House of Assembly: Vol107 - WEDNESDAY 12 APRIL 1961
Mr. SPEAKER announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had appointed the following members to serve on the Select Committees mentioned, viz.:
- (1) Mr. Marais, on the Select Committee on Pensions in the place of Mr. Rust who had resigned as a Member of the House of Assembly; and
- (2) Mr. Muller, on the Select Committee on Irrigation Matters in the place of Mr. van der Vyver, deceased.
Bill read a first time.
I may say at the outset that fortunately Parliament is rarely concerned in motions of this type, they rarely come before Parliament. But it is the usage and practice when an hon. member’s honour has been impugned that a Select Committee be appointed, unless the member concerned who has made the imputation can give some satisfaction in Parliament in a suitable manner. I may say that in the history of this Parliament, as long as I have been here, such a motion has usually been granted, because if Parliament is jealous of anything, it is jealous of its own prestige and it is jealous of protecting the honour of the Members of Parliament. As I have said, the one almost inviolate rule is that the honour of a member must not be impugned in any way. The opportunity for amends arises the next sitting day if the member concerned so chooses, and even at this late stage there is still that opportunity available when the hon. member speaks to this motion in this House to-day. Mr. Speaker, the allegation or the charge that was made by the hon. member is contained in the report of his speech by Hansard last Monday evening, and there are two appropriate portions which I will quote. I don’t want to take up the time of the House by quoting the whole speech, because I do not think it is necessary, but I will simply quote the appropriate portions of that speech, if I may. He said this—
The hon. member later on in his speech became more positive when he said the following, and I think that it is the gravamen of this charge and the stage of his speech when he made the imputation. He said—
The hon. Leader of the Opposition then rose and took the point of order and told him that it was completely untrue and asked that a Select Committee be appointed to investigate the charge. The Chairman intervened, saying that the hon. member must accept the word of the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member went on—
Then he went on with his speech. The point is that he made the allegation against the honour of the hon. Leader of the Opposition in this House. It does not matter whether it was in reference to activities outside the House. The seriousness of it is that it was made in this House and there are remedies provided for that. What are the facts, Mr. Speaker? The fact is, and it well known throughout the length and breadth of South Africa, that after a meeting of the Central Executive Committee of this party, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was going overseas, it was endorsed that during his visit over there he should try to ensure as far as he possibly could that South Africa had continued membership of the Commonwealth after the change in the Constitution. This was published in the papers. It was widely known that that would be one of the purposes of his visit overseas. To this end, while overseas the hon. the Leader of the Opposition appeared on the Africa programme, the home programme and the television programme of the B.B.C. And at those appearances he made the plea that South Africa should remain within the Commonwealth. That is widely known. Also, in accordance with practice, as a distinguished visitor, and as a distinguished Parliamentarian would do when going overseas, he addressed private gatherings to the same purpose and the same end.
Then the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) makes the allegation and states as a specific fact that the Leader of the Opposition acted to the contrary, but he had no grounds for that statement, and no evidence that that was the position. I may say that I have been informed that no letters were written during the visit except three letters of thanks for facilitating interviews with persons that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition desired to see. Two of those letters were to High Commissioners and one was the then Chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association who, naturally, would afford him the courtesy of that association, as is done to all members. The hon. member bases his imputations and the allegations he has made against my hon. leader by attaching some significance to the fact that the next day, after the decision had been taken to withdraw from the Commonwealth and the news had been broken that South Africa was outside the Commonwealth— he attaches some significance to the fact that there was a statement by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, the news, if you remember, broke during the evening. It broke round about, I think, the middle of the evening sitting, at about 9 o’clock. And the hon. the Leader of the Opposition requested, amongst others, myself and his provincial chairman to meet him after Parliament had risen. I then proceeded to his farm with others to discuss this matter and to determine what the attitude of the party would be and what action we should take. It was then that it was decided to issue the statement that appeared the next day. I cannot see how the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark can attach his conclusions to the fact that this statement was made at the time, or that there was any significance in it as he sees it.
Sir, I venture to say that this charge is without any foundation. I believe, and I think everybody who knows the Leader of the Opposition as we all know him in this House will agree that he acted in a most correct and commendable manner in his visit overseas. I have said that there are no facts to support the charge, and moreover to me the most important factor is that, if anything can be said about the hon. gentleman sitting on my right, it is that his honesty is patent to all. And that makes a charge made in this manner a serious matter, and he is entitled to have the matter investigated.
It is not for me to make any long speech here beyond to state the facts. It is in the interests of Parliament, its prestige, that it should protect a member on such occasions as this, and I hope that the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark—and I say this in all sincerity —having had time to reflect on what he said during the debate on Monday night, may see fit to put the matter right before it goes any further. I move.
Mr. Speaker, I rise at once because I feel unhappy about this incident and because I want to try to make it unnecessary for this motion to be proceeded with. Perhaps I am particularly sensitive because I myself am the sufferer in connection with similar charges with regard to precisely the same matter as the one in which the Leader of the Opposition is now involved.
Apart from that, my attitude is that not only must we, as the hon. the mover of the motion has done, uphold the honour of Parliament, but I believe that confidence in the sincerity and honesty of a nation’s leaders, its leaders both on the the Opposition and the Government side, also affects the honour of that nation. To me it is a matter of great importance that the honour of the Leader of the Opposition should not be impugned, nor that of the Prime Minister or of other Cabinet Ministers. Apart from the fact that I attach great value to the honour of this House and of leaders of the nation, I want to add that I personally am firmly convinced that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did his best overseas to keep us within the Commonwealth. That conviction is based not only on my faith in his honesty. I have an additional reason for that conviction, a reason of which hon. members here are not aware because this was really a private matter between him and myself. Perhaps I can go so far now as to reveal, not the contents of our conversation but the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, after his return from abroad, saw fit to enlighten me about his movements and about his discussions. And I can draw no other inference from that fact than that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition really did his best overseas to keep South Africa within the Commonwealth. But this is information which is not at the disposal of members on my side, and in the circumstances I can well understand that at times they may have drawn inferences, rightly or wrongly, which they would not have drawn if they had been aware of this. Having made this public here now and having made known my own conviction, I should like to make an appeal to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet), in the first place to accept my word, in the light of the statement that I have just made with regard to special knowledge that was at my disposal, that I have reason to believe that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition acted as he himself says he did; and in the second place I want to make an appeal to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark to accept my lead and to withdraw his words and to offer an apology to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and to the House. I hope that if that is done there will be no necessity to proceed with this motion.
But I would be less than fair—-and I want to be fair to hon. members on the Opposition side as well as to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark—if I did not refer to the fact that members on our side have been provoked to say things which should perhaps not have been said. I refer to the fact that followers of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition have made similar charges—just as serious and perhaps more serious than the charge which is being complained about to-day—in respect of my honour and my efforts at the Prime Ministers’ Conference. I do not think it is in keeping with the Prime Minister’s dignity to lay a charge in such a case and to ask for an inquiry by a Parliamentary Committee. I think it is his duty to suffer in silence. Since this opportunity has now presented itself. I do feel, however, that I should refer to it in fairness, particularly having regard to what the hon. member for Vanderbijpark has said in his speech, namely that he made this charge as a sort of quid pro quo. There are others, but I should like to mention just these few examples of what members on the other side have said in this House, bearing in mind also the meaning it acquires in the light of what they said outside. I quote in the first place from the Hansard report of 27 March, what the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) said. He made the following allegation—
A second example occurred yesterday when the hon. member next to him, the member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell), said the following—
In other words, that is a direct accusation that I deliberately succeeded in my efforts to get us out. Then, particularly towards the end of the second speech made by him, he used words which he repeated at the beginning of his third speech and which he was then ordered to withdraw. I assume, however, that these words still appear in Hansard at the end of his second speech, where they were not withdrawn. He said—
Then there is a third case that I want to mention here. I refer to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) who, according to Hansard of 24 March, used the following words—
And then he went on to say in Col. 3610—the previous quotation appears in Col. 3600—
Outside this House he put it more strongly, but I think these statements are sufficient to impugn the honour of a member of this House, as I am. Outside the House he put it more strongly and this adds weight to the meaning of his words inside this House. At Pinelands he used the following words—
And on 20 March he said at Sea Point—
That appeared in the Cape Times of 23 March 1961. Well, Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with what the hon. member (Mr. Higgerty) said— it is improper to cast suspicion on the honour of a member and particularly of a leader of this country and of this House. Like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition I too think I am entitled to claim that I tried to act honourably. I stated and promised here that I was going to try to keep South Africa within the Commonwealth. I have as much right really as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to feel injured in my personal dignity. But I too feel that the honour of this House has been impugned and that the honour of this country has been impugned by these accusations. I want to say no more in that regard.
I just want to repeat that I made a very urgent appeal to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark to follow my lead. And I leave it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, if his influence over his followers is sufficiently strong, to decide for himself whether he wants to do the same thing in respect of his supporters.
Mr. Speaker, I comply unconditionally with the wish expressed by the hon. the Prime Minister. I offer my apology to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and to this House, and I withdraw the pertinent charge against the Leader of the Opposition that he tried to make it impossible for South Africa to remain in the Commonwealth.
Mr. Speaker, I do this for four reasons, firstly, because I desire to follow the lead of my chief Leader, the hon. the Prime Minister;, secondly, because the hon. the Prime Minister has now furnished information here which was not previously at my disposal; thirdly, because I want to put it beyond any doubt that I did not intend to impugn the personal honour of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition; and, fourthly, I should like, as we are all expected to do, to uphold the honour of all members and the dignity of the House of Assembly.
I should like to express my thanks to the hon. the Prime Minister for his intervention in this matter at this stage, and his revelation of several facts which were perhaps not known to hon. members, and was a private matter between him and myself. I am also grateful that as a result of that intervention the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) has withdrawn the imputations which he made. I shall have no hesitation in asking the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) to withdraw the motion which stands in his name. I must say that I regret that it was necessary for the hon. the Prime Minister to have intervened for the hon. member to have felt it necessary to withdraw what he had said.
May I say that in regard to this matter I have not hesitated to express my belief that the hon. the Prime Minister did what he could to keep South Africa in the Commonwealth. Whether he did what was right or what was wrong is another matter, and we may differ on that. And may I say that he also spoke to me when he returned, and I believe that he took the action which he thought was right in the circumstances. Whether I happen to agree with the rightness or otherwise is another matter, but I feel I am satisfied as to his complete honesty in that matter and his desire to retain South Africa’s membership to the best of his ability. I may say that this is a matter which has caused very high feeling amongst the public on both sides. It is perhaps right that this discussion should have arisen on this occasion so that the dignity of this House and the dignity of Parliament could be maintained in respect of this issue and the general behaviour of hon. members towards each other.
With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I desire to withdraw my motion.
First Order read: Third reading,—Republic of South Africa Constitution Bill.
Before calling upon the hon. the Prime Minister to move the motion for the Third Reading of the Bill, I want to point out that I have been approached on behalf of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition regarding the scope of this debate. Standing Order No. 180 provides that on the Third Reading of a Bill the debate thereon shall be confined to its contents. In view, however, of the great importance of this measure, I am prepared to allow the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a certain amount of latitude in his address to the House and to make the same concession in respect of the hon. the Prime Minister. Other hon. members, however, must confine their remarks strictly to the contents of the Bill and may not raise matters not included in its provisions.
Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill which we on this side of the House have consistently opposed in Parliament, and also prior to that when its principle was canvassed before the people of South Africa. I want to say that there were many grounds for that opposition, grounds ranging from a sentimental attachment by many to the monarchy, to opposition by those who, although they were republicans, felt that this was the wrong time for this step to be taken. But perhaps the two main reasons for this opposition were, firstly, that this step at this time would place our Commonwealth membership in jeopardy and, secondly, that the Bill itself and the manner of its introduction made it impossible to introduce new and effective safeguards into the Constitution. With every day that has passed since this Bill has been before Parliament events have proved that this side of the House has been right and that that side of the House has been wrong. The hon. the Prime Minister has not been able to implement the main concession which he was prepared to make to the English section as he put it, for unity within the republic. And that concession was to keep the republic within the Commonwealth. And there are as yet no signs whatever of greater unity and the greater resultant prosperity which was further bait used to attract the voters to support this Bill. So far from all that, this Bill is being placed upon the Statute Book at a time when economic confidence has been severely shaken, when capital outflow is reaching dangerous proportions; when a large section of the public is bitterly disillusioned and fear instead of confidence is determining the actions of many of our people.
Let me be fair, Sir. Many of these developments are not due so much to the contents of this Bill themselves but to the fact that the introduction of this Bill at this time gave the critics of South Africa, and more particularly the critics of South Africa under the present Government and under its policies, an opportunity of attacking it successfully and driving South Africa into isolation; and of bringing to a head the dangers that were latent in the policies which this Government was following. There must have been few if any occasions in the history of this Parliament where the effects of a Bill have been so startlingly, so evident even before it is finally placed upon the Statute Book. In this respect this Bill must be unique in our history. What further effects there will be before the 31 May when this Bill comes into operation, can only be guessed at. But no matter how severe or how harsh they may be, it seems that it is abundantly clear that they will not cause the hon. the Prime Minister to deviate from his course, because he has now left no doubt in anybody’s mind that in his opinion the conversion of South Africa into a republic is far more important than her retention of Commonwealth membership with all its attendant benefits.
That step is going to mean not only a break with an old tradition which has had a proud record in South Africa, but also ever-growing sacrifices, the eventual effect of which no one can foretell at the present time. It will mean, also, the start of a new tradition to the overwhelming majority of the population of South Africa, and perhaps the revival of a tradition to the oldest members in this House from the Northern Provinces. In a sense, the coming into operation of this Bill will be a new adventure for South Africa. But I cannot see that it will solve any of the problems with which we are beset at the present time. Indeed, this Bill as it now stands does not equip South Africa to enter upon this adventure, because it does not contain the provisions necessary to achieve a just and generally acceptable solution to our problems.
This is not the old South Africa Act with minimal amendments; this is the South Africa Act as it has been mutilated over the past 13 years in a manner which, experience has taught us, lacks certain essential provisions for the proper conduct of the nation’s affairs and the peace and happiness of our people. For instance, this Bill as it now stands before us excludes millions of the people of South Africa, people who live here, from any form of representation in this Parliament, and thus any participation in the government of the country. That is a circumstance which prevents consultation in the highest policy-making body of the country, where consultation alone can be effective and can be practical.
Secondly, this Bill provides no safeguards for the rights of minority groups, save in the case of language groups, and that against the background of a precedent which renders that safeguard somewhat ineffective.
Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, by failing to incorporate into this Bill federal elements, it lacks the machinery to safeguard the powers of the constituent geographical units which go to form South Africa, and also the rights of the various racial groups and the dignity and freedom of the individual. I know I shall be asked at once why we on this side did not seek to remedy these defects. There are two reasons for that. The first is that this Bill was introduced before separate sittings of the House of Assembly and the Other Place. That meant that entrenchments as we know them at the present time were not possible.
In the second place, during the course of the sitting of the Joint Select Committee there was a motion for an instruction to provide for the entrenchment of the rights of the existing Provinces, and certain other matters, which was voted down by the majority on that Joint Select Committee. As the result we are asked to place legislation on the Statute Book which I believe is completely inadequate to meet the needs of our people in the times in which we live. As it stands for our final consideration here to-day I cannot see how it can provide the instrument for an effective solution of our racial problems in South Africa, to mention but one of the matters with which it has to do.
For these reasons I do not believe that this constitution will last. I believe it will either be reformed by our own volition or swept away by forces beyond our control. I want to say that we on this side of the House will work, to achieve reforms of our own volition, with the support of all those South Africans who are wise enough to realize that if you wish to conserve you must be prepared to reform. I know that hon. members opposite will want to know at once when I speak of reform whether I include the main principle of this Bill, the establishment of a republic. May I remind them that I have repeatedly said, both inside and outside of this House, that the step of converting South Africa into a republic is an irrevocable step and not one which could be undone. Once this Bill is brought into operation, we shall have to live in the republic and we shall have to dedicate ourselves to the task of making our lives under that form of government as secure and as happy as we can in the circumstances. It is because we realize that for all practical purposes this step is irrevocable that many of us are approaching 31 May with such mixed feelings. To many South Africans it will be a day of rejoicing. To many others, equally good South Africans, it will be a day of deep sorrow. I wonder whether hon. members opposite realize how deep the feelings are in connection with this matter in many parts of South Africa at present. In some cases that sorrow will be due to the destruction of an attachment to the monarchy which has lasted for a lifetime, which lasted in peace and in war, in good times and bad. In other cases it will be due to frustration, to disillusionment which has come with the realization that many of those people who voted for a republic voted for it under a misapprehension. They believed genuinely that the republic would be inside the Commonwealth and that there was no risk whatever of its being outside the Commonwealth. They find themselves now in a very difficult position indeed. I want to say that while I fully understand the frustration, the bitter disillusionment and the disappointment of those people, yet it is a source of great regret to me that so many people are either leaving South Africa or thinking of doing so. To them and to all South Africans I want to say this: Stay here and stand firm and fight it out. The real cause of South Africa’s present growing misery is the race policies of this Government. No matter how rigid and foolhardy the Prime Minister may be, our nation will not let him and his Government lead us to final disaster. I am confident that the nation will demand the adaptations which are necessary in South Africa and that those who are not capable of making those adaptations will be swept away, and when that happens South Africa will turn its back on fear and uncertainty and will once more advance to the great and happy future which should be our destiny.
Having said a word to those who are thinking of leaving South Africa and who I sincerely hope will change their minds, I want to say a word to those others to whom the arrival of the republic will mean the achievement of a long-cherished ideal I want to tell them pertinently that the fate of this young republic will depend also on them. If they fail to adapt themselves to the realities of our time and if they stand rigid and inflexible, even against the demands of their own consciences and their better judgment, the republic they have so long desired will prove to be a hollow victory and a fruitless and barren achievement. Republic or monarchy, South Africa has the right to demand of her people that in these days of mounting crises, they should shed their outworn fears and plan courageously for the future. We on this side of the House, although we shall vote against this Bill, dedicate ourselves and our party to the future planning of South Africa, no matter what its constitution and no matter what the difficulties we will have to face.
