard VI, reached the matriculation class. Vocational guidance officers, school principals, parents and many others have tried to inculcate idealism and enthusiasm into the students so that they would not only pass the matriculation examination, but go even further and prepare themselves for a university degree. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it is essential that as many matriculants as possible should be encouraged to receive university training. The State and the country require them; Engineers, architects, quantity surveyors, teachers, doctors, public servants, agricultural experts, technicians—these people are required in respect of all facets of life and it is necessary that they should have a sound academic training. But to-day the enthusiasm and idealism of many aspirant students are simply being extinguished by the increased university admission requirements which were put into effect at the end of 1960. These increased admission requirements provide that before a candidate can obtain university admission or matriculation exemption, as we call it, he must obtain 1,300 points instead of 1,170 points as was previously the case, that is to say 44.4 per cent instead of 40 per cent. The body which was responsible for this increase is the Joint Matriculation Board. This body was established in 1916 by law and the universities each have two representatives on this board. At the moment nine universities are represented on that board, which means that universities have 18 representatives, while the provinces and other educational organizations only have 14 representatives. The universities have a majority of 18 to 14 and by law they can always retain that majority. This body possesses great powers and jurisdiction; although it does not draw up the syllabuses or curricula of the various provinces as such, this body has to exercise supervision over the various syllabuses. As far as I know this body has never yet amended one of these lengthy syllabuses. Furthermore representatives of this body supervise the examination questions, and after the examinations have been written, the examination papers are studied by the moderators of the Joint Matriculation Board to ascertain what standards are being maintained and to establish whether the marking has been consistent. The Joint Matriculation Board naturally has the power to prescribe the subjects required for university admission; i.e. the two official languages, a third language or mathematics, a science, and it also determines what the sub-minimum is in the case of these subjects. At the beginning of 1958 the Joint Matriculation Board met in Cape Town and despite the protests of the various departments and their representatives, the points total was raised, as I have just indicated. At the meeting in question, the Superintendent-General of Education in the Cape and the Directors of Education in the Transvaal and the Free State and other organizations opposed this increase, but without any success and this increase was applied in 1960.

One of the main arguments of the universities was that the matriculation level throughout the country was too low and for that reason the points had to be increased. According to the representatives of the universities the high incidence of failures, that is to say the high percentage of failures amongst the first-year students at the universities, had to be attributed to the low matriculation standards at South African high schools. I shall come back to this point later.

May I just point out that the matriculation examination imposes severe as well as varied requirements on matriculation candidates. The candidate must pass with the minimum to which I have referred and the candidate does not even have the opportunity in high school to specialize in one or other direction, while he does have that opportunity when he is admitted to a university. Under the previous position the requirements were already very high. Now they have been further increased. Students who sometimes just pass in languages for example, particularly boys, in may cases achieve great success in the sciences at university. I do not think that it matters whether the student has to achieve an average of 40 per cent or 45 per cent. The important point is that the student must be conscientious, must work hard, and must have the ability to persevere. Sometimes a student with average intelligence, but with the characteristics to which I have referred and who is inspired by the desire to work, makes very good progress at university, even better progress than the man who obtained a first-class matric. As the position is at present, our universities cannot supply sufficient engineers, scientists, medical practitioners, lawyers, etc. There is already a critical shortage and now the number of potential graduates is being still further reduced by these increased requirements. Allow me to give the House figures which I have obtained from one of the important education departments. In the province concerned there were 7,829 candidates in 1960 for the matriculation examination and approximately 800 candidates who had apparently chosen the correct subjects for admission to a university, obtained between 40 per cent and 44.4 per cent, that is to say these 800 students could not be admitted to a university. This same province will apparently have approximately 9,100 candidates this year, and taken on the same basis, approximately 900 will not gain admission to a university. This means a total over the two years of approximately 1,700 candidates. Mr. Speaker, all students do not mature at the same age, or putting it differently: They do not all develop at the same age. The one is just as developed at 17 years of age as another is at perhaps 19 years of age. As a result of the promotion method which is used in all the schools of the Union, students reach matric, and pass, but just fail to gain sufficient points for admission to a university. Those students are in effect precluded from ever obtaining exemption, unless they return to high school for yet another year. In 1959 9,159 first-year students were admitted to the various universities in South Africa. Amongst these there were only 4,718 under 19 years of age; the balance, that is to say 4,441 being already over 19 years of age. This shows that many students who pass, feel that they are not yet mature enough to go to university, but they should first go and work and then study either extramurally or by correspondence. There are many facilities available to these people and they make use of them.

I should like to say a few words about the first-year failures at universities. I am convinced that the rectors and other university authorities are taking a particular interest in this problem and that the large percentage of first-year failures at universities is receiving attention. In the annual report of the Department of Education, Arts and Science for the calendar year 1959 it is in fact stated that this revised formula relating to the subsidization of universities to which I have referred, has resulted in the universities being subsidized on a more generous basis. However, the report then says—

In revising the formula regard was had in particular to the fact that universities should be in a position to raise the standard of their work, to limit excessively large classes and to appoint more lecturers.

An additional £1,000,000 was made available for the purpose of increasing subsidies to universities. We cannot yet see the effect of this change. There are still classes of 600 and more at the large universities and, what is more, in difficult subjects such as chemistry and physics. How does this compare with the position in the high schools? In the high schools there are small classes of from 25 to 30 who receive their tuition from people who have received a professional and academic training and everyone tries to get as much out of the student as possible. These new students then go to the universities where they find themselves in what is to them a completely strange atmosphere and in a strange environment, and the person who has come from a high school finds it very difficult to adjust himself. As we all know, there is the initiation period. I have no great objection in principle to initiation, but I do object to the methods and the time which is taken up by this initiation at our universities. That period is hardly over when the first-year students must organize a rag, and we know how much time that takes up. I know of a university which has already tried to eliminate this initiation but the rector could not succeed. I know of a university which has tried to abolish the rag. The rector concerned did succeed in that. The idea of a rag is a good one, but then it should be handed over to the second-year students and those students who are already more established.

As far as the first-year students are concerned, I feel that it is not necessary to introduce an additional class into the high schools or a beginners’ class at the universities, but I feel convinced that we must bridge the gap between the high school matriculant and the university student by placing the first-year students under stricter control. At one or two universities this has already been done with a great degree of success. I maintain that the standard of the high school matriculation examination is not lower than it was 20 years ago. The matriculants still work just as hard as they did in the past. Those hon. members who have a son or daughter in a matriculation class know that what I am saying is the truth. I believe that it is pointless the one reproaching the other, but that they should co-operate in order to eliminate the large number of failures at the universities.

To conclude, I should just like to ask the hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science that in the course of time still larger amounts should be made available to the universities so that additional facilities can be created in order that the abnormally large classes can be eliminated completely. In the second place I should like to ask that an inquiry be instituted to ascertain whether the increased requirements for matriculation exemption are really justified and in the third place, whether they will not in turn cause a heavy erosion amongst the future acadamicians which our country so urgently requires.

