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.

Hear, hear!

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?

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

He is being petty.

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—

Let us see what he though of friendship with Britain—

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—

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—

What is a “ kakieridder ”?

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—

When was that?

That was reported in the Burger of 19 July 1940.

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

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—

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—

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.

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

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

No.

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

You do not want national unity.

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—

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

You are a Rip van Winkel.

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.

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

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—

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—

He went on to say—

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

What is the point?

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

Do you not want their friendship?

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—

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—

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—

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.”

You should open your eyes and close your mouth.

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 …

And you were afraid to take it.

… 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.

You are not standing in Hyde Park now.

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

He is trying to be another Mitchell.

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

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 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.

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 ”.

You have not been listening.

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.

What enemies did our leader quote?

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.

Just remember!

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—

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

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

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—

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 …

May I put a question?

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.

Where?

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—

The question was put to him—

His reply was—

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.

You were never interned.

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—

Then he continued—

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—

On what date?

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

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.

Where do the communists come from?

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.

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—

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—

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

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 ”.

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—

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…

May I ask a question?

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. 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.

Japie will also be speaking.

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.

And what price did we pay for it?

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.

What is your proof for saying that?

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—

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 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.

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—

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.

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

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

No.

Then I substitute the word “ opruier ”.

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

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

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

I bow to your ruling.

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

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.

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 hon. member may proceed.

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.

Who said that?

The hon. member for Drakensberg said so.

Read it out.

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 ”.

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.”

But that is not true. He never said that.

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—

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

May I give a personal explanation?

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

He went on to say this (Col. 5904)—

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

The Minister went on to say this—

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—

He went on—

On another occasion the Minister said—

In reply to a question he said—

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—

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

Mr. Speaker, this is priceless! —

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—

Mr. Sauer at Somerset West—

A last one—

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Which friends have we lost?

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.

Members opposite said he must do it.

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!

You will get a reply to-morrow.

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—

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.

He will reply tomorrow.

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?

Only good.

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?

He said it had been a failure.

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!

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

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.

Postponing will lead us nowhere.

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.

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—

May I put a question?

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—

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—

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

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. 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—

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—

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.

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—

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.

Those were laws which you supported.

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. 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—

The article goes on to say—

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—

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—

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)—

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)—

“ They ” are the United Party—

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—

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—

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

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 …

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.

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.

One does not vote on regulations.

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 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.

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—

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.

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.

You should cut off yours.

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.

A satellite.

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—

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.

He never said that.

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?

I am prepared to abide by the Treaty of Versailles.

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 …

May I ask you a question?

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—

Did you read what Lord Fraser said?

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

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

I am repeating warnings from friends.

Why?

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 …

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

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?

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

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.

You tell that to your side.

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

Order, order!

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 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—

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.

For his what?

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

Order, order!

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.”

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.

You have not the courage to do so.

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.

How did he land in that position?

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.

That is true.

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

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

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

And treason.

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.

The hon. member may continue.

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.

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

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

Yes.

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

Well, then I withdraw those words, Sir.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

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 ”.

No, the hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

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—

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.

Who said that?

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.

How do you know that?

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

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

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 …

The hon. member should not say that.

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.

Who says so?

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

You are now talking nonsense, and you know it.

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.

We talk about partnership.

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—

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

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—

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—

And then comes Mr. Stanley Uys’s comment—

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—

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—

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

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—*

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

He was then asked—

[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. 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.

Of course not.

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.]

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

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.

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.

It was not a wool conference.

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.

I will bring it to-morrow.

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