Mr. Speaker, it is of the utmost importance to me to say these few words on the third reading of this Bill. We have always maintained that we are an independent, free State. I want to ask you to consider this matter for a moment in the following light: If you are an independent country, what does your legislature consist of? The old Constitution laid down that it consisted of the King, the House of Assembly and the Senate. In other words, hitherto South Africa has always had to borrow one of the ingredients of its legislature from another state in order to make up the three ingredients. We have always been so independent that we have never had a legislature, all the ingredients of which existed here in South Africa; hitherto we have always had to borrow one of the ingredients from another state in order to make up the three ingredients of our legislature. That is why I rejoice to be able to say that when 31 May arrives, South Africa, for the first time, will have a legislature, all the ingredients of which will derive from the South African nation. This can have only one effect and that is that whereas we have always bitterly complained and suffered because of an inherent division, the causes of that division will now disappear, and now for the first time no citizen of this country will be able to divide his loyalty and his love, as far as the legislature of his State is concerned, between institutions which exist in this country and others that form part of another state.
Order! The hon. member must come back to the contents of the Bill.
I am talking about the legislature as it will be constituted in future.
But the hon. member is going much too far now. I cannot allow such a wide discussion as in the second reading debate. According to the rules of this House the hon. member must confine himself to the contents of the Bill.
I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I thought that would be the effect of this measure. The second effect of this measure is that it will now be possible for the first time to create a relationship between South Africa and Britain that we could never get under the old Constitution, because under the old Constitution one of the ingredients of the legislature was always used to cause trouble in the friendship between South Africa and Britain.
Order! The hon. member is not observing my ruling.
Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me, I want to outline very briefly the main reasons which determined our attitude on these benches in connection with the question of the establishment of a republic in South Africa. Since the inception of our Party we have approached this question not from the point of view of sentimental considerations on one side or on the other side, but purely on the basis of this question: Under what Constitution can South Africa best be governed? That was our main goal at the Union Congress of this Party where we decided that our approach to the republican Constitution would be determined on the basis of whether the Constitution with which we are dealing here can serve as a basis on which all population groups in this country will show not only loyalty but love and respect for South Africa. We adopted the attitude that before asking the people to give their verdict on this question, we should handle matters in South Africa in such a way that it will not have any detrimental effects, either internally or externally. That is why we pleaded from the beginning for a constitutional change that would remove any possibility of harm being done to South Africa, if the electorate decided that we should become a republic.
Order! I hope the hon. member will come back to the Bill now. He is the leader of that Party and I am sorry that he did not approach me in advance in connection with a speech which covers a wider field than an ordinary third reading speech. I will allow the hon. member a certain amount of latitude, but I hope he will come back soon to the provisions of the Bill.
I will observe your ruling. May I just add that if our advice had been accepted and if we had made these constitutional changes before calling upon the electorate to make their choice, then there is no doubt that we would have retained our membership of the Commonwealth. But this legislation which is before the House once again makes provision for the colour bar which has existed in the South African Constitution since 1950. This Constitution once again contains the principle of racial discrimination, which is the very principle to which objection is taken not only within our country but to which the Commonwealth and the whole of the free world object. Once again it is laid down in this Constitution that the non-White population of South Africa will not participate either in this Parliament or in the Senate or in the Provincial Council. In my opinion the key to this Constitution is embodied in Clause 59, the clause which provides that the House of Assembly alone shall be the sovereign legislative authority in and over the republic. Even the Upper House, which formerly acted as a brake on the House of Assembly, is excluded here. It is clear therefore that according to Clause 59 the rights and privileges and opportunities of every individual in South Africa are left to the mercy of political parties. Because of this clause alone, we in this party would have been entitled to reject this Constitution, because in our opinion the Constitution should have provided for and should have reflected the realities of South Africa as far as our population is concerned. To our mind it is a pity that this opportunity was not taken by the Prime Minister to make everyone of our fellow-countrymen feel that he belongs and that he has reason to show loyalty and love and respect for the Constitution of South Africa.
Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the fact that the scope of the discussion is very limited as far as the third reading of this Bill is concerned, and now that you have given your ruling, it is even more difficult, particularly because I too am in the position that I did not consult you in advance, and neither am I a leader. But your ruling turns my thoughts immediately to a portion of the contents of the Bill. I refer to the fifth chapter which deals with the whole of our parliamentary system and which shows that we do take into account the sentiments of our English-speaking friends. But since the preamble also talks about the fact that we take tradition into account, I think that in embodying our parliamentary system in the Constitution we duly take into account our parliamentary tradition. When you gave your ruling my thoughts turned immediately to the Speakership, which also forms part of the contents of this Bill. I refer to Clause 48, which shows that this Parliament has not lost sight of the high office of Speaker. But I also want to say that it has been traditional and customary for Speaker after Speaker, when we come to important occasions, to take parliamentary tradition into account inasmuch as he allows hon. members a little latitude.
I think that this Bill is important. The Leader of the Opposition has said that this Bill will not bring unity. In this Bill we are taking into account the South African parliamentary tradition, which is part and parcel of our sentiment. We like this portion of the Bill, because this parliamentary system is the constitutional means that we have used in this country to lead our nation from political bondage to this independent, free, self-determining republic which will now come into being.
But there is also something else in the contents of this Bill—and in order to comply fully with your ruling I must confine myself to its contents. What has struck me particularly is the beautiful and wonderful and excellent Preamble to this Bill. I find it so arresting and so touching that I am sure you will allow me to read it out. It reads as follows. This is probably the finest Preamble that has ever graced any Bill passed by this Parliament—
Who gathered our forebears together from many lands and gave them this their own;
Who has guided them from generation to generation;
Who has wondrously delivered them from the dangers that beset them;
We, who are here in Parliament assembled, Declare that whereas we
Are conscious of our responsibility towards God and man;
Are convinced of the necessity to stand united—
To secure the maintenance of law and order;
To further the contentment and spiritual and material welfare of all in our midst;
Are prepared to accept our duty to seek world peace in association with all peace-loving nations; and
Are charged with the task of founding the Republic of South Africa and giving it a Constitution best suited to the traditions and history of our land.…
I say that this is a beautiful Preamble, which certainly reveals a spirit which must have an elevating and ennobling influence upon our national life if we as representatives of the people live up to this Preamble. I want to confine myself to the contents of the Preamble. I say it is a fine Preamble, in which we as a nation acknowledge the guidance of God and the fact that He rules the kingdom of peoples and controls the destinies of nations. We acknowledge the fact that He is also the creator of this nation and that He guided and wondrously delivered our forebears from dangers. It reminds us of the fact, even in the darkest moments in the life of our nation, where we have to cope with enormous problems to-day, we believe that He will save us as a nation and that we are convinced of the necessity to stand together. The Leader of the Opposition has said that he is disappointed in this Bill because the republic will not bring about unity, but the Preamble emphasizes the fact that we are convinced of the necessity to stand together. We ought to stand together in the face of these great problems. The Leader of the Opposition says, “This Bill cannot solve any of the problems with which South Africa is faced ”, but if we stand together we will solve these problems. We will solve none of our problems unless we have White unity. I think eventually the effect of this Bill will be that English- and Afrikaans-speaking people will get together in spite of the wrong lead that they are now being given.
But I come to the next clause of this Bill, Clause 1, the crucial clause which converts the Union of South Africa into an independent, self-determining republic. I say that the contents of this clause will be of far-reaching significance as far as our national life is concerned. The Leader of the Opposition saw only the dark side of the Bill and he predicted disastrous consequences, but I think the effect of this clause will not only be far-reaching but salutary and in the interests of South Africa. This clause which makes provision for this free republic is accepted to-day not only by the vast majority of the Afrikaans-speaking section but also by an ever-growing section of our English-speaking fellow-countrymen. In spite of what the Leader of the Opposition says, namely, that this Bill cannot bring about the necessary unity between the two White sections, I think it is only a question of time before this independent republic will be accepted as the only acceptable constitutional basis on which national unity can be obtained. The very fact that the English-speaking people also accept the republic may exercise an enormous influence on our national life because the fact that they accept the establishment of the republic, as we see in letters which appear in newspapers and in telegrams that we receive from English-speaking people, indisputably proves to my mind that they are revealing a wonderful South African spirit. The reaction of the English-speaking section to the establishment of the republic is creating the right South African spirit, which eventually must have a wonderful effect on our national life— the spirit in which English- and Afrikaans-speaking people should accept one another as true South Africans. That is the effect of this clause in my opinion. Mr. Speaker, I notice that you want to interrupt me, but that is the significance of this clause as far as I am concerned. I do think that the significance of this clause lies in the fact that it is going to eliminate two conflicts: The first is the conflict which has existed throughout the centuries between the two White sections of the population.
I must interrupt the hon. member. He is going a little too far now.
I want to say that it is essential for the Whites to get together. Then there are the clauses dealing with the flag and the National Anthem, so this measure prepares the road for English- and Afrikaans-speaking to stand together to bring about White unity and to form one nation. It will lead to the elimination of clashes between White and White. To my mind the reaction of the English-speaking section to the contents of this Bill shows that they have adopted South Africa; that they have already become acclimatized. They are displaying a wonderful spirit, and that is why we get this reaction to this Bill and even to a republic outside the Commonwealth. This Bill is a prerequisite to the elimination of the conflict between White and non-White, and that is why the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party is opposed to this Constitution. Why? He believes that we will not be able to eliminate the conflict between White and non-White. We differ radically from him, of course, because, in this Bill, there are clauses which indisputably place the political power safely in the hands of the Christian guardian. Mr. Speaker, to-day there is a yearning and a burning desire on the part of all White South Africans, English- and Afrikaans-speaking, to obtain unity in order to solve the intricate, complex colour problems of this country and, since we have now eliminated the one conflict between White and White, this measure will be the springboard for the elimination of the conflict that exists between White and non-White.
Under which clause is the hon. member speaking now?
I just want to point out that this Bill is really the sum total of all the clauses together; I am talking about the Bill as a whole. I say it is for the very reason that this Bill contains certain clauses which show that the White man is the master in his own fatherland, that he has a White Parliament, that the Leader of the Progressive Party has opposed this Bill which is going to give us White unity, because now it is no longer a question of a republic within or outside of the Commonwealth; the White voters realize that what is at stake is the survival of the White nation, and it is because of that fact that we are going to get unity.
The hon. member who has just sat down did not do South Africa a service; in fact, it is to the discredit of South Africa that a man should get up in this Parliament of South Africa and be proud of the fact that only the White people of South Africa shall have a say in this Parliament and in the legislation of this country. I want to say that never have the Europeans had such loyal friends and allies as the Europeans of South Africa had in the Coloured people, but we have destroyed that loyalty towards us by the rigid attitude of the Government in refusing to acknowledge the elementary fact in this Constitution that the Coloured people are and will remain citizens of this their own country. The hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) speaks about “ Die Stem ” which is referred to in the Constitution. Does he deny that the Coloured man is entitled to sing “ Die Stem ” and to say “ ons Suid-Afrika ”? The hon. member shakes his head but he talks only of “ blanke eenheid ”. Does he not realize that the time has come when we must acknowledge that the Coloured people belong to the White people of South Africa.
Order! The hon. member was here when I gave my various rulings and he must abide by them.
Sir, I refer to Clauses 34 and 37 and 46 where this Constitution talks only of White people. I am suggesting that this Constitution, which talks only of White people, is not a Constitution which we should accept because it excludes a very important group of South Africa who have in my humble opinion every right to be considered in this Constitution, and this Constitution excludes them on no other ground than that they are not White in colour. They have all the other qualifications, and I reject this Constitution for the reason that the Coloured people are excluded.
Order! The hon. member cannot discuss people or things or matters that are excluded from the Constitution, but otherwise he can discuss everything in the Constitution.
Well, may I come then to the Preamble which was so lauded by the hon. member for Brits. I would like to ask him a few questions. The Preamble talks about furthering the contentment and spiritual and material welfare of all in our midst. Does the hon. member realize that the exclusion of the Coloured people will not lead to the contentment of the Coloured people of South Africa? How can we have a Bill, the Preamble of which talks about the contentment of all the people in our midst, when we realize that this very Constitution will not bring contentment but dissatisfaction? I repeat what I said before that ¿here will be no political peace in this country until you restore to the Coloured people, their honour …
Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.
Well, let me refer then to the traditions referred to in the Preamble. The Preamble uses the following words—
What are the traditions of our land? In 1910, when we had the Act of Union, there was included a tradition of South Africa, and that is to allow the Coloured man to vote on the Common Roll. That tradition was scrapped.
Not all of them could vote.
No, not all of them, that is correct, but even that right is excluded in this Constitution. If this Preamble means anything at all, when it talks about the traditions of South Africa, one would have hoped that that tradition of having the Coloured man on the Common Roll would have been brought into being once again. It was traditional in South Africa that the Coloured man should be able to sit in the Provincial Council. That too is excluded in this Constitution, and I want to say this in conclusion that the Coloured people, although not consulted, have always been loyal subjects of the country. I have no reason to believe that they will be disloyal to the Republic of South Africa. I want to say this to the Government: If you want contentment and peace in this country, then there is only one thing to do and that is to restore to the Coloured people the political honour of which you have robbed them.
Mr. Speaker, whether we were for or against the republic previously, this is nevertheless an extremely important moment in the history of our father-land. The final decision that we take to-day as far as this House is concerned, means the end of one epoch and the beginning of a new one. We shall be able to look back to what happened in days gone by with much greater equanimity than before. What has happened in the past is history, and we must enter the period which lies ahead of us as unprejudiced as we can. We should try to build up this new state with love and with devotion. It is in this spirit that we make a new start, that we make a new start together. The nationalism of the future must be the South African nationalism of all of us. It is in this spirit that I move the third reading.
Let me reply to a few of the arguments advanced by the Leader of the Opposition. I do not want to do so in an aggressive spirit, because I do not believe that this important moment is the occasion for it. At the same time, however, I must make these few observations which I think are necessary. May I preface that by saying that when one looks back over the past few years, although it is easy to be wise after the event—and I do not want to refer to the past in that spirit—it is nevertheless interesting to speculate on what might have been the position if certain mistakes had not been made. I refer in particular to an opportunity which this country and this House and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition unfortunately missed when I announced for the first time that we ought to become a republic. On that occasion I made an appeal that we should all take that step together. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition then asked me whether it was going to be a republic within the Commonwealth. Although at that moment I had not sounded the feelings of my party at all on this point, I was prepared to risk my political career by saying, “ Yes, I shall strive to bring that about, but will you co-operate then? ” I wonder— and I say this without any reproach—whether, if at that stage the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had taken my hand and said, “ Yes, let us accept the republic” (which is going to come into being in any event now) “ without a referendum but by unanimous parliamentary vote ”, we would then not have become a republic, without friction, within the Commonwealth and perhaps with even greater national unity than we already have to-day. I think an opportunity was lost there and there are many people to-day, after the event, who regret that lost opportunity even more than they realized at the time they would have cause to regret it.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said that they opposed the republic on two grounds. The one reason was that it would jeopardize Commonwealth membership—and that links up with the observation that I made a moment ago. But in the second place, the Bill did not satisfy him because it would not make it possible for certain essential changes to take place in our whole set-up. As far as the first point is concerned, I want to add this: We stated very clearly in advance that South Africa must be able to decide her own destiny and that she could not possibly allow the fact of her membership of the Commonwealth to be an obstacle in the way of the constitutional development which, throughout long years of political struggle was always the ideal of one section of the population, and which was accepted by the other section of the population, by the party which mainly represents the English-speaking section, as an acceptable ideal worth defending and fighting for. If for this reason, namely that Commonwealth membership would be placed in jeopardy, we were precluded from, becoming a republic when we felt there were good reasons for it, it would have meant that we would have made the true sovereignty of this nation and its Parliament subject to the sovereignty of other powers. That is something that we could not permit under any circumstances. That is why, before the referendum too, I always made it clear that we wished to remain a member but that if others begrudged us a republic, or if the honour of our nation was impugned, we would have to become a republic outside the Commonwealth. And that is what transpired— not because it was our aim and our wish but in accordance with a fear that existed in the minds of many on the other side, and possibly also in the minds of members on this side, as to what might happen. To most people, however, it looked like a danger that could be averted. That is the one point that is of great importance in connection with Commonwealth membership. But it is particularly important to emphasize that it is not correct to say, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has again said to-day, that the main concession to the English-speaking section, namely membership of the Commonwealth, has failed and that because of that fact the republic is not as acceptable as it would have been otherwise. The experience that we have actually had now shows that it was not the question of the establishment of a republic that stood in the way of our membership of the Commonwealth, but that what stood in the way was our colour policy. In my opinion, of course, this applies to the colour policy of both sides inasmuch as we both say that our goal is White supremacy or leadership. I do have my doubts as to whether that is the aim of members on the other side, and I have expressed that doubt on more than one occasion, but if I must accept their statement that they stand for White supremacy, then it is this factor, which is common to both sides, which stood in the way of the retention of Commonwealth membership—not the establishment of the republic. The establishment of the republic is being blamed for it because it was certainly used as a convenient excuse for this clash. It was not, however, the real cause of the clash. If this excuse had not been used then, judging by my experience at these discussion, another excuse would undoubtedly have been used—a special motion. I do not think it is right therefore to attach any blame to the republic in this connection and to carry it forward as a bone of contention, as a reproach.