Maj. VAN DER BYL:

It is a great pleasure for me to congratulate the hon. member for Pretoria-East (Dr. Otto) on his maiden speech. I wish to congratulate him most sincerely. He has chosen a non-contentious subject and dealt with it extremely well. “ Mens kan sien dat by sy mond nie verniet kos gegee het nie.” He is no longer now an inexperienced virgin, he is now married to this House, and I wonder whether I should congratulate or commiserate with him. Anyhow I welcome him. From my colleague behind me I understand that he was his schoolmaster. So with respect, I am afraid that he must have spared the rod too much, because he should not hold the political reins he does. Anyhow, we welcome him here most heartily.

I find that most of my notes on earlier speeches that need a reply will be dealt with in the course of my speech, as I go along. So to avoid repetition, I shall not deal with them now. With regard to the hon. member for Middelland (Mr. P. S. van der Merwe): I will deal with the South West African question later in my speech fully.

The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs said that we would not always merely export raw materials, but consumer and manufactured goods. The point is that if we create enough hostility, those markets will be closed to us. Don’t forget that money is not the only thing when people’s emotions are affected. People will even cut off their noses to spite their faces.

An HON. MEMBER:

You should cut off yours.

Maj. VAN DER BYL:

Even then I would look better than the hon. member. The hon. Minister jeered at my Leader and he said that even although he had been to London, he could not have kept us in the Commonwealth. I will deal with the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs fully on this subject a little later.

Sir, never in our history, in war or in peace, has South Africa stood in such a dangerous position as it is to-day, because, for the first time in our history, we, a small nation, are surrounded by hostile political groups practically on all sides. In the Boer War the two republics were faced by the most powerful Empire the world had seen up till then. Nevertheless they had friends throughout the whole world, and further than that they had great friends in England itself, men like Lloyd George, who within a few years gave them back self-government. In World War I we had strong friends, in World War II the same. To-day we, 3,000,000 Whites, have not one powerful nation (which can speak as a united people), as our friend. No other nation in history that I know of, has stood so alone in a hostile world. There have been other small nations who defied large powers. There was the case of Suez where a small country like Egypt was able to defy the power of Britain and France combined, but she was able to do that because she had America and Russia supporting her. We have the case to-day of Cuba, within a stone’s throw of the greatest military power in the world, defying and insulting America and America can do nothing. Why? Because Cuba has China and Russia behind her.

Mr. VON MOLTKE:

A satellite.

Maj. VAN DER BYL:

Our position is entirely unique, the whole world, in a greater or lesser degree, is against us, and this is the only case in the last 15 years where the communist and the West are agreed about one thing and that is their disapproval of us. Now in these dangerous times, the Prime Minister has allowed himself to be jockeyed or manoeuvred into a position that even those who would sympathize with us, had to withdraw their hand, and we lost our friends, in the other dominions. Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister is playing his one card to the full. He works on the sentiments of the people by saying “We shall not allow Black states to dictate to us.” Everyone of us agrees with him there. But if that had been the issue in the first place, and one over which he had no control, then the whole of South Africa would have stood behind him. That, however, is not the case. The position was not forced on him. He created the situation deliberately and is now the victim of his own actions. Let me prove this. For 40 years the aim and ideal of the Nationalist Party has been to have a republic. A strong Prime Minister, with a powerful party behind him like Dr. Malan, realized that the time was not ripe. Then we had Mr. Hans Strijdom, who was an extremist from the North, but he realized that the time was not auspicious, and he also did not attempt to form a republic because he realized that if he did take such action, he would allow our opponents to choose the ground on which to fight us. That is exactly what has happened now. The hon. the Prime Minister has done this very thing and has passed the initiative to our opponents. By doing so he has placed us in the hands of our enemies and has embarrassed our friends. In other words, our opponents have now had the chance to force South Africa into a position from which we could not escape except with loss of face and dignity and we were not prepared to do that. The Prime Minister therefore is solely and entirely responsible for the dangerous position South Africa finds herself in to-day. To gain their immediate objective (that is to win the referendum) the Nationalist Party not only tried to disprove the warnings we gave them, but led the public to believe that our remaining in the Commonwealth was fully assured. In this way thousands of United Party people and tens of thousands of Nationalists were persuaded to vote for the republic. Had they been honestly told what the position was, the Nationalist Party would not have won the referendum. There is not the slightest doubt about that. Had they been told the truth, they would have said: Let the republic wait until the time is more auspicious. To allay the fears that we might have to leave the Commonwealth, the Prime Minister, and practically everyone of his Ministers, inside and outside the House, gave the impression that remaining in the Commonwealth, after declaring a republic, was merely a formality. So many quotations have been made that I do not want to give any more, except one short one because it was a statement by the hon. the Prime Minister himself. At Ladysmith, according to the Cape Times of 19 September 1960 the Prime Minister said—

I know we are not putting our membership of the Commonwealth in jeopardy.

Could anything be more categorical than that? The hon. the Prime Minister said, “ I know that our membership of the Commonwealth will not be in jeopardy ”. On that the people, believing him, voted in favour of the republic.

The only honourable course now left to the Prime Minister is to resign, having failed to do what he promised the public would be done. Let some other leader, a Nationalist if necessary, go and open negotiations again, because we cannot afford to get into the dangerous position we are facing. Any leader with self-respect would resign after such a failure. If a general, through his own stupidity or arrogance, finds himself outmanoeuvred and his forces surrounded, nobody is going to blame him for surrendering to save his troops from being massacred. But certainly if he had any self-respect, he would eliminate himself; or his Government would replace him. I repeat: Nobody blames the Prime Minister for his final action. He had walked into an ambush. He had been warned by us. It is he and he alone, after full warnings from this side of the House, who deliberately created the situation which inevitably forced him to take the course which he did. There is one important statement that the hon. the Prime Minister made, I think in a speech here. He said that one of his complaints was that the conference did not understand that he proposes to have parallel development of Natives and Coloureds, in other words, that there will be one area for White inhabitants where the Whites will rule, and other areas where the non-Europeans will have the entire say. The answer is obvious.

Mr. VAN RENSBURG:

He never said that.

Maj. VAN DER BYL:

Of course he said that. But the answer is obvious: If the world did not understand it, if the Commonwealth Conference did not understand it, then for heavens sake let him not declare a republic until he can show something tangible; something that is actually in existence, instead of merely some wishful thinking indulged in by the hon. the Minister of Native Affairs. He should be able to go there and say: Here is at least one Bantustan I can show you which is working, then they might have taken some notice of it. But whilst he had nothing to show to them, how could you expect them to accept mere abstract theories? Anyhow, the claim is spurious and false because, whilst the Bantustan theory could become a reality, there is no possible place where you could put the Coloureds or the Asiatics where they could rule themselves and yet make a living. You can give them a huge area in the Kalahari desert somewhere and say they can go and live there and rule themselves, but they could not make a living there. The Coloured people are part of the Western civilization, and they have got to be in areas where they can use their skills and where they can make a living. You may as well put all the Asiatic traders in one place and tell them to sell their commodities to each other.

A further argument the hon. the Prime Minister used was that it would be unfriendly of him to put Britain in a difficult position vis-à-vis the Afro-Asian group of the Commonwealth. Mr. Speaker, I ask you: Since when this wonderful love of Britain, since when has South Africa’s interest taken second place to the interests of England? I thought we stood for South Africa first. The hon. the Prime Minister makes me laugh. Step by step, like a Greek tragedy moving towards its inevitable climax, he has destroyed every friendship and contact we ever had with our former friends. To-day we stand completely isolated and alone, disliked, even hated by nations abroad, and disliked and even hated by a very large portion of the non-European community here in South Africa itself. Having cut us off from the Commonwealth, we will now be the victim of pressure groups from all over the world. The day after the declaration we had a 74 to nil vote against us at UNO with regard to South West Africa. There is our Achilles heel and I hope the hon. member for Middelland will listen to what I am saying. I am referring to South West Africa now. I believe that with out strong friends it is only a question of time before pressure will be exerted, particularly if the International Court finds against us, and I want to ask the hon. member opposite: Is he prepared to accept the decision of the International Court?

Mr. VON MOLTKE:

I am prepared to abide by the Treaty of Versailles.

Maj. VAN DER BYL:

That was not my question: I asked if the Government will accept the decision of the international court, whilst we were part of the Commonwealth …

Mr. VON MOLTKE:

May I ask you a question?

Maj. VAN DER BYL:

No, my time is very limited. Please sit down. The older members of the Commonwealth would remember that it was in their interests, and at their request, and in the interest of Britain’s control of the seas— otherwise she could not have won the war—-that we should take that big wireless at Windhoek. It was due to that wireless that Britain was in danger of being defeated, because information was transmitted straight from Berlin via Windhoek wireless to admiral Von Speech’s fleet in the Southern Hemisphere. That caused the sinking of the Good Hope and other Naval disasters, not to mention U-boat activities. I suggest to you to-night, and I am sure of it, that if we were still in the Commonwealth, those members of the Commonwealth in whose interests—regarding sea strategy—we invaded South West Africa, would say: “ We are not going to go against South Africa; if there is a show-down at UNO over South West Africa we will stand by her.” Now we are exposed to these terrible menaces regarding South West Africa that can lead eventually to active action, be it economic or physical, or perhaps both, being taken against us. Sir, Nationalist propagandists are rejoicing and congratulating the Prime Minister on his action. The military services, not the Navy, (because they could not move from the high seas to the Highveld) but the military and the Air Force were used to bolster up Nationalist propaganda with the S.A.B.C. misusing its powers to act as a “Barker” for the Nationalist Party. It was the most disgraceful performance we have ever seen in this country. Who has ever heard of a Prime Minister getting a 21-gun salute on returning from a mere conference? And who pays for it anyway? He had an air escort, a military escort to boost the ballyhoo of the Nationalist Party propaganda. It was the most disgraceful employment of public services for purely Nationalist propaganda. You know, Mr. Speaker, it reminded one of a Roman holiday when a conquering hero, after having won a great campaign, was welcomed back. Instead, it was a Prime Minister returning with his tail between his legs after the biggest diplomatic defeat South Africa has ever suffered. Well anyhow, there is this about it, which must be a comfort to them: The Nationalist Party will not be the only ones rejoicing at the return of the Prime Minister after his diplomatic defeat. Everyone of the Afro-Asian countries is rejoicing with them, and also Russia, because in this defeat they see the first step towards bringing our country to its knees. Sir, for years now the Nationalist Party has been following the same path as Nazi-Germany did after 1933. Flouting world opinion, the tempo increased, until the unfortunate German people had created a Franckenstein which they no longer could control and they lost control over their destiny. Sir, the controllers of the Nationalist Party are doing exactly the same thing. They have created a Franckenstein in the present Prime Minister over whom they have no control now. So all they can do to save their faces, and in some cases to save their jobs, is to applaud the Prime Minister’s miscalculations; rather a pathetic sight. Mr. Speaker, fact is that the Nationalist Party having told South Africa before the referendum that it was essential to our welfare and to our safety to stay in the Commonwealth; now in the most servile about-face they welcome the Prime Minister for having achieved the very opposite. That is the position. The Prime Minister said that his aim was to save White civilization. Step by step he has created the circumstances which might well eventually destroy it. By his recent act the Prime Minister has put our White civilization in serious jeopardy. Only a complete change of Government can save the situation. He has brought something into the realms of reality which a short while ago was merely an opinion in the minds of some people overseas, viz. that eventually our White civilization would be swamped by a black sea. That was merely an idea in some people’s mind. But since the Prime Minister’s decision, practically the entire world believes that that will come to pass; and the stock markets are a very clear indication of what the world is thinking, because they are the most sensitive barometers of dangers to come. I said five years ago as Hansard will show: “If our White civilization should ever be brought into jeopardy or destroyed, it will be the Prime Minister, and those hon. members opposite and their party, who will have created the circumstances which will destroy us. There sit the biggest enemies of White civilization.

Till the Prime Minister’s fatal decision, the world would have accepted the fact that the Whites cannot give the Bantu majority political power if they are to maintain their civilization. But now the world will accept nothing less than the abolition of all discrimination, and that must and will be the end of White civilization. We all know that if ever we are forced by outside interference (physical or moral), to give the Bantu the majority political power, then we are doomed. I shall return to that point in a minute. But the hon. the Prime Minister, by his intransigent attitude regarding the republic has brought, what was merely a threat, into the realm of reality. If this Government continues in power it will eventually force South Africa into a laager which will eventually mean a dictatorship. Just as every emergency needs the declaration of some form or other of martial law (which is the negation of civil law), so it will go on until we get accustomed to it and find that we are living under a dictatorship. Just as the German people rued and cursed the day that Hitler took power, so will our children rue and curse the day that the Prime Minister got his present power if things go on as they are developing at present. Unless South Africa can change its policy, and change its outlook, and get rid of this dictatorial control, the nation will be regimented more and more with each day that passes.

Sir, Lord Hailsham, a Conservative, a world figure and a friend of ours said that—

South Africa by her policy was bent upon a course of action which would lead to disaster.
Mr. B. COETZEE:

Did you read what Lord Fraser said?

Maj. VAN DER BYL:

Yes, I read what Lord Fraser said but he is not a Minister, and I am quoting what Lord Hailsham said.

Mr. B. COETZEE:

Why do you not quote somebody who is sympathetic towards South Africa?

Maj. VAN DER BYL:

I am repeating warnings from friends.

HON. MEMBER:

Why?

Maj. VAN DER BYL:

For the simple reason that we know there are thousands of people who are sympathetic towards us, but here are the people who are warning us as to what is going to happen. Can you not see that? Why should it be left to the O.A.B.C. to put only those things which are favourable to the Government to the people of this country? Surely it is time that we looked to see where the dangers lie. We must not blind ourselves to it.