It is true, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said, that I adopted the attitude that the establishment of the republic was more important than retention of Commonwealth membership, because, as I indicated a moment ago, to sacrifice the establishment of the republic for the sake of retaining Commonwealth membership would in my opinion have meant a sacrifice of the true status and the freedom of this nation to determine its own destiny. However, there is more at stake: I pin all my hopes and all my confidence that there will be a very great improvement in relations within our country and that there will be a much better basis of division for our disputes in this country, on the establishment of the republic. I also base my hope that there will be harmonious relations between ourselves and other countries on the consequences which I hope will follow in our own country. I remain unshakeable in my faith that now that the struggle of the past between our language groups, a struggle that was superimposed on the background and the character of our parties, is over once and for all, the inevitable result will be that we will have to find a basis of division that is founded on our true differences of opinion in regard to other matters.
Does the Administrator of the Transvaal agree with you?
Like the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) I admit that this will not take place immediately. He has his sentiments and there are others like him who have their sentiments, but even in his own province there is a tremendous change taking place. I have no doubt that in the long run, and perhaps much sooner than many of us think, there will be a change in the mental outlook and the relations between the citizens of South Africa. Furthermore, in these developments of the future it is perfectly clear to me that more and more our divisions are going to be based on our views as to how certain problems should be resolved. The main issue is not our economic problems. In other words, when there is no longer effective separation between us on constitutional matters and we are all desirous of having prosperity for our country (for all population groups of our fatherland, White and non-White) and if we believe, as we all do, in the present economic system—and not one of our major parties is socialistic in character—then it should be possible to have a very great deal of co-operation and likemindedness between us in the future in order to promote South Africa’s prosperity in the economic sphere. There have been occasions in the past already when we have been ad idem in this regard. It is true that sometimes there was a tug-of-war but behind that tug-of-war there was always the language group difference and the belief that the one group which had, let us say, the commercial and industrial power largely in its hands, was using it for political purposes, as the other side believed. This caused a clash and estrangement and produced obstacles. With the advent of the republic I hope that will disappear. Although it may be true therefore that we have to face certain difficulties in the transition period, as we anticipated, I still believe that the future is hopeful. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has alleged amongst other things that we are forfeiting the benefits of our Commonwealth connection. I am not so sure that we are going to forfeit any benefits which are of substantial importance to us. In the economic sphere and in the sphere of defence I do not believe that we are going to lose much. There will, of course, be differences in our relationship with Britain in our new capacity in contrast with our former membership of the Commonwealth. This change will certainly mean that certain benefits that we enjoyed from England and certain benefits that England enjoyed from us will disappear. But I do not think that outweighs the benefits thr.2 we are going to gain, particularly in the long run, in our internal relations when the spirit which still motivates the hon. member for South Coast and his friends disappears. It will disappear; of that I have no doubt. As a matter of fact it is already disappearing, and in that regard I have no doubt either. Let me tell hon. members that in the last few weeks and particularly after our visit to and our return from the Prime Ministers’ Conference, we have had evidence from every part of the country, and specifically from the English section of the population, of this new spirit of one South African nationalism. There are many who prefer that we should be outside of the Commonwealth rather than in this new Commonwealth. It would surprise hon. members if they saw all the correspondence that comes to my notice. It amazed me. And may I add here that judging by what I read in the newspapers I rather expected the Leader of the Opposition to ask that the establishment of the republic should be postponed. I am pleased that he has not done so but the fact that he has not done so, I ascribe to his realization of what is going on in the country. My interpretation of it is that he realizes that any further opposition to the establishment of the republic will gain no great support even amongst his own followers. I am convinced that his supporters confirm What he said here to-day, namely that the advent of the republic is inevitable. It is irrevocable. Because the establishment of the republic is inevitable and irrevocable, it is better to accept it in the spirit that once it has been established you are going to strive to bring about the changes in which you believe. Let this be understood clearly: I do not want to deny for a single moment the right of any person to try to steer the development of the republic along the lines in which he believes. The Progressive Party, from whom I differ completely as to the ideal that they cherish for the republic, because I believe that their ideal will lead to a Black republic (which I do not want), are entitled to advocate the things in which they believe. That is a right of which I cannot deprive them. I hope and I believe that the voters of the country will reject them because of their policy, and after the next election I do not believe that one of them will come back to this House. But that does not detract from their right to plead for a Black Republic of South Africa, or for a republican form of government which will inevitably develop in that direction, possibly sooner than they think or hope. They have that right, but as far as our colour problems are concerned I believe that we in South Africa are going to be divided mainly on some other basis.
In the economic sphere, therefore, there is going to be much more co-operation. In the sphere of sentiment, in the sphere of our traditional struggle, we are going to find that that struggle is going to disappear. Our disputes are going to be based on differences of opinion as to how to make South Africa safe and prosperous for the Whites and for every non-White group. We differ as to the method by which that can be achieved and we are going to fight on that issue. On the one hand, I and those who support me desire just as much as anybody else to ensure the safety of White civilization and to retain the White man’s control over his own destiny, but on the other hand, we desire to bring prosperity for the Bantu and to give him a say for him over his own affairs. We desire the same for the Coloureds and for the Indians in our country. I desire happiness for everybody just as much as anybody else. I desire peace between the races just as much as anybody else. The way in which that is to be attained according to the Government Party, will have to withstand the test of time and the test of the support of the voters, in the same way as any other alternative policy that is put forward. Now, however, the position will no longer be complicated by these other elements which played a role in the pre-republican period, with the result that people who shared our belief that our colour policy was right, still remained United Party supporters because they were anti-republican. That is going to disappear now.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say much more in this regard. I want to associate myself with the statement by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that people who fear for the future of South Africa and are therefore leaving South Africa, are not acting wisely. Perhaps my motive is somewhat different from his. I think he feels that people who could have supported him in his struggle in regard to the republic … [Interjections.] No, I am not saying that in any derogatory way.
Still a cheap politician.
Let me make it perfectly clear that I do not want to be petty to-day or introduce party politics. I do not say that in any derogatory way. Where a person has a certain ideal as to how he thinks his country should look and how it should be governed, I can well understand that he feels that he is entitled to retain the support of persons who ought to remain loyal to South Africa and to support the attitude which they share with him. I have no objection to the fact that that is one of the factors which weighs with him. I just want to say that while I can understand that he wants to keep these persons here in order to gain support for the ideals in which he believes, I should like to keep them for the building up of South Africa generally. I want to protect them against folly, because our experience has always been that most of the people who fled from South Africa for fear of what may happen to their children, or for fear as to their own economic prosperity, have returned within a short time, worse off financially than they were when they left.
That is happening already.
I want to address my remarks to them too therefore and say that, like the Opposition of this country, the Government of this country too faces the future courageously and that we should like to keep them here for our fatherland and for the building up of our fatherland even if they do not support us in the political sphere. May I add that in my opinion, even bearing in mind all our difficulties, we are still a fortunate country. It really passes one’s comprehension that people from abroad think they know better than we in this country, on both sides of this House, how we should govern our country’s affairs; that people from abroad are prepared to let loose the forces of disorder upon us or to strengthen those forces within our own country. We are one of the very few countries in the world where there is peace and quiet. There are very few countries whose Parliaments behave with as much dignity as our Parliament does, in spite of all our struggles and strong differences sometimes. There are few countries whose Parliaments have the sense of discipline that we have in our Parliament. All of us cherish ideals for every section of our population although we try to realize those ideals in different ways. Why then should our country be selected as the place where chaos is to be created?
I believe that once we are over this transition period, on which all these forces, both internally and externally, which seek to create chaos, pin their hopes, namely the period during which the republic is being established, the economic forces which to-day are still trying to prevent the establishment of the republic will also come to a halt and work for the prosperity of our country. The international political forces will then realize that this is a stable country, and less pressure will then be brought upon us. People within our own fatherland will then also realize that the transition to the republic is over and that in the new republic of South Africa there is a method whereby changes can be brought about, but only one method and that is the constitutional method.
That is why I welcome this day I do not want to crow at all over the opponents of the republic or add to their grief. On the contrary, I am very sorry indeed that there are some of them who have remained so attached to the monarchy throughout the years during which a separate South Africa has really existed, that this is a sad day for them. I am very sorry about it and I sympathize with them, because for many years we, too, yearned for something that we were unable to attain, and this was also accompanied by a certain amount of pain. We understand the attitude of such friends who hold a different view. After all, South Africa belongs to all of us together, and South Africa can offer a home to us. It can offer us a home which is well disposed towards everybody and everything with which we are all associated. This does not mean that anybody is called upon to throw overboard his love for the original fatherland of his forebers or for his relatives over there. We are in the fortunate position of a new state which is coming into being and which seeks friendship with everybody I move the third reading with the prayer that the republic of South Africa will bring prosperity and happiness to every section of our country’s population.
Motion put and the House divided:
AYES—90: Badenhorst, F. H.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Pisanie, J.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; du Plessis, P. W.; Erasmus, F. C.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Fourie, I. S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Riche, R.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais. J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Strydom, G. H. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.
Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and J. van S. von Moltke.
NOES—51: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bowker. T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.: Butcher, R. R.; Connan. J. M.: Cope. J. P.; Cronje. F. J. C.; de Beer, Z. J.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eglin. C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay. L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Horak, J. L.; Hughes. T. G.; Lawrence, H. G.: le Roux, G. S. P.: Lewis, H.: Lewis, J.; Malan. E. G.; Miller. H.: Mitchell, D. E.; Moore. P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.: Raw, W. V.; Ross. D. G.; Russell. J. H.: Shearer, O. L.; Smit, D. L.: Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Steytler, J. van A.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Swart, R. A. F.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Waterson, S. F.; Williams, T. O.
Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell. Motion accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Second Order read: Third reading,—Dairy Industry Bill.
On behalf of this side of the House, I want to inform the hon. the Minister that we will not oppose the third reading of this Bill, but at the same time, Mr. Speaker, I want to warn the hon. the Minister and the Government that the powers, the dictatorial powers that the hon. the Minister has taken unto himself under this consolidating and amending Bill should be used with discretion. As we are all aware the original Dairy Industry Control Act was brought into being to give the primary producer a reasonable return for his investment and his work and to enable him to make a reasonable living, and it was brought into being to see that orderly marketing should take place. But over the years this control and work in connection with other control boards under the Marketing Act, has resulted in the hon. Minister taking greater and greater powers unto himself, and with his interference in the recommendations of control boards in relation to how they should carry out their duties on behalf of the industry concerned, the primary producer is beginning to lose confidence in the control Act and control boards which should be looking after his interests, and I wish to warn the Government and the hon. the Minister that they will undermine the whole confidence of the farming community if these powers taken under a Bill such as this, which is giving the Minister greater power as under this Bill he takes unto himself the registration of premises and certain other powers which he did not have before, if those powers are not exercised with discretion, then instead of the farmer looking upon the control measures and the Marketing Act with confidence, realizing that it is there to protect their industry, they will lose confidence in control measures. Many people do not realize the amount of capital invested in the dairy industry in South Africa. That industry is one of the mainstays of the farming community of South Africa, and unless it is administered wisely, we are going to suffer from that control instead of getting protection.
I am dealing with this Bill as it is consolidated and amended and as applied to the dairy industry of South Africa. The Minister is taking greater powers unto himself and those powers are being taken from the control board, the Dairy Industry Control Board, which is nominated and brought into being under this Act. I think it will be very unfortunate if the primary producer, the agricultural community as a whole, tend to look upon control boards and a control Act such as this as one which does not do what was originally intended, that is to protect his industry and his living. It will be a sad day if the farming community loses confidence in what was originally looked upon as the farmers’ charter.
As I said before, we will not oppose the third reading, but I would ask the hon. the Minister to apply this Bill reasonably and not to interfere unnecessarily with the control boards and their method of controlling the marketing of produce.
I want to express my appreciation of the fact that this Bill has been introduced. Clause 17 provides for certain regulations to be laid down and supervision to be exercised in respect of the testing of dairy products, and in this regard I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister, that especially in cases where the products of dairy farmers are purchased by factories which manufacture condensed milk, special supervision should be exercised and that the hon. the Minister should see to it that more officials are available to see that this measure is carried out so that the testing of these products can be controlled.
Order! The hon. member should have raised that matter during the second reading.
Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the contents of Clause 17. I trust that producers will not suffer any losses as a result of the application of this measure. I trust that the Minister will use the powers which he has under this measure to fix minimum prices in the interests of the producer.
I am grateful to the Opposition for the support which they have given to this Bill during its third reading but I should just like to say this to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg: He is now promising to support something which he apparently does not understand. The hon. member was somewhat critical and said that the Minister should not exceed the powers which this Bill gives him as far as the marketing of the producers products is concerned. But this legislation does not deal with the function of marketing at all.
The marketing of dairy products takes place under the Marketing Act through the medium of the Dairy Control Board which was specifically established under that Act. There is only one clause in this Bill which refers to the powers of the Minister, namely where it is provided that when the Minister has to register premises for the erection of a factory, he cannot do so on his own, he must first consult the Dairy Control Board. He has to do so for the very reason that his power should not be unlimited. In other words, the objections raised by the hon. member have nothing to do with this legislation whatsoever. The object of this legislation is to ensure that the quality of the dairy products conforms to special requirements, that the premises in which the products are manufactured also comply with certain hygienic conditions and that inspectors may be appointed to see that the law is carried out. The Minister has to see to it that the law is carried out and that is why the Minister is vested with the power to register, but, if for example, the Minister refuses to register premises, any applicant is free to go to court and to say that the Minister has illegally refused in view of the fact that he has complied with the requirements of the law. In other words the Minister is not vested with any extraordinary powers which cannot be tested in a court of law. Somebody, however, must be responsible for the administration of the law, and nobody except the Minister can exercise that power because, in the first instance, he remains responsible to this House and, in the second instance, the law can be tested in the court by anybody. But this measure has nothing whatsoever to do with marketing as such, its only object is to ensure that the product which is manufactured is of the right quality and that the products are manufactured under hygienic conditions and conform to the necessary standard.
Motion put and agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Third Order read: House to resume in Committee of Supply.
House in Committee:
[Progress reported on 11 April, when precedence had been given to Votes Nos. 4, 2, 3 and 12 to 20 and Vote No. 4—“ Prime Minister ”, Rill,000, was under consideration.]
On two different occasions during the course of this debate the hon. the Prime Minister has said that in 1948 when this present Government came into power, there was economic chaos in South Africa. I should like to test that statement against the facts. When we look at the facts, we find that during the period that the United Party was in power, the period between 1934 and 1948, there was continual economic progress and during that period the standard of living rose as rapidly as ever in the economic history of South Africa, and that happened in spite of the fact that between 1939 and 1945 we were involved in a war as a result of which much of the country’s energy and manpower was devoted to the unproductive task of waging a war. Furthermore we should ascertain what the position was during the last two years of the Smuts Government, those years when there was economic chaos according to the Prime Minister. It is a fact that during 1947 the private capital inflow to South Africa amounted to £182,000,000 and during 1948 it was £92,000,000. As far as immigration is concerned there was an influx of nearly 29,000 in 1947 and nearly 36,000 in 1948, the highest figure which has ever been reached as far as immigration is concerned. During that time transport facilities were still very inadequate, a factor which greatly limited the inflow of immigrations to this country. What is more, during those years the foundation has already been laid for the tremendous expansion of our gold-mining industry and the development of our uranium resources. The foundation which was laid during the last few years of the Smuts Government was the basis of the tremendous increase in the production of our gold mines from £100,000,000 to £300,000,000. I maintain that never before in the history of the world has any government taken over such a flourishing economy as this Government took over in 1948. It seemed as though there were no limits to the economic future of South Africa. We had everything which was conducive to economic progress. We had some of the richest natural resources in the world. We had the confidence of the Western world and there was a huge inflow of capital to our country. There was a huge inflow of immigrants with their knowledge which, in the long run, is the only thing to make economic prosperity possible. On what grounds does the hon. the Prime Minister say that there was economic chaos?
Let us compare that situation with the situation which has arisen during the past two years under the present Prime Minister. What a different picture! We find that in 1959 there was a capital outflow of not less than R78.000,000 and in 1960 there was an outflow of not less than R162,000,000. As far as immigration is concerned last year was the first year in the history of South Africa, apart from the depression years when there was actually an outflow of White emigrants, that is to say the country lost more emigrants than it gained. The picture which faces the Government to-day is totally different from the one which faced it when it came into power in 1948.
I maintain that if there is any question of chaos, there is economic chaos in this country to-day as a result of 13 years of National Party rule. But that is the sort of unrealistic approach which we get from members opposite. I often think that hon. members opposite live in a world different from the one in which we on this side live.
That is correct.
I shall tell the hon. Minister why. In the first instance we on this side of the House live in a world which we can understand with our elementary senses. Hon. members opposite and the Deputy Minister who is now leaving the Chamber, live in an imaginary world, an imaginary world which exists in the mind of the hon. the Prime Minister and a few other Ministers, particularly the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.
Will the hon. member tell us how his world appeared in 1948 in the vicinity of Pretoria and places like that.
I take it the hon. member is referring to the so-called slums which the hon. the Prime Minister alleges existed at the time they took over. Of course there were slums. There were slums all over the world. Naturally there were slums here in South Africa at that time. After all it was after a period of five or six years of war, when there was a shortage of every kind of building material. I wonder what hon. members opposite would have said had the United Party used material at that time to clear up the slums instead of using it for building purposes for the White section of the population. What would they have said had the Government made it compulsory that that building material should be used for clearing up the slums? In spite of the complaints about the so-called slums which existed under the United Party regime during those years, I cannot trace any record in Hansard of a complaint nor can I recall any complaint by hon. members opposite in that regard. What is more. Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister also said that during that period we neglected the Native reserves. Has he forgotten the pamphlet which his Minister of Bantu Administration issued at that time during which he stated that the United Party was spending too much money on providing the Natives with bulls in order to improve their stock? They have no right to make that charge against us to-day.