Sir, the same can be said of very many other statesmen throughout the world. I doubt if there is one single thinking member opposite who does not feel worried in his heart of hearts. [Interjections.] I am not talking about Ministers, I am talking about hon. members opposite.

UNO has again started to talk of sanctions which could bring our economy to a stop. There is the question of South West Africa which is now moving to a showdown. There can be differences of opinion and many arguments about various matters, but there are two things about which there can be no difference of opinion and no argument, and they are these: Firstly, we cannot exist as a White-civilization for long when we have the whole world against us (not merely passively but actively), and prepared to take action. Sooner or later a showdown will come and we will be forced to our knees exactly in the same way as France was in 1870 and as Germany was in 1918 and 1945. Secondly, should we ever be forced to hand over the majority of the political power to the Bantu it will mean the end of civilization for Whites, for the Coloureds and for the Asiatics, as well as for the small handful of civilized Natives who are in existence to-day. If we should have to hand over the political power to the Bantu it would mean the end of our White civilization. All it would mean would be an exchange of White nationalism with all its arrogance its blundering, its mistakes and stupidity, for a Black nationalism which would mean chaos and a return to the days of Chaka. Those are the two things which we have to face. Only a possessor of a bird brain or a man with the intelligence of a flea would deny either of these two alternatives—although even a flea takes evasive action when it is threatened with destruction …

The DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, order! The hon. member must please modify his language.

Maj. VAN DER BYL:

Sir, is there anything wrong in talking about a man with the intelligence of a flea? I did not refer to any hon. member; I merely added that even a flea takes evasive action. Is there anything wrong in that?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, order! The hon. member compared other hon. members’ intelligence with that of a flea.

Maj. VAN DER BYL:

No, I certainly did not Mr. Speaker. I said only a person who has the intelligence of a flea would disagree with what I have been saying.

Dealing with point number one, viz. we cannot stand alone in a hostile world. If Germany, with her great and strong people, with her huge resources and her powerful allies could not flout world opinion forever, how can we hope to do so? Remember that antagonism to Germany was first based on her treatment of the Jews. The world would not have fought a world war merely because the Jews had been discriminated against, because that ancient culture has been accustomed to that for a very long time. What acted as a catalysis (if I may use that term very loosely), that caused the change in world opinion and united the democracies of the world against the Nazis was the unnecessary humiliation, the degradations and the indignities that were forced on that old and cultured people. That is what finally united the people of the free world against the Nazis, and brought about their downfall. I am not and I repeat not—suggesting that we treat our non-Europeans like the Nazis did the Jews. But the world has been made to believe that there is a similarity about this Herrenvolk idea of the hon. the Prime Minister and his party. And that is the important thing. And we have not the power, neither have we the influence or the friends to prove to the world that there is no real parallel—as I know there is no parallel—between apartheid and the Jew baiting of the Nazis.

Mr. B. COETZEE:

You tell that to your side.

Maj. VAN DER BYL:

You tell yourself to shut up for a moment and let me get on with my speech.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order!

Maj. VAN DER BYL:

Therefore the world is rapidly beginning to believe what I have just said, although we know that it is not so. And even our friends are starting to believe in this parallel, and if a man believes a thing, as far as he is concerned it is the truth.

In regard to the second fact (namely, to give the Bantu the majority political power would spell the doom of White civilization). If we gave the Bantu one man one vote, not only the Whites but the Coloureds and the Asiatics would be destroyed eventually.

Let me digress for a moment, Mr. Speaker, in order to say this: I am not discussing the bird brain wishful thinking scheme of Bantustans, with King Hans of the Xhosas and other Vice-Regal great White chiefs—which remind one more of a musical comedy plot than anything else at the moment. Let me point out that not even Napoleon with all his power was able to keep his brothers, his sisters and his friends on foreign thrones for any length of time. I am not discussing Bantustans for the moment. I am referring to the 6,000,000 Bantu who will be in the White areas—if the Tomlinson Report is correct—at the turn of the century; people who will never have been outside a White area, who have never been in a reserve. I say we must give these people some representation, but I do not have time to deal with that question now.

The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs jeered at my leader. He said that even when he was in London he could not keep the Union in the Commonwealth. I want to read two very short extracts from speeches made, firstly, by the hon. the Prime Minister of England who opened the debate last week, and then by the man who made the final speech, the Secretary of State, Mr. Sandys—

“ I am convinced that had Dr. Verwoerd showed the smallest move towards understanding the views of the Commonwealth colleagues or made any concession, had he given us anything to hold on to or any grounds for hope, I still think the Conference would have looked beyond the immediate difficulties to the possibilities of the future. After all, our Commonwealth is not a treaty made league of governments, it is an association of peoples.”

I would like hon. members to bear that in mind, and also to bear this in mind: in closing the debate the Secretary of State, Mr. Sandys, said, referring to the British Prime Minister—

“The Prime Minister may bear me out when I say that if the South African Government in the course of the Conference had said, not that they were going to do away with apartheid, but they were going, at any rate, to make this gesture of receiving diplomatic representation from other Commonwealth countries than European ones, it might have altered the whole atmosphere.”

There are two definite statements which we cannot ignore. I suggest to this House that if my hon. Leader had been at the London Conference as our Prime Minister and he had put that same request to members of the Conference as the present Prime Minister did, that is, asking for a republic inside the Common wealth, and had added that he proposed to put the Coloureds back on the Common Roll and allow Coloured representatives in the House; that the Bantu would be given eight White representatives in this House and six White representatives in the Other Place; that such pass laws as cannot be done away with —(and there are many which cannot be done away with such as those dealing with influx control, for instance)—that they would be used only when essential: that consultation would be held with the Bantu at all levels; that there would be an exchange of diplomatic missions with a few Black States if economic and political interests were sufficient to warrant it—and all said and done, that does not mean letting them all in; we do not even have diplomatic representation with New Zealand because our trade is not big enough, but it is the principle of the thing, not the question of how many. If my leader had said these things and, at the same time, had frankly told them that he would not and could not grant the principle of one man one vote in South Africa, and that he stood firmly by the convention that internal policies of sister states could not be discussed at the conference, and that he would continue to object every time they were raised—if he had done these things he would have come back to this country with our republic inside the Commonwealth. And had the hon. the Prime Minister done the same thing and given our friends at that Conference the ammunition with which to argue, and then sat back and let Nkrumah and company talk themselves out of breath, and refused to be drawn into a discussion on our national affairs, we would still have been in the Commonwealth. But instead of that we had this intransigent Prime Minister who will confuse obstinacy with strength of character, playing the rôle of a man of granite in a plastic age. His “ no, no, no ”, might have been Molotov at his worst at a World Conference, or any one of the great dictators defying the world from Munich.