I want to give a few examples to illustrate the fact that we live in a world different from those hon. members opposite. In our world we envisage the coming into being of huge Native chies in our White areas—places like Meadowlands, Vlakfontein, and similar places throughout the country. But in the imagination of the Minister of Bantu Administration and hon. members opposite, those big Native cities are rising in the reserves. But where? He cannot tell us where or when. It is only in his imagination. We are realists. What they see exists only in the imagination of the Minister—nowhere else. We see how the number of Natives is continually rising in our own areas—much faster than in the so-called Native areas. That has been the phenomenon during the past 13 years. What do hon. members opposite see? The hon. the Prime Minister says it is natural for the curve to rise, but according to the Tomlinson Commission’s report, it will start coming down in 1978. What the hon. the Prime Minister forgets, however, is that that curve to which the Tomlinson Commission refers depends on the carrying out of their recommendations and not one of those recommendations have been carried out. They recommended that an amount of £100,000,000 should be spent over a period of ten years. How much of that amount has already been spent? The cardinal factor which would have made this so-called Tomlinson Commission curve possible, is the utilization of White capital and knowledge in the Native areas. The hon. the Prime Minister has rejected that in toto. He is therefore accepting a curve in respect of which he has rejected the fundamental factors. As far as we can see, this steady rise will continue in the future as in the past. [Time limit.]
When one listens to the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) it seems as though he wants to create the impression that there has not been any progress during the past 12 years and that shows that he is really living in a different world. I think he is living in a different world. I think he is living in that world which his former leader, the late General Smuts, created in his imagination in 1948 after he had been vanquished and when he said that the banks would close, that unemployed would walk the streets, and that in every respect the economic life of our country would come to a standstill and that stagnation would set in. That was what he said at that time and what has happened since then? The hon. member for Jeppes has mentioned a few facts about which they are very proud. But let me give him the other side of the picture. When we look at the progress which has been made during the past twelve years, we find that that is the period in the history of South Africa during which there has been the most rapid and the greatest development, including the war years. During the regime of the National Party Government we have experienced greater progress than during any period in our history. I need only refer him to the increase in our national production; take our national income. I have not got the accurate figure with me at the moment, but in those years it was in the vicinity of £800,000,000 to £900,000,000 and it has now risen to over £2,000,000,000. Take employment. If we take the average as 100 in 1952, it was 71 in 1948 and 120 in 1960. As far as employment in industry is concerned, therefore, the figure has practically doubled. If we take the construction industry we find that since 1948 up to to-day it has risen from 78 to 105, which is also a very big increase. As far as mining is concerned, it has risen from 95, when we took over, to 127. I can go on giving examples. For example as far as the production of electricity and power is concerned, that has nearly trebled during the past few years. We need only look at the network of railway lines which exists to-day. The hon. member should think back and realize what the position was when we took over. The railways were unable to convey the goods offered. Their excuse is that there was a war on. Nevertheless that was the position. Our transportation system could not convey the goods which had to be conveyed. This Government took over a terrific backlog and to-day we have the position that the Railways are practically in a position to handle everything that it has to handle. That also applies to the building industry. There is practically no sphere in our economic life where we do not find the same position. When we look at the mineral industry, we find that during the twelve years that this Government has been in power, the production of fine gold has increased from 11,000,000 ounces to 21,000,000 ounces in 1960. In that respect too production has nearly doubled during the twelve years that the National Party has been in power. However, the hon. member says that the foundation was laid during the war years when that party was in power. He wants to spread the credit for that like butter over the bread of the party opposite. Also in the case of our copper production there has been more than a doubling during the period that the National Government has been in power. In the case of coal and diamonds there has been more than a doubling. Not only that, but also in the case of our money the position is that in the year when we took over we were more or less 30 per cent dependent on foreign capital for the capital which we required for our own needs. To-day we are in this fortunate position that nearly 95 per cent of the capital which we require internally, is obtained from our own sources. That is wonderful progress. The hon. member has referred to the capital inflow at that time, but he knows that even during the period when they were in power, the United Party was perturbed about the capital inflow because it was not actual investment capital. It was flight capital which flowed into the country from abroad. It was flight capital which dislocated matters here, which pushed up the cost of living to the level where it was when this Government took over. It was flight capital which was coming into the country and not only did the then Minister of the party opposite consider controlling the position, but even the present chairman of the Stock Exchange, Mr. Fergusson, said at that time that the capital which came into the country gave shares an unrealistic value because the demand for shares was so great that it increased the price far beyond their value. However, Mr. Chairman, during the past years the National Government has proved that it was serious in building and strengthening the economy of South Africa, and where we have been in power for 12 years, the economy of South Africa is much stronger than it was when we took over. It is spread over a wider field; it is better able to withstand shocks and our economy is not as unbalanced as it was when we took over.
Our Prime Minister has during the past few days told us at great length what did and did not happen at the Prime Ministers’ Conference; what was said there and what was not. I think at this stage we are no longer really interested in what happened there. Personally, I am not even interested in who is responsible for the crisis in which we find ourselves. My question to the Prime Minister is: What is he going to do to get us out of this crisis? He and he alone can do something. He is a strong Prime Minister with a strong Government; he does not even need our support for that. He does not need more members opposite. The Prime Minister is the man who can do it, and it is no use telling us how good the old policy was in the past and how good the course was which the Nationalist Party followed. The fact is that that course and that policy brought us to where we are now. We now want the Prime Minister to tell us briefly and succinctly what he intends doing to get us out of this crisis.
In his arguments yesterday the hon. the Prime Minister told us one new thing, viz. his idea of a Coloured state within a White state in a multi-racial area. That will not solve our problems. To me it seems to be just a further complication and a White-Black-multi-coloured monster. That will not help us. We expect the Prime Minister to give us an indication of what he in fact intends doing to get us out of this trouble in which the country finds itself.
To-day everybody is looking for a new direction. Everybody is pleading with the Government to adopt a new course. We hear that from prominent persons, and from responsible bodies; we hear it from certain sections of our churchmen. We even hear it from the Nationalist Press belonging to the Government. Everybody is pleading for it, not to mention the pleas which come from the rest of the civilized world that there should be a change of direction.
My leader has already given an indication.
And my leader has already given a reply.
Your leader’s direction brought us to where we are now. It is therefore quite clear that we cannot continue along this road. It is no use the Prime Minister criticizing the policy announced by the Leader of the Opposition. That does not solve our problems. We must realize to-day that any direction is better than the one we have hitherto been following.
Is that so!
Yes, any direction. We ask the Prime Minister to tell us unequivocally what his plans are for giving heed to these appeals and these indications and to change his course. Can he not do so? There are many other people who can in fact do it. The Prime Minister has told us about his four-stream policy. Where in the world does one find four streams which always remain four streams? Nowhere on earth and not even in the sea. That policy will no benefit us. We ask the Prime Minister not to criticize the other policies which were indicated, but to tell us what he is going to do to get South Africa out of this crisis.
Following on the allegations by hon. members opposite, that South Africa stands alone in the world to-day, that she has lost all her friends, that the hon. the Prime Minister has lost the fight at the Commonwealth and that he has suffered a humiliating defeat, it is perhaps necessary and appropriate that we refer to a few quotations in respect of the occasions on which our nation have lost and suffered defeats in the past. I quote from a speech by General Smuts at Calvinia on May 12. 1933, when he said—
This statement of his was followed by a more striking statement by the poet-philosopher, the late Senator Langenhoven—
And a statement by Dr. Malan at Lichtenburg on August 20, 1936, namely—
has again come true. Yesterday and the day before hon. members opposite, and particularly the hon. members for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie), Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) and Wynberg (Mr. Russell) harped on this and repeatedly alleged that it was because the hon. the Prime Minister obstinately and stubbornly refused to make even the smallest concession in connection with the demands made by the Afro-Asian and other member countries of the Commonwealth in regard to South Africa diverting from her colour and apartheid policy, that South Africa suffered that defeat. If he made concessions South Africa would have remained in the Commonwealth and it would have been a victory for South Africa. I say that if the hon. the Prime Minister had made concessions it would actually have been our greatest defeat. It would have been a defeat because we would have sacrificed our traditional colour policy and would have admitted that we have been pursuing a wrong policy throughout the years, and particularly since 1948 when the National Party came into power. That would have been a humiliation and a defeat for South Africa. The future would prove that. Therefore the words of the men I have mentioned have again come true: “If the Afrikaner loses then he wins.” The hon. the Prime Minister did not make concessions and maintained the honour of South Africa and also maintained the traditional colour policy of South Africa. The future would still prove that it was a victory and not a defeat.
Mr. Chairman, I have already witnessed in this House how the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members opposite performed egg dances, how they at one stage in the formulation of their colour policy turned back dangerously close to the kraal of the Progressive Party and then did a complete turn-about and came dangerously close to the kraal of the National Party. It is obviously extremely difficult to formulate a policy between these two extremes and that is the difficulty the hon. the Leader of the Opposition actually has to contend with. Their present showing is completely unequalled, however. It is a demonstration of a fight in space, of a running away from facts and realities, of the putting up of smoke screens in order to hide their weakness and their lack of positive and constructive arguments and policies. The attitude of hon. members opposite of openly siding with the inimical powers which are against South Africa reveal their attitude of glaring disloyalty—an attitude which I am convinced would be regarded as treason in many of the UN countries and in some of the Commonwealth countries and against which summary action would be taken. Speakers opposite time and again emphasize that the only reason why such an inimical attitude is being adopted against South Africa is in the first instance because a man like Dr. H. F. Verwoerd is the Prime Minister of South Africa and because he advocates a certain policy. In the second place they labour the point that South Africa’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth has actually made South Africa’s position so hopeless that they are now voting against South Africa, as is being done at UN at the moment: and then they labour the point that we must forego our apartheid policy because that is actually the cause of all our troubles. The hon. member for Salt River said here yesterday or the day before that 13,000,000 of the approximately 15,000,000 inhabitants of South Africa were against apartheid. In that he included all the Native tribes, the Bantu population of South Africa. I want to say to him and to hon. members opposite that it is not true and that it is proof that he has no knowledge of the feelings and the traditions of the Native tribes in South Africa. I want to put it to him briefly, because I have not got the time to go into it more fully, that apartheid is also applied by Native tribes, more so than by any other population group in the country. It is a tradition from their primitive days, since before the Whites came here. I want to put it to you, Mr. Chairman, that if we did not protect them from their application and implementation of apartheid then tribes would have exterminated each other in this country because they wanted to be separate and alone. Proof thereof are the tribal fights which take place between the Zulus and Basutos and others on the mines. The tribal fights are proof of this; the one does not want to have anything to do with the other. They do not inter-marry easily. We know their traditions. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) who knows the Zulu, knows that he calls the Basuto a dog and that he does not really want to associate with him. They call the Cape Coloured a Melau, which is actually a humiliating term, because the Coloured is not true to any race.
I say that the British are a nation which tries to apply apartheid in its strongest and most severe form in connection with keeping their race pure. That is an inherent tendency among all nations of the world. What is apartheid in reality? Apartheid laws are just the formulation of the will and wishes of a nation, just as the Ten Commandments in the Bible give the will of God: Thou shalt not kill: thou shalt not steal. Theft and murder is not eliminated by that, but the norm is formulated. In the legislation we merely formulate the will of the White people of South Africa to continue to exist separately and we put it to the world that we want to be just in this and that we do not want to deny or affect the rights of any peoples of the world in any way, nor those of the non-Whites in this country.
As I was saying, we seem to live in two worlds. We on this side of the House, I like to think, live in the real world, the world that our senses perceive whilst hon. members on the other side of the House live in an imaginary world which really only exists in the minds of some of their leaders. I should like to give some further examples of this.
Take, for example, the existence of hundreds and thousands of detribalized Natives in our big cities. This is a fact that was admitted by the Tomlinson Commission. But what do we hear from the hon. the Prime Minister in his speech in this House yesterday? He said that he regarded those people as guests who, sooner or later, must apparently return to their ethnic homes. But tens of thousands of those people no longer have ethnic homes. They are the result of an admixture of Zulus, Basutos, Xhosas and others, and they have no homelands to which they can go back. I must admit, however, that the hon. the Prime Minister has made one advance in realism, as I consider it, in his admission that the Indians and the Coloureds are a permanent part of the population of the the White areas of this country.
Let us examine the logical consequences of that taken in conjunction with other aspects of the hon. the Prime Minister’s policy. He says that those people can never sit in this hon. house, that they must have independent legislative bodies. But the hon. the Prime Minister has also re-iterated, again and again, that in terms of his policy no racial group is ever regarded as being inferior to any other racial group. What are the logical consequences of those two propositions? One must assume from that that ultimately we will have in this country three sovereign independent Parliaments. Otherwise, if the Parliaments of the Indians and the Coloureds can never become sovereign and independent it means that they are for all time condemned to an inferior position. But that, the hon. the Prime Minister repeatedly says, is not the object of his policy of apartheid. What sort of madhatter state are we going to have with three sovereign parliaments? What is going to happen about most of those matters in this country which are common to all the people in the country irrespective of their race or colour? How are you going to demarcate what one parliament does and what another parliament is to do? Who is going to run our external affairs, our Police Force and our customs, all subjects which affect every racial group? Mr. Chairman, I repeat, this shows the completely unreal world in which this Government lives and in which it moves.
Why do you not cross your bridges when you come to them?
Because you must sometimes open your eyes before you come to a bridge.
Mr. Chairman, let me take another example. The hon. the Prime Minister sees apartheid as a policy which will lead to ever greater freedom for each individual of each race. We have seen apartheid as applied in the past 13 years as a slow encroachment upon the liberties of the non-Whites of this country. We can give numerous examples of that. What can job reservation be other than an encroachment upon the liberties of the people who are affected by that Act? What happens to a Native who has worked in a lift for ten or 12 years and then, because of his colour, is kicked out of that job as a lift driver, as happened in Johannesburg? Is that not an encroachment upon his liberty and dignity, an encroachment on his very means of livelihood?
Let us take another measure, the Separate Universities Act. Anyone who wishes to be truthful and realistic must realize that we are condemning a large number of our non-White students to go to universities which, in the very nature of things, must be far inferior to the existing universities which they were, allowed to attend until quite recently. Surely that is also a deprivation of liberty and civil rights? Let us take this far more stupid provision making for separate libraries. Coloured people who can work with you and mix with you every day in business and in commerce and industry, the moment they want to take out a book are forced to go to separate libraries.
Let us take the example of separate station entrances: What is that but just an infringement of human dignity in respect of certain people? What is the point of people of all colours and races walking together in one street but going in through separate entrances because they are of a different colour, and then mixing on the platforms again? What is the purpose of that sort of thing? It is not only the United Party and the English Press which see apartheid in that light; it is the whole civilized world. It is no use hon. members opposite saying that we cause them to see it in that light. Let us take the example of two very conservative and eminent gentlemen, Mr. Macmillan and Mr. Menzies. They both visited this country and they both saw for themselves and they both had their highly qualified diplomatic missions in this country and they had independent sources of information, but what do we find? Even despite the Prime Minister’s very plausible explanation at the Prime Minister’s Conference these two gentlemen rejected apartheid. They do not see it as a noble move to free the people of this country. They see it for what it is in fact, the partial enslavement of sections of the people. That is why I say that sometimes I think that Alice’s Wonderland was a more realistic country compared with the country in which the Nationalists move and live. It is a country of hard realism compared with the imaginative world in which hon. members opposite seem to live. We must ask ourselves can people who live in this world of fantasy, a world which can only exist in a perfervid imagination, govern South Africa and take us through the very real dangers that face us in a multi-racial country in this modern world? Where can it lead it? Do not let us be accused of having a political bias. Apparently hon. members opposite have a theory that every member on this side and the whole English Press and the rest of the world wants to destroy the White man in this country. They seem to think that we all have a sort of death wish on this side. I have already said that Mr. Macmillan and Mr. Menzies came here and saw what happened and they had a full explanation from our own Prime Minister, and what do they say? Mr. Menzies says apartheid can only end in bloody conflict and Mr. Macmillan says it can only end in disaster for all the races. Is this the Government which will launch the new republic on these unrealistic policies we are following now? What hope has this republic got of enduring at all? How can one co-operate with hon. members opposite on a completely unrealistic policy like this? Surely there can never be any question of co-operation between the White people in this country unless it is based on a realistic policy which takes into account the realities of South Africa and not the sort of dream world which only exists in the minds of hon. members opposite.
I do not want to react to what the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) has said, but I just want to deal with a few of the things he said. The hon. member sneeringly referred to the fact that the Prime Minister yesterday referred to the Bantu in the White areas as temporary sojourners. It is our policy to regard them as such, but that was also the trend of thought of previous governments. On the other hand, there are members who even to-day, in regard to the Bantu in the White area still hold views which amount to the fact that they regard the Bantu as being here temporarily. They are all in favour of influx control. I have never yet heard that they want to repudiate it. Why is influx control applied to a certain group which enters the White area? Is it not because that group is regarded as not living naturally in those areas? I say hon. members opposite are not sincere when they complain about the concept that the Bantu in the White areas is there temporarily, because they apply influx control there and its essence is to regulate those people who are regarded as being there temporarily.
The hon. member referred very sneeringly to the university colleges of the Bantu and made deprecatory remarks about the work of those colleges and about the opportunities of which the Bantu have been deprived to receive a sound university education. But what was proved by the examination results of the two new Bantu colleges in their first and most difficult year? The percentage of those who passed is not below the level of the average. It is round about 70 per cent, and that is an excellent percentage, which was obtained as the result of external examinations set by the University of South Africa, and the standard set was a high one. That hon. member has done what the Opposition has been doing for years and that is unnecessarily to bedevil the position in South Africa and to cause unnecessary trouble between the racial groups. For all these years the Opposition has tried to drive in wedges between the White groups in order to cause trouble. They have always followed the policy of making enemies for South Africa abroad, with the object of breaking the National Party, but on each occasion they not only succeeded in causing trouble for the National Party but in making enemies for their own fatherland. Since 1948 the Opposition has consistently applied this policy. They have always looked for enemies outside South Africa in order to use them against the National Party. They did this in respect of our economy and our racial policy. The Opposition is now in anticipation doing the same in respect of the Bantu areas which in terms of our policy can develop so far that they might even become independent states. No less a person than the Leader of the Opposition himself, when he took part in the debate the other day, referred sneeringly to the seven or eight Black states which might be established in South Africa, as he put it, and he asked how South Africa would be able to maintain herself as against them in a Commonwealth relationship, and by implication he has already put those potential Black states up in arms against the White state of South Africa. [Laughter.] You will see, Sir, that in future years, as this policy of the National Party is being implemented, that criticism from hon. members will become increasingly strong and those potential Black states will be incited against the White state. Is there so much bankruptcy of ideas and so much despair on the part of the Opposition that they should grasp at such methods? I think it is a great pity that they do so. We are perhaps experiencing a period of change now. To-day we completed the republican legislation. If we could have a perspective, this is perhaps the moment for a change to come about. Now that our becoming a republic is a fait accompli, is the Opposition not prepared to accept that fact and to stop adopting those futile methods of trying to drive in wedges between the White groups and between the Whites and the non-Whites? When will we get the practical idealism of love for South Africa with all its diversity of races and approach our problems in that spirit? All these years this policy of bedevilment of the relations between the racial groups has been followed. May we now find that the Opposition will abandon that policy and co-operate. They need not agree with us on everything, but let it be done in a different spirit.