Mr. Speaker, there is only one way in which South Africa can be saved without loss of face. As has been pointed out—and I do not want to dilate on this until the republic is proclaimed we remain in the Commonwealth and our opponents cannot put us out. We remain in until 31 May, or if the republic is not declared we remain in until the climate changes and people begin to understand. And the climate is moving towards that change. The events in the Congo have proved how wrong many people were about certain things. Therefore we must take our chance. We must play for time because the educated world opinion is rapidly seeing the danger of handing power over to African leaders, whose people are neither educated, civilized or understand, that freedom carries responsibility. Within a short time the world will begin to see our side of the picture and will accept it, always providing we modify our policies as I suggested earlier. Providing we retain our powerful friends like Britain, Australia and New Zealand and remain in their organization, and to gain time until the climate changes towards us, one of three things must happen if we want to have it that way. Firstly, the hon. the Prime Minister must state that he will not for the present declare the republic, and that the status quo will remain. Secondly, if he will not do this he should, if he has real love for his adopted country, resign and let some other member of his Cabinet take over.

Dr. VAN NIEROP:

For his what?

Maj. VAN DER BYL:

Are you so weak that none of you are able to take over. [Interjections.] Even that hon. Minister could take over. [Interjections.]

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order!

Maj. VAN DER BYL:

If he will do neither of these things then hon. members opposite, as patriots, should do what the Nationalists did in 1932 when South Africa was faced by bankruptcy due to the obstinacy of the Government of that day regarding the gold standard. Some hon. members on that side said, “We are staunch, loyal Nationalists but we put our country above our party politics, and unless you change your policy which is bringing us to destruction we are going to cross the floor of the House and vote the Government down ”. Hon. members on the other side have it in their power—and they are the only people who have it—to save the country if they will do that. I warn them that many brilliant men like the Prime Minister, possessed with the same ideas of grandeur, have invariably destroyed their countries. Every thinking man and woman can see what is happening, and which way we are going. South Africa is on the same road as those other countries who put leaders like Napoleon, Hitler and Mussolini into supreme power, and where nobody has the courage to oppose them. And I would be a coward and a traitor to my country and my people if I did not warn them that the hon. the Prime Minister is becoming a menace to our safety. I say “You on the other side, stop him; for God’s sake stop him before it is too late! You and you only have the power at the moment to do so.”

*Dr. JURGENS:

Mr. Speaker, I really pity the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) for being so unknowledgeable and so out of touch in regard to the connection between our Prime Minister and the party of which he is the leader and the members of the Nationalist Party of South Africa. In the first place I want to tell him that it is not the Prime Minister who forced us to obtain a republic. We compelled him to get us a republic. That is point No. 1. Point No. 2 is that we, according to the hon. member, should ask him to resign. A few years ago we elected him as our leader and I can assure hon. members opposite that Dr. Verwoerd to-day is even more esteemed and has a higher reputation in the Nationalist Party than ever before, and that there is not even the most vague idea on our part of asking him to resign. Hon. members need not even think of that.

*Mr. RAW:

You have not the courage to do so.

*Dr. JURGENS:

I want to tell hon. members opposite in the most friendly fashion possible that what our Prime Minister did is more than what the whole of the United Party could have done for South Africa. He stated our case there. In spite of the fact that he had to cope with an inimical Press and with enemies in the whole of England, within the first day or two, he nevertheless gained the sympathy of the people. If it were not for the fact that the Afro-Asian nations deliberately went to this conference either to change South Africa’s policy or to kick us out of the Commonwealth, he would have been successful. I can well understand hon. members opposite feeling sore about the fact that after 31 May we will no longer be in the Commonwealth, because I readily acknowledge that the news which came from London on 15 March was more or less of a shock to most of us, because I can assure you that we of the Nationalist Party also expected that we would perhaps be criticized at that conference in regard to our policy, but that we would nevertheless be allowed to remain a member of the Commonwealth. Therefore I can say that in the first instance it was somewhat of a shock to us also to hear that our membership could not be continued. But after we had received further reports we realized that what the hon. the Prime Minister had done was the only thing he could have done in the circumstances. We waited for later reports and statements, and it was clear from the statements of the Prime Minister, from that of Mr. Macmillan and of Mr. Menzies and other leaders of the Commonwealth countries that our Prime Minister was left no choice and that he simply chose the best way out.

I want to say, Sir, that this conviction I am now expressing is shared by the overwhelming majority of White people in this country—not only by the whole of the Nationalist Party, but also by a large number of the former supporters of the United Party who admit that the Prime Minister came out of that conference with honour and that he acted in the only possible manner.

*Mr. RAW:

How did he land in that position?

*Dr. JURGENS:

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition with his usual brashness—the other day he called himself a statesman, but I think he himself is the only person who would say that—issued an arrogant Press statement in which he accused the Prime Minister of having broken faith with and treason towards his people.

*Mr. RAW:

That is true.

*Dr. JURGENS:

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) also said so to-day.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! Did the hon. member for Durban (Point) say that it is true that the hon. the Prime Minister is guilty of treason?

*Mr. RAW:

The hon. speaker said that the Leader of the Opposition had accused the Prime Minister of having broken faith with the people …

*HON. MEMBERS:

And treason.

*Mr. RAW:

I did not hear the word “ treason ”, and I withdraw it if that was also included. I said that it was true in connection with breaking faith.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member may continue.

*Dr. JURGENS:

The falsity of these accusations was repeatedly exposed during the past week by the statements of Mr. Macmillan, Mr. Menzies, and even by Mr. Diefenbaker and Dr. Nkrumah. What they said there proved that what the hon. the Prime Minister told us here was the complete truth. But we now find that this “be damned” member for Natal South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) still goes around preaching sedition.

Mr. RAW:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is an hon. member allowed to refer to another hon. member as the “ be damned ” member?

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! No, the hon. member must withdraw that.

*Dr. JURGENS:

Yes.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member should not simply say “ Yes ”; he should withdraw the words.

*Dr. JURGENS:

Well, then I withdraw those words, Sir.

Mr. MOORE:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member also said that the hon. member for South Coast had preached sedition.

*Dr. JURGENS:

What would you call what the hon. member did Friday evening at Pine-lands in his speech, as stated in the report of that meeting? He said there were two ways of getting rid of this Government, namely “to shoot it out or to vote it out ”. Then there was an interjection—“ Shoot it out ”. To this the hon. member for South Coast replied: “ No, that is not the answer, though I may say, please don’t tempt me.” If that is not inciting people to think of bloodshed, I do not know what it is.

Mr. TUCKER:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has now quoted something on which he bases a charge of sedition against the hon. member for South Coast. That is a crime in terms of our law, and I ask that the hon. member be requested to withdraw it.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member must withdraw the word “ sedition ”.