On this occasion I would remind the House of the appeals recently made by the hon. the Prime Minister in all seriousness. The Prime Minister had not even properly recovered from his catastrophe last year when he made a speech at the Union Festival in Bloemfontein and made the first in this dramatic series of appeals for unity between English- and Afrikaans-speaking people. He did it in a very dignified manner which was noted far beyond the borders of South Africa. Thereafter we had the referendum and at that time we on this side, and particularly the Prime Minister, made many sincere and honest anneals for unity. During the debates this Session in regard to our becoming a republic, that was also repeatedly done. After his return from the Commonwealth Conference he also did so, because it is now more than ever before the means of assisting South Africa in its present plight. What was the reaction? I think South Africa, apart from this side of the House, really expects a proper reply now and I want to say that I pray that the reply South Africa will get from the English-speaking people will not be the contemptible reply given by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) last night at a public meeting. We in South Africa have no time for that spirit and the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Wynberg. In the referendum campaign the Afrikaans-speaking people showed that they wanted to accept the English-speaking section. They complied with the request of the Prime Minister in all sincerity and accepted the English-speaking people. It is not necessary to refer to history in order to show how difficult it was for many Afrikaans-speaking people to do so, but they showed by their actions that despite the past they were prepared to achieve national unity by accepting the English-speaking. But we are now awaiting the reply of the English-speaking people, and I know it is difficult for them. It was also difficult for the Afrikaans-speaking people, but the best results are only achieved through suffering. I want to conclude on this note that it is very ungrateful of the Opposition to treat the Prime Minister in the spirit they have treated him in this debate. [Time limit.]
I am glad the hon. the Deputy Minister spoke about the “ selfstandigheid ” of the seven Bantu national units, because that is the point I want to touch on to-day, and I want to say that in terms of Government policy it is not possible to give independence to seven or eight Bantu national units.
I wonder whether I may have the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister in order to put two questions to him. The first question is this. Surely his concept of a state within a state for the Coloureds, and I assume also for the Indians, means permanent inferiority for the Coloureds and the Indians. Secondly, if he accepts, as the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development does, that the Bantu reserves cannot be consolidated into less than two, three or four areas for each national unit, how can he continue to say that he is offering the Bantu national units opportunity for full development in their own areas, self-government, even independence? I say that the speeches of the hon. the Prime Minister in this debate and the admission of the Minister of Bantu Administration in the Senate last month show that the policy of separate development has broken down in its theory. In practice I say it is breaking down at many points, but it is breaking down also in its very theory. It is once more a clear policy of White supremacy, not only now but for the future.
The theory of the policy was developed mainly in relation to the Africans and it was this: that it was impossible to discriminate against people of another race permanently. If the Africans were to be given full rights in the present South Africa, said the Prime Minister, the White man would go under. The alternative was to give Africans full rights within their own areas. There they would have the opportunity for full development. Sir, you cannot say that you are offering a national unit opportunity for full development if the homeland you are giving to it consists of four or more separate areas. The Prime Minister led us to understand that he was offering each national unit a homeland in the true sense of the word, a single unit of land. The White Paper which accompanied the introduction of the Bantu Self-government Bill spoke of self-governing national Bantu units. On page 7 it said—
During this debate the Prime Minister spoke of “aparte state”, each with its “eie land”, in which it would have “selfstandigheid”. But the Government is not offering the national units their “eie land”. Listen to what the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said in the Other Place on 20 February 1961, Hansard, Col. 1607—
Sir, I do not accept that you can consolidate the Native areas even to this limited extent, as I shall show, but assuming that you can, that you can consolidate the areas for each national unit to two, three or four areas, how can the Prime Minister go on talking of “aparte Bantoestate”, each with its “eie land”, in which they will have the opportunity for “voile ontwikkeling, in sy hoogste vorm”? He also spoke about “selfstandigheid”. I say it is impossible to talk of self-government for a people living in four separate areas.
I want to go further and say that you cannot consolidate the Native areas even to the limited extent aimed at by the Minister of Bantu Administration within the foreseeable future. At the rate consolidation has taken place during the last six years, since the Tomlinson Commission reported, it will take hundreds of years. Look at the figures. During the Budget debate the Minister claimed with pride that during recent years Black spots to the extent of 44,000 morgen had been consolidated with other areas. In referring to recent years he must mean the last eight or ten years, because in the last six years Black spots to the extent of only 29,000 morgen have been eliminated. Let us take his figure of 44,000 morgen. Mr. Chairman, if consolidation is to take place even to the limited extent aimed at by the Minister, 44,000 morgen does not represent one-fiftieth of the job to be done, and it has taken eight or ten years to do it. At that rate even the limited consolidation envisaged by the Minister will take 400 to 500 years.
Black spots are in fact only a small part of the problem. The Minister said that we exaggerated the problem and that he was busy clearing up over 200 Black spots and that they comprised an area of only 163,000 morgen. Well, he is going very slowly in clearing up even these Black spots. In 1954 there were 211 Black spots in Natal and now, six years later, there are 210. He has eliminated one, of about 300 morgen. But this is not the main problem. Black spots are comparatively unimportant. Of far more importance are the official Native reserves set aside by the Acts of 1913 and 1936. According to the Tomlinson Commission, there are 110 of these official Native areas scattered round South Africa. To consolidate them is the Minister’s real problem, involving millions of morgen of land. The Minister’s Department has not been able to give me the figures I asked for, but I have been able to find only one case in recent years where one of these official reserves has been moved, and I do not know whether it was for the purposes of consolidation. I say to members again, as I have said on previous occasions, that they must go to the map and see what is involved before talking glibly of consolidating the reserves.
The task has been made much more difficult by the final loss of the Protectorates. The Tomlinson Commission envisaged these as the nuclei of the homelands of the South Sothos, the Swazis and the Tswanas. For the purpose of consolidating the reserves, at least, they worked on the basis of having the Protectorates. I am not only relying on Map No. 63, but on the whole Chapter 46 and on statements such as the following, at page 180 of the summary—
On the same page the report says this in relation to the Swazis—
In his speech on Monday the Prime Minister said that the fact that the Protectorates were not available does not affect his policy of Bantu homelands. He said it was unfortunate for the Bantu, but it did not affect his policy. With respect, of course it affects his policy. The Prime Minister is offering his policy as a way of giving the Bantu opportunity for full development in their own homelands. If he cannot offer a proper homeland to each national unit his policy falls down. The loss of Basutoland means that the 1,000,000 South Sothos in the Union are left without a homeland in the ordinary sense of the word. In the Minister’s words, “ For the South Sothos we have Witzieshoek, with a few places here in the Cape ”. You have Witzieshoek, north of Basutoland, Herschel, south of Basutoland, a few areas in the Matatiele district in the Transkei and Bergville in Natal, areas completely inadequate in area for the million South Sothos and practically inaccessible one from another. I ask the Prime Minister where he is going to create a homeland for the South Sothos. You have a similar problem with the Swazis and the Tswanas and you have the greatest problem of all in consolidating the Zulu reserves. I say it is an impossible problem. Even the admission made by the Minister to which I referred has exploded the Prime Minister’s theory of self-government in separate Bantu states. I say you cannot even consolidate the Bantu areas to the limited extent claimed by the Minister. For this reason alone you cannot offer them full development within their own areas.
The policy of separate development was always less clearly stated in relation to the Coloureds and Indians, but one assumed that the Prime Minister also aimed at getting away from discrimination against the Coloureds and the Indians. We were told that they would get their own areas in the different towns and rural areas, but we were not told how they were to reach full development. [Time limit.]
Having noted the peculiar antics of the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) in jumping about between the United Party and the Progressive Party, I almost become afraid that he wants to become a Nationalist when I see in what detail concerning our policy of separate development he is trying to deal with the broad lines of this debate. What is the question before the House under this Vote? It is an attack on the hon. the Prime Minister for having adopted a policy which is neither practicable overseas primarily and in this country secondly, nor offers a solution. Our reply is that this is the only alternative we have.
Why is it the only alternative? That is why the Prime Minister in this debate gave South Africa and the outside world an important formulation, that our policy of separate development is not concerned with a social evaluation of people, but with the right of self-determination of the White community. Our argument is logical, that if we admit that the South Africa in which the White community lives is the common fatherland of Whites as well as Blacks, then the Whites will lose their right of self-determination because the Blacks are in the majority. The United Party by implication admits the validity of this proposition, because when they talk about a common fatherland they immediately try to escape the logical consequences of their recognition of a common fatherland by saying that they would keep the Native in his place for a long time to come by means of constitutional limitation so that the Bantu would not affect the right of self-determination of the Whites. The whole question is simply this: Does South Africa accept this only possible opportunity for the Whites to retain their right of self-determination in future in the White area, viz. a form of partition of South Africa which is beginning to find its form under the policy of apartheid, and will this be South Africa’s unanimous reply to the outside world: We want to maintain the right of self-determination of the Whites? Because if we talk to the West along those lines they will understand what we are talking about. If we do not say that we are fighting for apartheid, but say that we are fighting for the right of self-determination of this White nation, which I believe stands on the threshold of greater unity than ever before, the West will listen. The question to the United Party and the reproach at this stage is: Can they associate themselves with the statement that we are fighting for the right of self-determination of the White nation in South Africa? They have not yet done so in this debate. I believe that if we state our policy of separate development to the world along those lines, then the descendants of George Washington must necessarily hesitate before saying: We do not grant this White nation the right of self-preservation. Then the descendants of Woodrow Wilson will have to concede that the right of self-determination of the White man in South Africa must also be recognized. I believe that the Prime Minister, by stating the case in this idiom, has put a mighty weapon into the hands of South Africa not only to achieve unity on the question, but to give a reply to the outside world.
The question of the other non-White groups was raised. Obviously the other two non-White groups in South Africa do not present an insoluble problem, and the basic reply was given by the admission that we recognize the human dignity of every person in South Africa, and if during the period of adaptation and evolution there are temporary anomalies, that is something which can be remedied later.
I want to touch on a second point. Early in this debate the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) asked what we were going to do in regard to the outflow of capital from South Africa. Mr. Chairman, let us not ask merely what the Government is going to do, but what we as a House of Assembly and as a nation are going to do. I feel that what we ought to do, and what I want to do in so far as I am concerned, is to give an assurance to the foreign investor that the foreign capital invested in South Africa, both the capital and the dividends, have the first moral right to the foreign currency of South Africa after our Defence expenditure has been met, and that it will be the pride and the honour of this country at all times and under all circumstances, whether the country of origin of that foreign investor is a friend or an enemy, to repay the foreign capital investment on demand and to pay the dividends on that capital when they fall due. I feel that it is in line with the spirit of South Africa to put the absolute and unconditional safety of all foreign investments as a first preference, as has always been done for generations. In that way not only the colossal riches of South Africa will be the guarantee to the foreign investor, but also the conscience and honour of the whole nation and of the Government. In this regard I want to add this: I feel that this spirit will never be disturbed by me or by anyone else no matter how much international enmity, we might experience, because the private foreign investor invested his money in South Africa in good faith and South Africa will always as a primary duty recognize his right to the safety of his capital.
The last point I want to deal with is the question of our relations with the outside world. Three or four years ago our Government, through its temporary nominal representation at UN, gave a very important indication of its policy and made a statement of policy through the hon. the Minister of External Affairs when he said that we would keep our representatives there to stand by the West if and when necessary. That is the declared policy of the Government. I believe it is the first corner-stone of the policy of this Government in regard to international affairs that, notwithstanding enmity towards South Africa, we will stand inexorably by the Western bloc against Communism, and that we will not allow ourselves in the least to be misled by unfriendly actions of any kind to commit the crime of leaving the Western Allies and the Western bloc in the lurch. That is our first reply to the doubt which was expressed, and from that follows what we have continually shown in recent years—this Government and this party —mainly that our policy is the antithesis of international isolation but that we co-operate internationally wherever possible. In future we shall co-operate internationally with our own friends of the Commonwealth, but you must try not to obstruct that attitude. We shall have to co-operate with the countries in the Southern Hemisphere, where Australia is giving us a glorious opportunity for closer co-operation and where the other leading states of Southern America have consistently stood by us. We shall develop this policy of co-operating in the international sphere, as this Government has always wanted to do at all times, by making contact internationally on a still broader basis, not only on the official Government level but also through the numbers of private agencies which can operate and be inspired by the Government. But we will not view these matters as the only salvation for South Africa; we will see, as our final guarantee of certainty in South Africa, after all these things have been done and after having done our best in all honesty in the international comity of nations that we shall say we will die rather give up our right of self-determination, because that is what is being demanded of us.
The hon. member who has just sat down gave us a rather startling suggestion in regard to the repayment of foreign capital invested in this country. It is a great pity that he did not go into more detail because we on this side of the House would certainly like to know whether the hon. the Prime Minister is in agreement with him.
I will not pursue that matter further; I will leave it to somebody else to deal with. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) rather brushed aside the arguments of the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) when he was dealing with the very practical aspects of this Government’s apartheid policy; he simply brushed it aside by saying “ that is all detail ”, which rather reminds me of the story of the locusts who got together in council on one occasion, and the clamour was that they should all have longer legs. You see, it was a wonderful suggestion that locusts should have longer legs, because they could then jump further and move faster. Then one small locust near the back said “ But how do we get longer legs?” to which everybody replied, “ Oh, that is a matter of detail; we are dealing with principle ”.
Sir, I want to come back to what was said by the hon. the Prime Minister. Having listened very intently to the Prime Minister’s explanation of his party’s policy, modernized to date in granite, I can only say that the future outlook for this part of Africa is positively frightening. It is all too clear that in holding South Africa aloof from the affairs and ideas of countries on our racial issues, and in following a course directly opposite to what world opinion is intent on setting and pursuing in that regard, this Government over the past ten years, has taken the country nonstop along the road that has led to national isolationism.
It has taken them for a ride.
The unfortunate truth is that the step between national isolationism and national suicide is a very short one indeed. Other members have spoken of the composition of South Africa’s population of 15,000,000, and I do not want to go into that now, but to make use of a Churchillian concept, I think it is fair to say that never in the history of mankind have so few taken so many so far and so fast along the road to politician economic and national disaster. Sir, there may be no royal road, and in fact there may be no presidential road to racial harmony in South Africa, but there is a very obvious shortcut to national ruin, and this Government, in the shortest space that history can record, has taken practically the shortest cut to racial disharmony and to economic ruin. Already South Africa is hemmed in to the north by states whose enmity towards us grows more and more intense almost daily, and from the East and from the West of course we can expect no relief or help, and to the south there is this unfortunate position that there is only cold comfort. Anyone who has ventured on our behalf to the Edward Islands can confirm that. Sir, when the Prime Minister returned from the Commonwealth conference he spoke of the turn of events there as a miracle. I am afraid that the hon. the Prime Minister misread the signs and used the wrong words, because what he called a miracle was really no more than a mirage. I use my own words, but I think I summarize fairly accurately his description of that mirage as revealing for the future complete White unity, absolute racial tranquility and continued economic prosperity for South Africa in a Republic outside the Commonwealth. The unreality of that description has been mentioned by others and I can only add to it by saying that the unreality of that description is actually startling. For what we have seen around us to-day is, of course, something very different unless words have lost their meaning, and I come back to the misuse of words when the hon. the Prime Minister spoke of what is a mirage as a miracle. Anyone, if he is self-centred enough and chooses to do so, may call an elephant a mouse, but he will of course be very sadly disappointed if, after having made that change of name, he then thinks he can trap his elephant with a mousetrap and a piece of cheese. And that, I am afraid, is the position into which this country is being brought, because the analogy of that disappointment in regard to the present situation is certainly not inapt. The moral which lies behind that self-centred unreality is not to be ignored. Sir, other members on this side have mentioned it and it is a very clear indication that South Africa is heading for perilous days politically and economically. The hon. the Prime Minister knows—he himself has referred to it outside this House—about the very serious outflow of capital from this country, which is still going on, more so in recent months than before, and his Minister of Finance found it necessary to emphasize that position during the recent Budget debate when he admitted that “ the outflow of capital constitutes the most important economic symptom requiring attention Not only has that outflow of capital brought the country’s gold and foreign exchange reserves tumbling down—it stands precariously now at some £90,000,000—but it is quite evident from reports that the inflow of capital invested in private enterprise has virtually come to a halt, and the combined effect of those two economic symptoms is likely to result in unemployment. It will be urban unemployment at the start, which will be followed, of course, by a drop in retail business, with all the grave economic consequences which will flow from the slowing down of the wheels of commerce and industry. I therefore ask the hon. the Prime Minister what he proposes to do to counter those harmful symptoms in our economy. We have been told that to counter the drop in the reserves, the Treasury has made arrangements to draw on the International Monetary Fund up to the amount of R27,000,000, of which approximately half has already been drawn. It is true that the Treasury can ask the Fund for a further standby credit of an equal amount of R27,000,000, but in the second case it is not an automatic right to credit. South Africa will have to queue up at the counter along with other claimants to get that standby credit and it will have to negotiate for what is tantamount to an overdraft with the Fund. The hon. the Minister of Finance disclosed to us that in addition the Reserve Bank has mobilized a short-term loan of approximately R14,000,000 from a private source, namely a foreign banking institution. I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will deal with this matter and give the House the assurance that this is not a panic move and that it is not the establishment of a new precedent by the Reserve Bank. The Reserve Bank is a very important public institution in this country. It enjoys the very highest repute in financial circles both here and externally, and I think the hon. the Prime Minister owes this House an explanation as to precisely why at this moment this short-term borrowing on behalf of the Reserve Bank should have been resorted to. [Time limit.]
The hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) alleged that any course in South Africa would be better than the course of separate development as seen by the National Party.
Do you take notice of him?
I think it a very blatant admission of disbelief in the direction in which the United Party is moving. In this debate all the Opposition parties have used one tactic and that was to focus the attention on the so-called crisis in this country. The hon. member for North-East Rand asked that the hon. the Prime Minister should give a clear indication of what he intended doing to get South Africa out of this crisis. The hon. the Prime Minister has given the answer. But the whole tactic is to focus the attention on a so-called crisis in South Africa. I allege that we have indeed not got any serious crisis. One should view the crisis in South Africa against the background of at least five big crises in the world. Those five big crises in the world causes South Africa to be drawn into that whirlpool automatically and perforce. The crises I want to mention, which have had an influence on UNO, which have had an influence on the Commonwealth and which will exercise it to a greater extent in the future, are the following: There is the crisis in South-East Asia, in Laos, and Britain and America and the Western countries must take those crises into account in their actions. The second crisis which is pending is the German question, the Berlin crisis. Any action by Britain, America and UNO should be viewed as being coupled with the possibility of a pending crisis in Germany. A third crisis is the pending troubles which can be expected in the Middle East. Also this Britain and all the Western countries and also the Afro-Asian bloc must take into account because it is of economic importance to them, and they must take into account the Arabian bloc. The fourth crisis is the crisis of the Commonwealth, and the fifth is the entire African crisis. I said that Laos was concerned in any decision and any attitude which the Western powers adopted at UNO meetings. The Middle East crisis which is pending has to do with the Arabian world. It has to do with the South-East Atlantic Military Treaty organization. It has tremendous economic implications for the Western world. The crisis in the Commonwealth is related to the present crisis in Africa. There has never before been greater political confusion in Rhodesia than there is at present. The existence of the Conservative Party in Britain is most closely associated with the course of the crisis in Rhodesia. The chaos and the political confusion in Kenya will, in my humble opinion, bring about a first-rate crisis in the Commonwealth. And then we have the establishment of a Communist front in Africa which has a fundamental effect on the entire line of conduct which must be followed by Britain and other Commonwealth countries, as well as by America.
I want to come back to the crisis in Africa because it is of fundamental importance to us in South Africa, and here I want to associate myself with what the hon. the Prime Minister said in his first speech under this Vote, namely that everything was being overshadowed by the desire of the communists for world command. The game which is being played in Africa is the formation of a front, which we can see very plainly, and this formation of a front of the communist bloc in Africa forms a definite pattern, and this involves the actions of Black leaders in Africa; this involves the situation in Rhodesia and the situation in Kenya. The attitude which Britain adopts in her consultations in so far as it concerns African affairs, is concerned in this.
I have said that in my opinion Kenya would cause a first rate crisis in the Commonwealth and I want to advance the following reasons for it. At present there is tremendous pressure from Kenya for the British Government to release Jomo Kenyatta. If Jomo Kenyatta is released he, as leader of the Black man in Kenya, will have to go to London to the Commonwealth Conference and there will appear in London, in the person of Jomo Kenyatta, the greatest butcher modern centuries have known, when the Mau Mau ruled the roost. He will not arrive there with clean hands. He is on his way to Checkers. There great ovations await him. This organizer and inciter and force behind the Mau Mau will have to be entertained there. Was that the “ human dignity ” about which the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) spoke yesterday when he said that the actions of the Afro-Asian bloc at UNO and in the Commonwealth was motivated by considerations of human dignity? Is that the course with which our Prime Minister must be satisfied in the Commonwealth? The choice which Britain will have to make will be between popularity among the Afro-Asian group or the acceptance of the present tendency in British public opinion, namely to get rid of the Jomo Kenyatta type within the Commonwealth. I say that South Africa is not the country that caused the crisis in the Commonwealth. The actual test for the Commonwealth is still coming. Mr. Chairman, who are the leaders who are at present busy in Africa? Here I have the Sunday Times of last Sunday and here is a picture of Jomo Kenyatta with the three leaders who went to visit him. There stands Tom Mboya, there stands Gudinga and there stands Gizuli. Who are they? All three of them said: If we were not the right hand of Kenyatta in the Mau Mau massacre then we were at least his left hand. Tom Mboya says: I am merely the temporary leader of the Kenya National Union—a brother of the African National Congress in South Africa. He says: I am merely the temporary leader. I am waiting for Jomo Kenyatta to come and take the leadership. The moment that Jomo Kenyatta becomes leader—and he is going to become it in Kenya—then his road will lead to the Commonwealth and the moment he gets in there a crisis will develop in the Commonwealth, and that crisis will not be caused by government circles but will be born in the heart of the British public. [Time limit.]
I am sure the hon. member who has just sat down will not blame me if I do not continue on the lines followed by him when he talked about Kenyatta. When my time expired I had raised with the hon. the Prime Minister the fact, which was disclosed during the Budget debate, that the South African Reserve Bank, in defence of our falling gold and foreign reserves, had mobilized a short-term loan of some R14,000,000 from a private source. I had asked the Prime Minister to give this House and the country an assurance that this is not a panic move to save the Government’s face, and I had also asked him for the assurance that this would not establish a new principle. I pointed out that the Reserve Bank was a public institution of the highest repute both internally and in external financial circles, and what was disturbing to me that the announcement of this arrangement had to come from the Minister of Finance rather than from the Institution itself. The second thing that I find very disturbing is the fact that a short-term borrowing of that nature had been made in the face of what is quite apparent, namely that our gold reserves are falling consistently at an average of something Ike £2,000,000 to £3,000,000 a month. That hardly seems to me to be a counter to a situation such as has developed.
Has it happened before?
That is precisely what I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will tell us— whether it has ever happened before—because I certainly do not know that it has happened before, and I am disturbed by the very fact that this has happened at this particular time. If that is the case, I want to have the assurance that it was done at the behest of the Government to save it from a political blunder. Sir, I can do no better than simply to repeat what I said just now, namely that South Africa is heading for perilous days economically, and the country is entitled to be told by this Government how it intends to remedy the dangerous situation which is inevitably arising with the tumbling of our gold and foreign reserves and with the halting of private investment capital coming into the country. I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will deal with this matter in his reply, because, as has already been pointed out by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) we received no replies to our questions on many of these aspects during the Budget debate from his Minister of Finance. What replies we did get were quite inadequate to satisfy either this country or the external financial world as to what the position was and what steps this Government was taking to ensure security and continued economic prosperity in the future. The outflow of capital and the inadequate inflow of capital, as I have indicated, can have only one immediate result and that is unemployment, and that, in the present circumstances, in the political climate which exists in many parts of the world but particularly here, will lead to a very dangerous situation, and its consequences can have a very serious adverse effect on the economy of South Africa. I hope therefore that the hon. the Prime Minister will in his reply give serious consideration to this aspect which I have raised.
I said that in my opinion a crisis would develop in the Commonwealth and that it formed part of the crisis in Africa. I want to deal in a single phrase with the formation of the Communist front in Africa and, in the light of the African crisis, to try to give an answer to the question put by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr, Plewman): What are we going to do in this crisis? I say that the Communist threat and the strengthening of the grip of Communism have never before been so serious in Africa as at the present moment. Diplomatic bridges are being built with the greatest haste by China and Russia in the Sudan, in Guinea, in Accra, in Egypt, throughout Africa; communist parties are being established and placed on a sound basis in all these black states which are about to become independent. There is a continual bombardment from the air, over the radio from Peking, Moscow, Prague, from Accra and from Cairo. The Black man’s mind is under continual bombardment and the White man is being detested and every deed of the White man is presented as a deed of aggression and as a deed of imperialism, and so it is imprinted in the Black mind. In the social sphere there is constant contact from China and Russia and Eastern Europe through trade unions, authors, journalists, farmers’ organizations, and the strengthening of existing contacts on all fronts is being actively worked at. Trade missions and cultural exchange visits are being financed; financial and technical aid is offered to all these states both timely and untimely; long-term loans are given free of interest. In this way China has given Guinea an interest-free loan of 25,000,000 American dollars for ten years. There is actually a competition in Africa between Russia and China to strengthen the communist activities and their grip in Africa. A special Africa Work Committee, which stands under the direct control of the Secretariat of the Central Communist Party in China, has been established by Peking and this communistic front in Africa functions in the form of periodic conferences; now it is one in Accra, then one in Addis Ababa, then one in Cairo, and all these conferences adopt the same resolutions: Away with imperialism, away with colonialism and “ the release of the oppressed peoples of Africa.” All identical resolutions. Now hon. members opposite say that the actual crisis is here in South Africa. Why do the hon. members not talk about the various crisis in Africa? Why do they focus the attention on South Africa alone? I say that this crisis in South Africa, the situation in which we are, this so-called crisis, is indeed not a crisis of South Africa alone. It is part of the whole process which it taking place in Africa. What must we do? We must try and break the pattern of this crisis in Africa, a pattern adopted under communistic influence. What is the pattern? It is very plain that they want to get rid of the White man as the stabilizing factor in Africa, because if he is removed as the stable, political, economic and social factor, then the road to chaos is open and along the road to chaos the communist walks with ease. Remove the White man, make propaganda, send trained agents to Africa, cause fires, riots, then come along with the press and let them make an exaggerated issue of Sharpeville, which was an ordinary local incident such as taxes place throughout the world, and let it be put on the world screen, then they come to the conference at UNO and finally to the Security Council and then they are on the world platform. That is the typical communist pattern. Mr. Chairman, there will be trouble in South Africa again. We can expect it. There will most probably again be uprisings and I want to state here to-day that unless we forbid those press reporters and photographers from visiting such a scene of riot and from sending distorted and “doctored” photographs into the world we will have a very difficult time on the road to the achievement of stability in South Africa. We know of pictures which they sent of quite ordinary prisoners entering the jail in the evenings. There the prisoners are undressed to see if they have not got dagga or other stuff in their possession. The photographs are taken and published in the newspapers of the world as the prelude to the punishing and giving of cuts to the prisoners while they are naked. We know the sort of picture that they send and I repeat that when uprisings take place, as we can expect according to communistic pattern, then it must be the privilege of the State to publish what it wants to publish in connection with those uprisings. If we do not do that then all our good intentions and the good work with which we are busy will be undermined, as it is being done to-day, and we will have to reap the bitter fruits. I say, therefore, that all we need in South Africa is to keep the White man here because if we keep him here there is stability, then there is order, then the much desired road of chaos on which the communist concentrates, is obstructed. The White man stands in the way of the communist agitator and of the communistic pattern taking shape in Africa, and the essential prerequisite for that stability in South Africa is the maintenance of the White political authority in Africa, and particularly in South Africa. The necessity for the maintenance of that political authority in the hands of the White man demands a continually strengthened policy of separate development with the greatest speed. I see no other alternative. The second condition is that our threat will not come from UNO. I am not so afraid of them. They are more powerless than we think; they have big problems which will tear them apart. I am not concerned about the struggle between White and White in South Africa. These Blacks in Africa will still jump at each others throats. Just give them a chance. They are more divided than the White man in Africa. We shall have to concentrate on the maintenance of our internal security. We shall have to overcome the communist pattern which is being pursued in Africa, as it came to the fore at Langa and at Sharpeville, in Angola and in Rhodesia. We know the pattern. [Time limit.]
The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) has painted a very gloomy picture of the situation in Africa. He seems to have lost all sense of proportion when he calls Sharpeville an “ alledaagse insident”. I hope that is not going out to the world. Such an event as we had at Sharpeville we will not call a “ Suid-Afrikaanse alledaagse insident”.
May I just correct the hon. member because he gives a wrong interpretation of what I said. On a point of personal explanation, I want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that when I used the word “ alledaagse gebeurtenis ” I meant “ alledaags ” in the sense of what is happening in the world at large, not in South Africa.
In the light of this very serious situation, this crisis which he sees in Africa, I think that what we want is the remedy. The crisis in South Africa is part of this crisis in Africa. And what have we done about it through the hon. the Prime Minister? We have left the Commonwealth; we have left our allies, the people with whom we have fought through two world wars, the people with whom we have a common defence organization.
Are you referring to Ghana?
All we have contributed up to the present time in this serious crisis that has been described, is to leave our allies, to isolate ourselves and to prepare ourselves in the world for what is coming. How are we going to prepare ourselves? Here we have a population of 15,000,000 people, and 3,000,000 Whites are called upon to provide the defence, the administration, and everything in government we require as a country. At the present rate of development if we do find ourselves in international difficulties we shall have a fifth column composed of four-fifths of the population. That is the serious situation here. When some years ago, Sir, we proposed to the hon. the Minister of Defence of those days that we should have a Joint Defence Council, he spurned our offer. When we asked for a secret session of this House to discuss our serious defence situation, and it is serious, the request was not agreed to. The time has come for us to do that. I do not think the method recommended by the hon. member for Kemp-ton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) is going to help us. The hon. member comes along and tells us seriously and earnestly—he is serious in what he says—that we must make an announcement that Investors will be guaranteed their dividends and their capital if they invest in this country! Don’t let us do that. South Africa’s credit has always been so high that it is not necessary to do that. If we start announcing that we are going to pay dividends, and that capital is safe, people will say “ Ah, something is threatening. South Africans find it necessary now to say that their credit is good ”. It has always been good; it was good throughout the war; we paid leaselend in gold; we assisted Britain with £80,000,000 in gold; we handed over in 1948 the richest country of its size in the world to a new government. Just see what they have brought us to! All we have to-day to face this world, to face this new situation, is a republic, and the fruits of that: “The Dead Sea fruits, that tempt the eye, but turn to ashes on the lips ”. (Moore). They are turning into ashes on the lips already. The hon. member for Ventersdorp realizes how serious the position is, and with this story of the republic, we get an appeal for national unity. There is no need to appeal to this side of the House for national unity. We have a party founded on the principle of national unity! If the hon. member wishes to make an appeal for national unity, he should appeal to the Administration of the Transvaal under this Nationalist Government. Let him appeal to Mr. van Niekerk and Mr. Odendaal when they nominate members to the school boards.
Why don’t you state the facts!
The facts are these: that for generations in the Transvaal it has been customary for two-thirds of the members of the school boards to be elected, and one-third to be nominated. In the nominations, the administrations of the Transvaal, of all parties, have accepted the position that all sections of the population should be represented on those boards. And now? What has this Nationalist Administration done? They have nominated Nationalist followers on all the boards throughout the Transvaal. On the Witwatersrand …
What about the elections?
On the Witwatersrand in the elections there were returned five English-speaking members and three Afrikaans-speaking members, which is a fair representation of Johannesburg. In nominating the four, which would form one-third of the 12, they nominated strong supporters of this Government, creating a Nationalist majority there. That is the position. There is this to be said for Mr. Odendaal and for Mr. van Niekerk: I pay them tribute for when they do these things, they do not come with pious platitudinous appeals for national unity. They come along straight away and say “ We are going to dominate the White population ”.
They did not say that.
I want to say a word as well —I am sorry the hon. member for Kempton Park is not here at present, because he could have assisted me—about the financial barometer of South Africa. At one time it was fashionable to refer to our Stock Exchange as the financial barometer. The hon. Minister of Transport, who is here and the hon. member for Bellville (Mr. Haak) who is also a financial authority, have quoted to us at various times that there has not been much depression on the Stock Exchange. Well I admit that it is a barometer. I don’t quote Stock Exchange prices in this Assembly, because I know how they can fluctuate …
And how they can be manipulated.
Well, prices don’t manipulate, but the Government sees to manipulation, because governments have their own stocks and they have to look after them. I can tell the hon. member how it is done if he is interested. But I want to say this, that there is unquestionably selling of South African stocks by other countries. We read in the paper that stocks are being sold from London. That does not mean that only Englishmen are selling them. It means that all countries in the world in international finance that operate through London, are selling South Africa. They have not confidence in South Africa. That is the difficulty. Finance follows confidence, and they are losing confidence in us
Do you think you will increase confidence by talking in this way?
We have now reached the stage in this House that if one offers any criticism, one is sending it overseas. We have had all that. When we talk about our weak defence system in this country, we are not disclosing any secrets. The whole world knows what our defence system is. There is nothing secret about the constitution of our Defence Force in South Africa. The whole world knows what our navy is, what our army is, what our air force is. There is no secret about it. When we tell each other that we are weak, that we have a small token training force, we are not disclosing secrets.
A police state!
I did not know it was a police state. I don’t call ours a police state, but observers from overseas see that we are developing in that direction.
There you have it again!
Observers from overseas have told us that and we find in South Africa to-day that step by step there is a loss of confidence outside and a loss of confidence inside the country; people are leaving South Africa, which I very much regret.
They are all coming back.
I hope they do, but if we want to get them back, we can get them back by a change of government. [Time limit.]