*Dr. JURGENS:

Then I withdraw it, Sir. I will then say that it is something similar to it, because I do not know what else one can call it.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

*Dr. JURGENS:

Sir, I have already said that I withdraw it. I merely said that I did not know what else I could call it. Perhaps I could say “ incitement to bloodshed ”.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

No, the hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

*Dr. JURGENS:

Then I withdraw it unconditionally and we can continue. I want to continue with this meeting held by the hon. member for South Coast at Pinelands. He suggested a solution which the Prime Minister should have adopted. He said—

He should have told Ghana to go and jump in the Bay of Biscay, and we would still have been in the Commonwealth.

Is the hon. member really so naïve that he believes … [Interjections.] I did not say anything bad again. I was just intimating that he is being silly. It was not the case that the Prime Minister could simply have told Ghana to go and jump in the sea and get drowned and that we would then have remained a member. We know that objection was raised to the racial policy of the Union and that the condition for remaining in the Commonwealth was that we should abandon our policy. Unless we sacrificed our policy we were not acceptable to the other members of the Commonwealth.

*Mr. RAW:

Who said that?

*Dr. JURGENS:

Just to do this simple little thing—well, hon. members opposite are living in a fool’s paradise if they think that. It seems as if the shock of the loss of our Commonwealth membership has addled their brains. Can they not realize that Britain and the other Commonwealth countries would have had to choose between South Africa on the one hand and the Afro-Asian countries on the other. Because we know that Nigeria, Malaya, Ceylon, India, Pakistan, Ghana and possibly also Canada would have walked out if we had remained in.

*Mr. RAW:

How do you know that?

*Dr. JURGENS:

Because they said so, and because Mr. Diefenbaker of Canada said … [Interjection.]

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member for Durban (Point) has already made his speech and he must now stop interjecting.

*Mr. JURGENS:

Sir, I would like to put myself into the position of the Prime Minister of Great Britain in case of such an eventuality. What would he have thought in regard to a few matters I want to mention now? Let us remember that if he breaks with the Afro-Asian countries he would lose the trade preferences he now enjoys with the 600,000,000 to 800,000,000 people in those countries. Apart from trade, he would also lose his political influence in those countries, and they could then possibly become communist. I think that would have weighed too heavily in favour of those countries and that South Africa would have been left out in the cold. But in view of the fact that Mr. Macmillan also repeatedly stated that his Government does not like our policy of apartheid and favours integration—the merit idea—I cannot see how Britain could possibly have decided in our favour. I hope that this honourable Don Quixote of Natal South Coast will now stop …

*Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member should not say that.

*Dr. JURGENS:

I did not mean it personally, but I hope that he will now stop tilting at windmills. May he see the light and realize that the action of our Prime Minister was the only thing which could enable Britain to retain all the Commonwealth advantages in regard to all the other states as well as South Africa.

But, Sir, we are now out of the Commonwealth and whatever hon. members opposite might say, we shall be outside the Commonwealth, even though we did not desire it. That just happened by coincidence. It is now time that all the White people of both language groups should clearly realize what our position is now and will be in future. The members of the Opposition, both of the United Party and the Progressive Party, expressed it as their conviction that our policy should change to such an extent that we will later be able to re-apply for membership of the Commonwealth. What are the prerequisites for readmission? The prerequisite is absolute equality for everybody in the economic, social and political spheres.

*HON. MEMBERS:

Who says so?

*Dr. JURGENS:

It is not for those hon. members opposite to say what it is. This is what is demanded by Ghana, Nigeria, Malaya and Ceylon.

*Dr. STEYTLER:

You are now talking nonsense, and you know it.

*Dr. JURGENS:

The hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party has already spoken his nonsense earlier in the day and he should now keep quiet. Let us now apply the merit basis which they advocate. Let us see what such equal treatment or this merit system means. It may be acceptable to certain people. It may perhaps make them feel inclined to accept partnership. The Progressive Party is quite prepared to start a partnership.

*Mr. LAWRENCE:

We talk about partnership.

*Dr. JURGENS:

In Afrikaans there is no sort of thing as this partnership. We do not know it. It is only to be found in Rhodesia. What have we learnt in recent years? We have learned that the Hollanders were compelled to evacuate Indonesia, although they tried integration there. What is the position in Ghana and Nigeria? What equal rights do the Whites enjoy there? We read the following report in the Star of 27 September 1960—

No bitterness—but Ghana is slowly moving Whites out.

This report emanates from the Star’s African News Service—

While relations between Black and White are as good as ever, which is very good, in Ghana and Nigeria there is a tendency to try to edge Europeans (or expatriates, as they are officially called in Lagos) out of senior positions.

Recently Mr. James Loxom, jovial former Director of the Ghanaian Information Service, to which he graduated from the Colonial Office in pre-independence days, has been transferred and is now called the “ adviser ”. A Ghanaian has been promoted as Director in his place. The same thing has happened in the Ghanaian Broadcasting Corporation. While there are a number of senior posts held by Britons, chiefly those demanding a degree of technical knowledge, the tendency appears to be to move out the White man wherever this can possibly be done. The same applies in the medical services. Part of the reason is, of course, the restlessness of Ghanaians who have now served for two or three years under heads of departments who are British, and who feel it is time the fruits of independence brought them more personal profit and prestige.

What is the position in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia? Is the demand not stated there that the Black man should rule? Although those who become Members of Parliament are uneducated and inefficient, the merits of the White man simply count for nothing. Most hon. members know that a prominent person from the Federation recently told us here how two of the Native leaders in Northern Rhodesia, whilst they were in London, were very friendly and decent, but immediately after arriving back in Northern Rhodesia they were extremists again because their followers expected it of them. Hon. members must realize that the Black man wants only one thing, viz. domination by the Black man. Who still has any doubt about the equal treatment the Belgians received in the Congo and still receive? We know that they have already killed or chased out all the Whites there, and because they can no longer quench their bloodthirstiness there, because there are no more Whites in the Congo, they cross the border into Angola to kill White people there. What are the possibilities for the White man in South Africa to receive equal treatment from the Black man? I quote from a report in the Star of 3 November 1958—

Africanists aim to drive Whites into sea: The Africanists want nothing White, either in the shape of aid, co-operation or coexistence in the Union. Their slogan is: Africa for the Africans. Africa for humanity. Humanity for God.

I want to give a few more opinions of Natives in South Africa so that we can see clearly what equal treatment we can expect from them. I am going to call Stanley Uys as a witness, in an article he wrote in the Sunday Times on 9 November 1958. He says—

Anti-Whiteism is a product of apartheid. Who are the Africanists? To put it bluntly, they are Africans who are anti-White. They don’t believe in co-operation between Africans and Whites. They regard the White man as a foreigner in Africa. “ Europeans,” they say, “ can never be in the struggle for freedom.” The African must wage the struggle alone, and when he triumphs he must rule alone … Whether the Africanists have finally quit the A.N.C., however, remains to be seen. Some of the Africanist leaders are being criticized (by the people who support them behind the scenes) for displaying their anti-Whiteism so openly and they are being publicly disavowed. Apparently there is a move to abandon the word “ Africanist ”, and to substitute “ African Nationalist ”, and resume the agitation within the A.N.C. against the leadership.