We have now been listening for a few days to fiery outbursts from hon. members opposite, who spoke in very strong language and I think in language which I would describe as terrible. I would like to deal gently with a large number of the speakers opposite, if possible, because we can understand their pain. We can understand that the wounds they have received are very painful and that sometimes they fly into a rage as the result of the pain of those wounds, and I also want to tell those hon. members that to a certain extent I can sympathize with them because I suffered such a wound and because the members on this side had to suffer such wounds for years, but that those wounds have now mended to such an extent that we can say the wound is healed and that we are now prepared to help them also to heal their wounds. But then I want to make exceptions. I do not want to make everybody angry; I do not want to allow all of them to feel the pain of that wound. I just want to forgive those who, in spite of their pain, still remained courteous. For the hon. member opposite who in his anger became discourteous, I have no feeling whatsoever. I think we should tell each other this so that we shall know it. But to those who in their rage and in their speeches and their criticism still remained courteous towards this side of the House, I want to say that we on this side understand them very well and that we will be very careful not to aggravate their wounds because our wound still has only a thin skin over it and we know how easily it can be broken. Therefore we shall try not to hurt them.
I now want to proceed to analyse these speeches of hon. members opposite in this debate. I sat here listening to the debate, with the exception of small intervals, and if I have to summarize it I must say that all the rage is concentrated on the hon. the Prime Minister and that he is the man who has had to bear the full burden of the rage of hon. members opposite to an extent which I would never have thought possible amongst civilized people. The Prime Minister has endured all the slights from hon. members opposite, and all the blame was put on him, as a result of one thing alone, namely our racial policy. Sir, not a single speech opposite was made without putting the blame on the racial policy of South Africa. Not a single speech was made by hon. members opposite which admitted that the Black members of the Commonwealth had told us in simple language what they desired from us. Their simple language was: Complete equal human rights, without discrimination. Now I would like to tell hon. members: If they are able to read and understand a single sentence, we can reasonably expect them to have read and understood this sentence. We have been dealt shattering blows by hon. members opposite, and if they had not been looking through a glass darkly they would have known that we received those blows. We merely received the blow in a different fashion from the way they received it. We are also very disappointed because we are out of the Commonwealth, but our great disappointment is not that we are out of the Commonwealth but that the strongest member of the Commonwealth stood powerless, together with all the other Whites in the Commonwealth, against the Black states of Asia and Africa. That is our disappointment and that is the blow we received.
Whose fault is that?
I do not want to be interrupted by that hon. member. His love and my love will burn each other. He will always have to wear an oiled rag if my love touches him. We say that the Black states triumphed over the White states, and that is our disappointment. We are disappointed because it has now become clear that the Whites have had to take a back seat also in the Commonwealth. Now I want to ask hon. members how many Black Ministers there are in the British Cabinet, and what are their names, and how many Black members there are in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords and what their names are. Do not tell me it is foolish to talk like this. I want to show that those members of the Commonwealth who are not and never will be faced with that danger have no right to number us among the B’ack states of Africa. Just see what happened. This morning saw the report in the press that the British Prime Minister— I refer to him with respect—asked that the stream of Black immigrants should be diverted from Britain. Sir, they have not even half a million and already they are asking that this stream should be diverted. But they want us, with five to one, to submit to the Black states.
Who says that?
My time is running out and I must speak more rapidly. Just tell me how many Whites are in the Union Cabinet, and how many Whites are represented in the Indian Parliament? Why are they not there? England governed India for many years and there were a number of Englishmen who were born and grew up there, but not a single one of them sits in the Cabinet or in the Indian Parliament, but according to hon. members opposite India must have the right to tell us South Africans: “You must submit to the Afro-Asian countries.” I say that is a little scandalous. Before my time is up I must just say this. Haile Selassie’s throne was bought with Afrikaner blood, the blood of the sons of hon. members opposite and on this side, whose bones are still living in the mountains of Abyssinia. Haile Selassie is back on the throne and he acts as chairman at a conference in Addis Ababa, and there they took a resolution to boycott South Africa. Did any hon. member opposite say anything to disapprove of that? Not a single one. But let me go further. Lumumba was killed by his own people and to-day the White states of the world are asking for an inquiry into the matter. Did hon. members opposite say anything about that? Now an inquiry is being instituted into his death and nobody said it was wrong; nobody said a word against that. Lumumba was the leader of a lot of soldiers who killed and raped hundreds of women and children. Was a single voice raised on the opposite side to say that a commission of inquiry should be appointed in order to punish those criminals? Until to-day they have not said a single word. They remain quiet. They have not demanded that the criminals should be punished. I want to go so far as to make an appeal also. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has taught me to make an appeal over his head, as he did over the head of the Prime Minister. Now I want to make an appeal over the head of the Leader of the Opposition and over the head of his Party and I want to tell the women of South Africa this: The only leader who is fighting for White South Africa, who is prepared to fight for White South Africa, is the hon. the Prime Minister, Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd, and the only party which objected to the rape and murder of White women in Central Africa is the Nationalist Party, and no other party. I want to ask the women of South Africa to think about that if the party opposite again approaches them for their votes. [Time limit.]
Business suspended at 6.30 and resumed at 8.5 p.m.
I think it was the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) who in his speech accused the Government and the National Party of being the cause of Great Britain not wanting to transfer the Protectorates to the Union. I allege that it is the attitude of the United Party and its actions during the past 13 years which have made Britain hesitate to transfer the Protectorates to the Union. When the late Dr. Malan moved a motion in this House to get a unanimous resolution from this House, to ask Britain to transfer the Protectorates as soon as possible —that was in 1954—it was the hon. members opposite who obstinately refuse to vote for such a motion. They fought it tooth and nail. About that time it was men like the hon. member for South Coast (M-. Mitchell) who proposed the following epitaph for this Government—
That is what the hon. member for South Coast told this House, according to Col. 3923 (Afrikaans) of Hansard. His Press followed it up and the Natal Mercury wrote the following—
Thereafter The Mercury wrote another leading article about the incorporation of the Protectorates and it said: “ What a hope! ” It asked what hope South Africa had as long as this lot of gangsters ruled the country, that Britain would transfer the Protectorates, and it said that the Natives would be foolish if they ever allowed the Protectorates to be transferred. It said that it was the duty of the United Party to see to it that the Protectorates were never transferred as long as this Government ruled South Africa. Then hon. members opposite come along and accuse the Government and say it is our fault that Britain does not want to transfer the Protectorates, whilst they as a powerful Opposition tell England not to transfer the Protectorates; and they tell the Natives that they will be foolish to allow themselves to be governed by this Government.
The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) attacked the hon. the Prime Minister here today because he stated that the urban Bantu would eventually only be temporarily sojourners in the urban areas. But what did the hon. member for South Coast say about the policy of the United Party? In 1947 he said this—
I was not here in 1947.
But surely by 1947 the hon. member had already learnt to talk. It was the year before he came here, but he could already talk by then. I think he was big enough already. That was what he told the Municipal Association when he was Administrator.
Now you are talking nonsense.
The hon. member has been denying it for years when the hon. the Minister of Finance has pulled him up about the things he had said. He has always denied it and said: “ I never said a word ” — until it was proved. If he denies it to-day I can bring the proof that he did say it.
If the hon. member denies it, he is telling an untruth. “ The trend of our laws is to make of our Native a sojourner in the towns and to establish him in his own settlement outside the European area. Thus it was important to cultivate the policy in urban areas that Natives should not be allowed domicile in the European areas.” Now the hon. members attack the Prime Minister because he regards the Bantu as a temporary sojourner in the urban areas. That is surely dishonest.
The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) made a row here about the appointment of Afrikaans-speaking people as members of the School Board in Johannesburg. Let us see what the position is. In 1958 they managed to get seven English-speaking members elected, and the Afrikaners won. Then four extra Afrikaans-speaking members were appointed, and the ratio was then 7 English-speaking against 5 Afrikaans-speaking members. That was in 1958, and then everything was all right. In 1961 they did not get seven elected, but five.
That is the new system.
Three Afrikaans-speaking members were elected. Again, four were appointed as in 1958. Now the ratio is 5 English-speaking members against 7 Afrikaans-speaking members. Now a fuss is being made. In 1958 it was all right, but now in 1961, because the position is changed, it is all wrong and the devil is let loose. But I am surprised that the United Party has the temerity to make these attacks here whilst they cannot put their hands into their own bosom in so far as Natal is concerned. The fact that the Administrator appointed four Afrikaans-speaking members who are Nationalists, as they allege, should be a guarantee to them that the English-speaking child’s language is being protected because that is the policy of the National Party. Let us now see what the position is in Natal. I would advise the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) to listen to what is going on in Natal now, because he might not be aware of it. In all countries with more than one language, it is the declared policy of all educationists of standing that educationally mother tongue instruction is the best. In Canada, India, Wales, Belgium and South Africa that is the policy, except in Natal. There they have the nice-sounding phrase, parental choice. What it amounts to is that the parental choice gives the Afrikaans-speaking parent the right to put his child into an English atmosphere where he eventually becomes anglicised. Parental choice is nothing else but misleading the parent.
Are the parents then so weak in Natal?
Parental choice is nothing else but subtle internal immigration. In Natal there are at the moment 8,000 Afrikaans-speaking children in English-medium classes. [Time limit.]
The hon. member who has just resumed his seat should, I think, shown a greater sense of responsibility when it comes to making quotations from Hansard in this House. He knows perfectly well what he was quoting from. He was quoting from a statement made in this House by the then Minister of the Interior, now the hon. the Minister of Finance. And he was challenged on that statement. I denied it over and over. That hon. member has no authority, no substance and no evidence to support that statement. He talks about bringing the evidence! The hon. the Minister could not find any evidence. It is an undated, unsigned little news item that appeared in the newspaper, and that is sufficient for the hon. member and his Minister to attack my character. I say that he should be ashamed of himself for this entirely unjustified attack he is making.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
I am not ashamed of my opinions, and I am going to give them now. I am prepared to face any audience anywhere in South Africa on my opinions, and I have never been afraid to state my opinion in this House. But as far as that hon. member is concerned, this is just an underhand method of trying to attack me and to get his speech into Hansard so that he can go back to his constituency and read his own speech which is based on no evidence whatsoever.
The hon. member complains about the Natal Mercury. What have I do to with the Natal Mercury? The Natal Mercury has helped his side just as much as it has helped any other side of this House. Why does he quote that newspaper to this side of the House? The Natal Mercury has tried to take a completely impartial point of view so far as South Africa is concerned, and if it came to the conclusion a few years ago that the Nationalist Government was leading South Africa to complete catastrophe—and it said so in the plainest possible language—then how right it was. Look how its forecast is coming true to-day. Is the hon. member not ashamed to be in a party that is taking South Africa to perdition as this party is? [Interjections.]
That hon. member should be standing up and beating his breast and saying mea culpa instead of attacking the Press for the forecast it has made in the days of the late Dr. Malan. It has taken him a long time to read the Natal Mercury of the days of the late Dr. Malan. Why does he not bring his ideas up to date and tell us something about the solutions to some of our problems instead of going back to the days of the late Dr. Malan to find out what a newspaper had to say about his party? His own man, as I quoted yesterday, Mr. van Heerden, said “we stand in bewilderment at the abject failure of Dr. Malan to stem the tide.” And to-day. three years later, what is the position? I said the trouble with hon. the Prime Minister is that he does not even admit that there is a tide running. He has not seen that. He cannot even see the tide.
The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) was talking about Jomo Kenyatta and all the rest of it. He said Jomo Kenyatta will go to London and participate in the Commonwealth proceedings. But what does he know about the Commonwealth? He is one of those who have been cheering the fact that we are out of the Commonwealth. Why does he worry whether Jomo Kenyatta is in the Commonwealth or not; he is only too pleased to be out. Why come here with these political tactics? Let him try that on a gathering of his Nationalist Party supporters on the Platteland somewhere, supporters who do not understand the part he has played in trying to take us out of the Commonwealth. The hon. member for Ventersdorp again comes back with this story about blaming the Press. He seems to think that if the newspapers of South Africa will only shut up and publish nothing. South Africa will be safe. And that, of course, is fundamentally the trouble with the whole philosophy of the Nationalist Party, from the hon. the Prime Minister downwards. They say if we will only shut up in South Africa and leave things alone, everything will come out right. Nobody outside will know what is happening in South Africa if they are not told by our newspapers. If people in the United Party and the Parliamentary opposition do not make any speeches criticizing the Government, do not tell other folks what is happening; if we all keep mum and dark about it then everything in South Africa will be lovely! Let us get this quite clear: every single one of them from the Prime Minister downwards … [Interjections.]
On a point of order Mr. Chairman …
I will not sit down for that hon. member unless you ask me to, Sir. Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) said something about that being a lie, and I ask that he be asked to withdraw.
Mr. Chairman, I said in respect of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) that it is not against your criticism but against your lies that we make objections. That is what I said.
Especially that hon. member.
Order, order! The hon. member must withdraw the words “your lies.”
Mr. Chairman, what I said was that I protest only against your lies. We protest against these lies.
Order, order! The hon. member must withdraw the words “your lies”.
I withdraw Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for injury time if I may, for the time that this has been going on. The hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter) tries to introduce a little bit about education into a debate of this character. Let him go and talk to Mr. Odendaal, the Administrator of the Transvaal about education before he comes to talk to us about education in Natal. After what the Administrator of the Transvaal has done there is no room even for any normal discussion on education in Natal. I am willing to deal with education in Natal at the proper time and place, but this is not the proper time and place. However, this is the proper time and place to deal with the Administrator of the Transvaal and what he has done with regard to appointment of members to his school committees.
Again this afternoon the hon. the Prime Minister made one of these appeals for unity. They nauseate me, Sir, just as they nauseate most English-speaking people in South Africa. They nauseate me! Let us know exactly where we stand, because Mr. Odendal, the Administrator of the Transvaal, gives practical and precise action in place of the mealie mouthed words of the hon. the Prime Minister. Mr. Odendal does the deed. It is there for us all to see, for us all to see exactly what is meant by unity when applied by the Administrator of the Transvaal and by the Nationalist administration which comes under his care and under his authority. We know where we stand with him. We know that as far as we are concerned he is going to make political appointment even if it upsets and alters the whole of the results of the free elections by the people themselves in regard to these school committees. He says so and he has done it. So, Sir, let us see something in the way of the fruits of the appeal for unity. We have seen it in the Transvaal, where will we see it next? We heard the hon. the Prime Minister appeal for unity just before he went overseas, and he talked about the sacrifices that the Nationalists were making in respect of that unity. Sacrifice number one was that they were prepared to remain in the Commonwealth. That sacrifice got burnt to a cinder very quickly, and I prophesy here and now that the other sacrinces will go the same way. And they will continue going the same way. The hon. the Prime Minister and his Government have no intention of making those sacrifices permanently. They make them for the time being, then they are ploughed under and the Nationalist machine goes on.
Not one single word to face up to our problems has come from the mouth of that hon. the Prime Minister or from a single member on that side of the House. South Africa may not be facing complete isolation in the world to-day as she is, for all the thought they give to it. Not one word have we had to show us how to solve even a single problem; not one word as to how we are to deal with the situation at United Nations; not one word as to how we are to deal with our members or ex-members of the Commonwealth—because we are still a member of the Commonwealth, members of the Commonwealth—because we are still a member of the Commonwealth. We have not had a word as to how to deal with our colleagues in the Commonwealth today. Not one word as to what our relationship is to be with the emergent nations on the continent of Africa. Not one word about a practical, down to earth effort at getting the goodwill of the non-Europeans of South Africa. Not one solitary word as to how to get their goodwill. Instead we have had, again, this talk in the air by the hon. the Prime Minister. Two hours and five minutes on Monday; and hour and a half yesterday, and heaven knows how much more time we are going to get through to-day Airy-fairy stories about high in the sky bye and bye for all the non-Europeans in South Africa. What utter rubbish. Let us get down to earth.
The hon. the Prime Minister thinks that we are having a nice debating point, a kind of an argument here; that we can settle our troubles because he can come forward with these apparently logical arguments. But South Africa does not want a logical argument, it wants a solution to our problems, and it wants leadership. [Time limit.]
One thing is certain— if the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) talks, one never sees him getting angry. He is always in a good mood. He is like a little lamb, except that he said nothing which could be of any use or assistance to South Africa at this particular time. To-day, after the hon. the Prime Minister had spoken and the Leader of the Opposition had replied, there were members in this House who hoped that the spirit revealed on both sides would endure for the rest of the day. Matters went well for a little while until the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore! noticed that the spirit in the House was Afrikaans, and genuinely Afrikaans, and that there was a possibility of unity to-day—the day on which South Africa passed an Act in terms of which we hope shortly to make a new beginning. The hon. member for Kensington tried to blame this side of the House for the appointments which were made in the Transvaal. When the hon. member was himself a teacher and an inspector, is he not acquainted with the appointments made at that time? At that time he pretended to be a Nationalist. I know that the former Prime Minister told me that he was one of the English-speaking people who understood the Afrikaner.
There you have it!
Now he is the man who gets up here to describe the Afrikaner as being anti-English. Any impartial person sitting in this House to-day would be able to tell us who are against who, who the people are who have revealed in their speeches that they are against another section. Have any of the speeches from this side to-day revealed that they have anything against the English-speaking section of the population? Not a word. But from the opposite side of the House we did not have a single good word for the Nationalist Party which was put into power by the electorate. If people leave the country, the hon. member for Kensington must blazen forth in what a precarious position South Africa is. If money leaves the country they immediately say what a bad country and what a bad Government we have. What do people from abroad say? In the Argus of 27 September, 1959, I read the following in regard to the accusations against the National Party, that it was responsible for the fact that people do not come from Europe to South Africa. What I am now going to read was written by Mr. A. K. Rice, “ who for the past nine years has been assistant to the Immigration Attaché at South Africa House ”. Inter alia, he says the following—
It is not what the National Party does, but the utterances of hon. members opposite, such as we had here to-day, which unfortunately gives people that impression.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. the Prime Minister and also the hon. the leader of the Opposition very much for the attitude they adopted here to-day. We can give the Prime Minister the assurance that the lead he gave this side of the House will be followed by us as members of the House. I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition will also be able to get such an undertaking from his members. The first person from whom he will not get that undertaking is the hon. member for South Coast. He is going to accept the republic, but he is not going to assist it. He will try to wreck it. We must remember that the National Party was put into power by the electorate. The United Party gives the impression that although we sit here, we have lost the confidence of the voters. What are the facts? Since the last election, 11 new members have come into this House, and in not a single case did the United Party have the courage to oppose our candidates. Why not? Because they know that they will fare even worse than before. There are now going to be three by-elections and I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition this. If these three elections show that the National Party still enjoys the confidence of the people, will he subject himself to that decision?