And then comes Mr. Stanley Uys’s comment—

The unofficial mouthpiece of the Africanists is a leading weekly newspaper for Africans in Johannesburg. It blithely plays with fire. Some White politicians, too, play with the same fire. They see in the Africanist an opportunity to overthrow the present A.N.C. leadership. It is time this risky game was stopped. Supporting the Africanists, for whatever motive, is plainly White suicide … but for Whites to toy with Africanism in the belief that they will be able to use it for their own ends and then stifle it at will is appalling folly.

If they should get the power into their hands, I am convinced that they would carry on in just the same way as their Black brothers in the Congo. It is interesting to see what the trend of thought of the Native is, and therefore I want to read the following. It is a report about a journalist who had a Press conference in Johannesburg on 13 January 1959. He is an American Negro journalist, William Gordon—

Another non-White questioner wanted to know whether the United States would side with the Blacks in Africa in their struggle for independence and freedom. Gordon replied that the U.S.A. wanted all people to be free and equal. Question: If there were to be bloodshed in the Union, on whose side would the U.S.A. stand? I mean, where will the sympathies of the U.S.A. lie? Reply: I do not think that is something I can reply to. Question: But you said the U.S.A. wants the oppressed peoples to be free. What kind of action will the U.S.A. take if there is to be a conflict in the Union? Reply: I think the U.S.A. will take some step or other to remedy matters.

That shows in what direction the Native in this country thinks. He is thinking of bloodshed. Thereafter we had Langa and Sharpeville. Let us see what the leaders of the Natives stated under oath in court. I am referring to the case about the riots. The headlines of the report are: “ Overthrow of White Domination and Rule by Natives ”, and then it continues as follows—

The chief aim of the Pan-Africanist Congress is the complete overthrow of domination, Robert Sebukwe, National President of the Congress, said in the Johannesburg Regional Court to-day.

[Interjections.] I am not referring to the high treason case, but to the case about the riots at Sharpeville—

Speaking in ringing tones, Sebukwe glanced occasionally at notes before him. He said that membership was close on 200,000 and the aim also was to establish a “ non-racial democracy in South Africa as well as throughout the whole of Africa…”

That is what hon. members here are trying to achieve, a non-racial democracy. I just want to tell those hon. members what their proposed partner thinks of this non-racial democracy. He says—*

We regard it as our historic rôle to contribute towards a United States of Africa from Cape to Cairo, Morocco to Madagascar. For the same reason we stand for government of the African by the African and for the African, with everybody owing his allegiance to Africa and prepared also to accept the rule of the African majority.

[Interjections.] Let us read what certain other of their brothers in arms said further. That comes from the Argus of Monday 16 May 1960—

Langa Commission of Inquiry: P.A.C. leader hints at violence to get vote: A Pan-Africanist Congress leader said at the Langa inquiry that the P.A.C. plan to gain control of South Africa in 1963 by obtaining the vote for Africans. Crippling industry was one way of doing this, but the P.A.C. might use violence, he said. He was Gasson Ndhlovu, vice-chairman of the now banned P.A.C.’s Cape Western Region.

He was then asked—

I understand your policy is to take over the country in 1963?—Yes. Ndhlovu said the P.A.C. policy in this particular campaign against passes was nonviolent. “We don’t propose that in any other campaign it will be non-violent ”, he said. The Commissioner: Do you mean that there might be violence in another campaign?—It might, it might not. Is that part of the policy of the P.A.C.?—It is part of the policy. Why should this one be non-violent?— We felt that in this campaign we would not gain by violence. The Government would win by violence. Why should not that argument apply to any other campaign?—I do not know, Sir. Can you tell me how you propose taking over the country by 1963 with non-violence? Would you not have to resort to violence? —That would be decided by time. You tell me your party has decided to take over by 1963. You must have made decisions? Ndhlovu replied that when the anti-pass campaign was planned the P.A.C. had not decided on other campaigns. The Commissioner: Who fixed the date 1963?—Our national office. Do you know how they came to that?— They came to that decision because they knew that as soon as they were allowed to vote, in the first place, then, if South Africa is anything like a democratic country, we would be in the majority. And by virtue of that only, we would take over the country.

[Interjections.] That poor member there is too stupid to become afraid. Here we now have the proof from the mouths of the Natives themselves that their idea of integration and co-operation with the non-Whites will not work; all that the non-White wants is absolute control in South Africa, and the White man must get out. But because we cannot follow that road we stand wholeheartedly by the policy of apartheid of the Nationalist Party and we appeal to the Whites of South Africa to support that policy, which is the only policy which can save the White people of South Africa.

*Mr. VAN DER AHEE:

Mr. Speaker, the great majority of the White voters in South Africa are more convinced than ever before to-day that the establishment of a republic will put a stop to that old constitutional struggle we have had for all these years, and which drew the sharp dividing line between English-and Afrikaans-speaking people. We believe that when that struggle could be ended, common ground could be found on which the two sections could build a future for South Africa We believed that the establishment of the republic would not lead to our expulsion from the Commonwealth, because there were precedents which gave us the assurance that this would not disqualify us. We also believed, and were aware, that the matter of becoming a republic and the matter of our racial policy were two quite different matters, and we believed that the racial policy of South Africa would never disqualify us from remaining in the Commonwealth. We believe that the emphasis would fall only on our becoming a republic, and we never thought that the Commonwealth would go so far as to make demands on us which would mean that the Whites in South Africa would have to capitulate; and that a country like ours with its many different races could remain in a multiracial Commonwealth. Sir, it must now be accepted and it is an incontrovertible fact that such a demand is totally unacceptable to the White people in South Africa. Now the United Party comes along with the slogan: Back to the Commonwealth. I would like to know whether they will comply with the demand that one man should have one vote. Several of their speakers here have said that they do not accept it.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Of course not.

*Mr. VAN DER AHEE:

Again they say of course not, but then they are deceiving themselves because that is what will be demanded of themselves. We are not prepared to sacrifice our White identity in South Africa for a Commonwealth which does not care what happens to its identity. I would like to follow the example set by our Prime Minister when he said that we should not throw mud and make recriminations, but I would like to ask the United Party and the Progressive Party and the English Press to be honest with themselves and to see in how far far they contributed towards this unfortunate position and to crystallizing world opinion. The meaning they attach to the word “apartheid ” has gone out to all corners of the world. That meaning of the word, of racial discrimination, a police state, etc., went out into the world, and finally they want to use Sharpeville as a symbol of our racial policy in South Africa. If the proper and exact meaning had been attached to the word apartheid, the position would surely have been different. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) is being a nuisance. We know him, but I am accustomed not to allow myself to be disturbed by people who try to make a nuisance of themselves at meetings. These distortions and lies were carried by the winds to all four corners of the world, but I still believe that the truth will prevail. Discrimination is found in practically every country. To-day the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs referred to trade discrimination. We find discrimination in all countries in various forms, but in other countries discrimination is a good thing, but if it takes place in South Africa it is evil. It is to be noted that in former years very little was done for the Coloured races. Then there was also discrimination in South Africa, but then it was right, but since the Nationalist Party started implementing its policy of separate development for the benefit of both the Whites and the Coloured races, started developing the Bantu reserves, purchased land, and spent millions, and will still have to spend millions in future, now we are being criticized. The Bantu has the opportunity to exist on his own and to govern himself. They receive education and universities, agricultural colleges and trade schools, health services, housing, and their land is being developed for their own benefit. New townships are being established under the Group Areas Act. Services are being provided for the Coloureds and they are being given opportunities for obtaining employment, but now that all this is being done they are told that they should revolt because everything that is given to the Coloured races amounts to oppression. Instead of asking for the co-operation of these people, they condemn the Government. They try to obstruct the Government in executing its plans. Sir, the White population of South Africa is not here by accident. It has been said several times, but I want to repeat it and emphasize it. We were put here in a dark South Africa for a purpose, and the sooner we realize it and effect that purpose, the better it will be for the White people here. [Interjections.]

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! Does the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) not become tired of hearing his own voice?

*Mr. VAN DER AHEE:

The purpose for which we are here is to spread the White Christian civilization, and in order to do that there should be harmony between the Whites and peace in our minds. A house divided against itself cannot stand. We cannot continue with the hatred and venom in the hearts of many of us and which we reveal in our politics. I am serious when I say this, because if we continue with this hatred it is not difficult to predict the future of the Whites in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, you will not blame me if I now want to get out of this groove, out of this Commonwealth complex in which we have found ourselves during the last few days, and turn to another subject. It will perhaps be good for our peace of mind, so that we can have a good night’s rest, if I speak about something else.

When the Minister of Finance introduced his Budget he used quite a number of medical terms, but when the doctors have done what they can for the patient the account arrives, and then it is money which counts. In that way the Minister in his Budget speech also eventually came to the money values. In a previous debate in this House, when the consequences of the drought and the losses suffered were discussed, it also boiled down to money; the losses were calculated in money. I want to express a few thoughts about the consequences of an ailing farming community which cannot be assessed in terms of money.

We want to have a sound farming population in South Africa because that will mean more to our national economy than anything that can be calculated in terms of money. There are various factors which can cause a sickly farming community. In any case it would have been better first to apply preventive measures instead of waiting until the patient is sick and then to make a diagnosis and to administer the medicine. There is a common bond between the human being, the plant and the animal; all are closely connected with the soil. The soil must in the first place be kept healthy so that everything which lives from the soil can also be healthy. That does not affect economic values only, but also spiritual, educational, social and cultural values, which cannot be assessed in terms of money. The old adage that the farmer is the backbone of the nation does not apply when through droughts and other economic factors that backbone sinks down to that part of your spine on which you sit. The question may be asked what the moral effect of it is and whether that can also be calculated in terms of money. In the past the young people were moulded in the towns and on the farms in the old national traditions, and they helped to shape the future. Sometimes that happened under difficult circumstances. There were also wars then and disease and droughts, but taking into consideration what the ratio in the numbers of the population was in those days between the platteland and the cities, it was not a great problem. To-day the farming population of South Africa constitutes only 18 per cent of the whole of the White population. The question is whether it is still possible for such a small percentage of the population to exert its influence, particularly if one remembers that people are more susceptible to bad influences than to good ones. I want to express the hope that the farming population will still be able to have an influence on our national economy. That can be done provided it is a sound farming combination, spiritually and economically. In the times in which we live we should take care that the qualities and characteristics one gets from the land alone, and which a sound farming population alone can give to the nation, do not disappear. A boy and girl who come from the farm are unspoilt, inwardly fortified by a character that only the soil can give to them, and they go to the cities with these characteristics and exert their influence there. Can that be assessed in terms of money? The fact remains, and we dare not lose sight of it, that the rural population still has an important rôle to play, not only in feeding the nation but also in the development of a great, happy and prosperous White civilization. Who can assess that in terms of money? Industries have developed and the urban populations have increased. That resulted in the farming community now constituting a minority of the population. The gap is increasing daily, resulting in the farming community being pushed into the background. I do not want to mention examples but the Press is noticeably pushing the farming population into the background. That results in quite a different philosophy of life being created in our country and it must essentially effect the administration of the State, the education, the culture and traditions of our people. In these circumstances it is more necessary than ever before to have a strong, economically and spiritually sound farming community, because they have an important rôle to play. There are of course factors which hinder the farmers from playing their rôle, the most important of which are perhaps droughts and marketing. Therefore we should now think and plan seriously. The leaders of our people must fulfil their task, so that the farmer can successfully assist in preserving Christian civilization in South Africa. Now we also get the political implications. The political power is shifting from the platteland to the cities, in other words, from the stable element and situation to the fluid situation, which in any case in my opinion will not be the ideal position in the republic. Plans should be evolved by which the platteland will retain its political power. The appointment of the commission to investigate the depopulation of the platteland is appreciated, but we want a commission to investigate and to provide precautionary measures to save the farmer from the anxiety and uncertainty in which he finds himself. I do not for a moment want to allege that nothing is being done. Much is being done, like the soil conservation measures, the work done at Onderstepoort in regard to cattle diseases, etc. These are precautionary measures, but they do not provide the cure.

I want to conclude by giving one example. As a cattle farmer I regard the farming population as the stud of the population and I regard the urban population as the herd, and the herd is built up from the stud, and we must see to it that the stud is sound, that its constitution is strong, because it must be hardy. We must ensure that the stud maintains a high quality, and if we do so we can also be sure that the herd will be of a high standard.

Mr. TUCKER:

I would like to say a word of thanks to the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet. I am quite sure that his words of wisdom, to which we all listened with very great attention, will help us to sleep more comfortably to-night. I would like to say to him as one who spent his early years on a farm, that I agree wholeheartedly with him that you must have a sound farming population if you wish to have a sound nation. If you go back in history you will find that in many of the empires which disappeared, as long as they had a sound farming population they were strong, but when the quality of their farming population deteriorated it was the beginning of the end of that civilization. I would say to him that I agree entirely that one of the very important charges which we as members of this House have is to do what we can in order to maintain a sound farming population. I am only very sorry that our Prime Minister did not bear that in mind when he was representing South Africa in London, because the steps he took there might very easily react to the detriment of the farming population.

Mr. B. COETZEE:

It was not a wool conference.

Mr. TUCKER:

The hon. member referred to the demands that the Whites must abdicate in this country. Sir, I challenge any hon. member of this House to prove that any such demand was made to the Prime Minister at the recent Conference in London.

Mr. B. COETZEE:

I will bring it to-morrow.

Mr. TUCKER:

I want it to be understood that the challenge is on the basis of the words which the hon. member used.

At 10.25 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned until 28 March.

The House adjourned at 10.26 p.m.