Will you resign if that is not the case?
Yes, I will. But may I ask that hon. member in turn whether he will resign if the Nationalists get in. Of course he will not resign. Another deplorable aspect in this House is this. Can hon. members mention a single Parliament where members of the Opposition talk about their country as members opposite talk about ours? They so often tell us what happens in England, but can they quote anything from any Commonwealth country where they talk about their own people and their own land in the way members opposite do about this country? I say that there are people in this House who are not good South Africans. [Interjections.] Then just mention a country to me where so many people of the opposite party come and tell one: I am just as good a South African as you are. I studied overseas and I never heard an Englishman in England saying that he was as good an Englishman as the next. It goes without saying that they are. But here they have to come and tell you that in case you do not know it. I would like to mention an example. The previous member for Sea Point was English-speaking, and if one reads his speeches in Hansard one finds that he always said what a good South African he was and how he blamed this side of the House for saving that we were South Africans and not they. What happened to him? When he left Parliament he stayed here for about three months and then he went back “ home ”. He was a good South African as long as he sat in Parliament, but when he left this House he went back to his original home. I want to mention something else in regard to which we as South Africans are disappointed in hon. members Opposite. What do we do when criticism is voiced in regard to this side of the House? Any person or any country is believed except South Africa, except the members on this side of the House. They are not believed. Even people of a colour different from ours and who have only recently become members of the Commonwealth are quoted and what they say is accepted as the truth, but our word is doubted [Time limit.]
Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half hour?
Listening to my old friend, the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) I often wonder what the definition of a South African is, as understood by him. You know, Sir, I always understood a South African was one who had undivided loyalty to his country. I often wonder how often that hon. gentleman attended the opening of Parliament while we were a monarchy?
There we have it Mr. Chairman—never. And that is somebody who talks about being a good South African! I do not propose to follow the hon. member in the tortuous arguments he has advanced this evening. I merely want to say this: we have had the news this evening that the communist countries have been the first in putting a man into space and recovering him …
We have a volunteer for them.
When one realizes what that means and what the repercussions might be, then it seems to me that a lot of the discussion which has taken place this evening has been a little unreal. What the people of South Africa really want to know at the present time is what are the plans of the hon. the Prime Minister to meet the state of cold war in which South Africa finds itself at the present time? I think it wants to know what his plans are to meet that situation both extern ally and internally. I have put questions to the hon. gentleman to give him the opportunity to reply and to give us some idea of what his policies are in that regard. But so far, I want to say very frankly, we are not much better informed than we were when this debate began, and we are extremely disappointed at what we have heard and what small changes or variations there have been.
When I speak about external affairs, the hon. the Prime Minister reminds me of nothing more than the Duke of Sidonia who commanded the Spanish Armada in 1588. He knew that his expedition was under-gunned and, under-provisioned and when this was pointed out to him he is known to have replied “ God is on our side, we can hone for a miracle ”, Now, it seems to me that the hon. the Prime Minister i« hoping for a miracle as far as external affairs are concerned. He is not only under-gunned and under-provisioned but he is very alone on very stormy seas in a very dangerous world. And so far we have had no idea from him as to how he is going to meet that situation. I think that the hon. gentleman will be failing in his duty to the country if this debate has to end without us having some proper idea of what our relationships are going to be with the outside world as a result of the fundamental change which is going to take place on 31 May.
I had raised certain specific matters with the hon. the Prime Minister, and he has taken exception to some of them. But there is one which I wish to raise again, and that is the question of South West Africa. The hon. gentleman has taken up the attitude that he intends making no statement whatever, giving no information whatever, because he regards the case as sub judice, and it may harm the position of South Africa. Does the hon. the Prime Minister not realize that he is acting in this matter as a trustee for the people of South Africa? And the people of South Africa have a right to know what it means if that case is won or that case is lost. If the hon. the Prime Minister does not tell them that, Mr. Chairman, he is failing in his duty to South Africa. He is failing to be frank with the country. He is failing to tell the people of South Africa what they can expect, what risks they are running as a result of the activities of the hon. gentleman and his Government in respect of that matter. The hon. gentleman has told us—one of the few small pieces of enlightenment we have had from him in the course of this debate—that the West regards South Africa as expendable. Mr. Chairman, what a prospect! We are anti-Communist and have no friends in the Communist world. We do not seem to have many friends amongst the emergent states of Africa. The Prime Minister tells us that the West regards us as expendable.
Macmillan said so.
I do not recall his saying so. I doubt very much whether he would say something like that, but if he did it merely reinforces my argument. What I want to know is if we have no friends in the Communist world, few if any in Africa, and the West regards us as expendable, where are our friends to-day? With whom do we stand at present, and who stands with us? If the West regards us as expendable, why is it that they regard an area of such fundamental strategic importance as the Union as expendable? I can only assume that if the hon. gentleman is right—and I hope he is not— then the West has drawn up a balance sheet about South Africa and have decided that they have more to lose than they have to gain in supporting South Africa, and that can only be for one reason, and that is because they do not regard this Government as being stable at present. [Laughter.] My hon. friends may laugh and say they have the support of the electorate, but the whole weakness of this hon. gentleman is the attitude he takes up when he criticizes us of speaking about South Africa as “ die een gemeenskaplike vaderland ” of all races. To me it would appear that he holds that there is no one common fatherland here for all races. It would appear that this is our fatherland and not theirs. When you talk that kind of talk, the countries of the Western world say logically: On which side are those people going to fight when there is a war? If this is not their fatherland, for whom are they going to fight? That is the tragic situation for which the Prime Minister is responsible. His Government has succeeded for 13 years in making the world understand that there are people here who do not regard South Africa as their common fatherland and cannot be expected to defend it. No wonder there is this tragic judgment. The position may not be stable here, and on balance we are expendable in the eyes of the Western world. That is the external picture painted by the Prime Minister and no solution whatever is offered.
Now let us look at the internal picture. If ever there was a time for bold and courageous thinking in South Africa, it is the present. If ever there was a time when we wanted a clear lead and a clear statement of policy, it is now. But we heard from the hon. gentleman over the last two days the old outworn shibboleths, the old policies, no attempt to adapt them to modern circumstances and developments which have been taking place even in the period the hon. gentleman was Prime Minister. Even worse, what did we get? An attempt to indulge in diversionary tactics, an attempt that we have seen so often from governments that are in trouble, to divert attention from their policies to the policies of the Opposition. The hon. gentleman wants to know the policy of the Opposition, but look at the way we get his policies. It seems as though he is so in despair at having to give the answers that he is looking for guidance to this side of the House. Just let me read what the Prime Minister said and let us decide who has the right to ask whom for details.
He started dealing with this concept of the Coloureds and the Indians, of a state within a state, surely a most novel idea and a most strange concept. Apparently there is the possibility that you may have the European Parliament and a Coloured Parliament. I am not sure how far the Indians will be allowed to go, but it will all be within the confines of one state. Now who is sovereign over what? Which of the Parliaments is sovereign? What happens if the one declares war and the others do not agree? When the hon. gentleman is pressed, what do we get—
I would say not, Mr. Speaker. How can one see how the matter will develop? In fact, I do not believe it will develop at all. He goes a little further—
I am sure it will, but I do not think there is any solution provided. Then the Prime Minister deals with the political rights of the urban Bantu and he finds the difficulties of the transition period between the time when they are still permanently settled in the European areas and the time when they will be settled and have political rights in the new ethnic areas which he will establish for them. He admits these difficulties—“ Ons is besig om die planne daarvoor uit te werk.” Well where are we? Then the hon. gentleman turns to me and says that I spoke about ordered advance. Ordered advance to what? What is the end of the road? He forgets that I told him what the end of the road was. I told him that it was a racial federation. I told him that was the direction in which we were moving and I told him there were signposts. He knows, but it bears repetition, that the fundamental policy of this party in respect of matters of colour is to be prepared to share the fruits of Western civilization with those non-White groups who have shown themselves capable of taking joint responsibility with us for the future development of South Africa. I told him also that we were not prepared to hand over to a Black proletariat, an uncivilized proletariat. I told him we stand for the maintenance of Western civilization in South Africa, and I told him that for that to be maintained I believe that for the foreseeable future—I do not pretend to be able to see as far as he can—that means the maintenance of White leadership in South Africa. For that reason I pleaded for the strengthening of the White population here and I said how important that was.
I went further. I said it was vitally important that if you rule people you must have consultation with them at all levels. I pleaded for the hon. gentleman to establish machinery for consultation. What is the reply to that? When I spoke of the policy of ordered advance, I signposted the road ahead. I told the Prime Minister that the Coloureds should be regarded as part of the Western group and that to me that meant that they should be restored to the Common Roll in the two provinces where they had representation before, and that if they could find people to elect them they should be able to sit in this House. Let me remind hon. members opposite that there have been members of the Cape Coloured population who have not only been given grants by this Government for cultural study overseas, but have been awarded prizes by the S A. Taal en Kultuurvereniging for their contribution to Afrikaans literature, in competition with the entire White population. I spoke about the Indian population and asked time and again what the policy of the Government was. I said that it was quite clear that repatriation is dead and that they must be recognized as a permanent part of our population, and that the time had come for negotiations to be entered upon to decide what their future political status would be. Negotiations were then difficult. They were difficult in the past, but they are part of our population and we have to find some means of living with them here. I want to contrast that with the policy of the Prime Minister. Then when it came to the Bantu population, I distinguished between the Bantu permanently settled in the urban areas and pointed out the importance of fostering the emergence of what I called the responsible class of Bantu by giving him home ownership in his own urban areas, and assisting him to have family life and so to develop a class which would have a stake in the maintenance of law and order and which would be on the side of the Government in difficult times. Does my old friend over there not want that? I said they must have representation in this House on the separate roll and by Europeans.
I also spoke about the Bantu in the reserves and said they would have to be given a measure of self-government and that they, too, should have representation here, not necessarily on the same basis as the Bantu permanently settled in the European area. In other words, I signposted the road ahead in a great deal more detail than I have done to-night. It is all in the statement of policy of the party. Of course hon. members opposite who could not follow it came along at once and said: But what is the end of the road? Where are you going when you do this? The Prime Minister seems to have conceded that if we adopt a policy of that kind we will have peace and prosperity here for our lifetime, perhaps, and perhaps not, but he did make that concession, and he claimed that for his policy also. But he asked what is the end of the road, and I said I have signposted the road and that the end in my opinion would be a racial federation. May I say that my concept of that differs fundamentally from that of the Prime Minister. In fact, I was hardly able to recognize it when the Prime Minister outlined his extremist views of what it would be. I indicated that my idea of a racial federation was that each racial group would have a determined share in the Government. Secondly, that by the introduction of federal elements into our constitution, it would be possible to protect the rights of the various racial groups and also the geographical units which will make up the constituent parts of South Africa, f said, thirdly, that as the result of the accidents of history there are many areas in South Africa which are preponderantly Black and many which are preponderantly White, and it is possible that they can be used as separate administrative units for political purposes. What more does the Prime Minister want? He wants to know exactly how the constitution will fit together. I wonder how many members opposite would understand it if I were to go into it. I think that is a problem for the lawyers to settle. Those are the ideas by which we are standing.
By contrast, what have I from the hon. the Prime Minister? From his speeches, I have a very granite-like policy, a very inflexible policy, with no changes over the years except for this concept of a couple of states within a state, which is not a very happy one. In fact, all we have seen is the Prime Minister wriggling in the straitjacket of his own ideas. That straitjacket is the irrational and ideological fear he seems to have that if any non-White group is represented in this House it means the end of White civilization in South Africa, either immediately or later. But you must not consider having representatives of non-White groups in this House, even if they are White, because that means the end of White civilization here. It is because of that straitjacket in the hon. gentleman’s thinking that we get the contradictions in his policy. We get the situation with which he is faced of the Native permanently settled in the urban areas who has broken all his tribal affiliations and who has no home in the reserves and has lived now for several generations in the urban areas. What does the Prime Minister offer him? Political rights in a Bantustan yet to be created, in a Parliament which does not exist, and while that happens he takes away rights he enjoyed here.
What does he say about the Coloureds? They have been taken off the Common Roll and given separate representation. Those representatives are sitting in this House. He says that at a certain time when the Coloured Affairs Council has been developed and has been given certain additional powers, it will be decided whether they should develop into a separate Parliament and whether these representatives stay in this House or not. That is a most extraordinary concept. Which of those two Parliaments will be sovereign? What is each going to control? Are the Coloureds going to be placed in separate areas where the writ of that Parliament runs, but over the road it does not because it is a White area? What happens when a White visits a Coloured, or vice versa? Which Parliament controls their activities? I know it is unfair to ask these details. I accept that the Prime Minister has not worked these things out.
He must dream again.
But this is the time when it is necessary to go into these things and to have a vision and at least to know what it is about.
What is the position with regard to the Indians? I want to be fair to the Prime Minister. He did not speak of a separate Parliament for them, but will they ever get political rights? Will they have a separate sub-department now, and where will it end? Does he think he will get satisfaction amongst those groups in that way? It seems to me that because the hon. gentleman balks every time at that mental barrier, that is why he and his party can have no clear vision for the future. That is why he has to fall back on these uncertainties and indecisive statements. The fact is that he wants rigid apartheid now and his followers want it now for political purposes because it suits them, and the future can look after itself. Then the hon. gentleman turns round and says he is adopting this policy for our children. He concedes that we can possibly hold the thing during our lifetime, but he says not for our children. I want to tell the Prime Minister that the way things are going now, the pressures that are building up, the dissatisfaction and unhappiness and the human misery resulting from his policies, I do not believe he can hold the position for his lifetime or that of most members here, and that is not just my opinion. The Prime Minister took a long time explaining his policy to the Prime Ministers’ Conference. It is possible that some were prejudiced, but it is known that some were on our side, and there was not one who did not condemn this policy. At UN the British representative, Mr. Smithers, said that to him it was the path of folly. We know what Mr. Menzies said about it on two occasions, perhaps our staunchest supporter—
Once before he spoke about an outburst and bloodshed. It is not only people outside, but people inside, and organized industry and commerce and most of the intellectuals who can think in South Africa who come to exactly the same conclusion, that the Prime Minister with his present policies will not be able to maintain the position during our lifetime. It is no good talking of the far-away future. He will never get there with these policies. They will break down, and quickly, unless there are fundamental changes. Why must this policy fail? It must fail for a number of reasons. It is because it attempts to deny the inescapable facts of the South African situation as it exists at present. Firstly, it fails to appreciate the extent of the economic inter-dependence of the races in South Africa, and therefore he believes that you can move people about like pawns on a chessboard and that they will like it and that it will not affect the economy of the country. I am afraid that time is going to show, and perhaps very soon, that the Prime Minister’s ideas on economics and those of his party do not correspond with the hard realities of the South African situation.
The second thing it fails to take any cognizance of is the aspirations of the ordinary, normal Bantu, the ordinary well-behaved and responsible Bantu who wants recognition in the area in which he lives, who is permanently settled in our urban areas where ne wants a home and wants to enjoy family life and would like to see, if he is of good behaviour, that he gets exemption from the pass laws, and where he would like to have a measure of his own municipal self-government. But what is happening? He is getting recognition of none of those aspirations, and when you do not recognize those very natural equations and Keep those people on your side, they tend to turn against you and become a fertile field for agitators and then they start thinking about Communism. Then they do not just become anti-Government but anti-White, that is the risk the Government is running.
They are all anti-White in Africa.
The hon. gentleman says they are all anti-White in Africa, and yet it is his party which tells us all the time what a different position there is in the Union from anywhere else. They say our position is unique because here we have a permanent, settled White population responsible for the entire economic development of the country. In fact, you only have to get a couple of riots and that hon. member and some of his friends will tell you that relations have never been better. [Laughter.] I do not want to labour the point about the Bantu. I want to say a word or two about the Coloureds. We know them here in the Cape. We have had much experience of them. They have always in the past been on the side of the Western standards of the Europeans. What is happening to-day under the policy of this Government? Is the Prime Minister keeping them on our side? [Time limit.]
The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) hurled two accusations at me. The first was that I had acted shamelessly towards him and the second that I had told an untruth. Sir, I am not ashamed when I speak the truth, but that hon. member should not talk about shamelessness. This afternoon when the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) in all decency withdrew an allegation he had made against the Leader of the Opposition and apologized to him, and the Prime Minister upheld the honour of the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for South Coast sat there but did not have the decency to withdraw this mean allegation he had made against the Prime Minister at Pinelands. This is what he said—
But he did not have the decency to apologize to the Prime Minister. He issued a challenge to me to prove what I had said in regard to what he said before the Municipal Association. Well, I accept that challenge. Now he has not the decency to listen. I say I accept the challenge and I hope he will see to it that his denial and the accusation that I told a lie will be published in his Press, as well as the fact that I accept his challenge. I now challenge him to appear with me on the public platforms in Durban and Johannesburg and here in order to settle the matter.
State your case.
I can prove it, because I have the verbatim report.
Do it now.
He will not accept it. But I want to come back to education in Natal. I said that the parental choice in terms of the policy of the hon. member’s party in Natal was nothing else but subtle internal immigration, because as the result of that policy more than 8,000 Afrikaans-speaking children are in English-medium classes, and how do they manage that? The Education Ordinance of 1942 provides that when there are 15 students in a school who are, say, Afrikaans-speaking, then they are entitled to be educated in their mother tongue, and vice versa. But what happens now? In the overwhelmingly English-speaking areas such as Port Shepstone, Eshowe and Amanzimtoti there are fairly large numbers of Afrikaans-speaking in the primary schools, but when they have to go to the secondary school this rule in regard to 15 students no longer applies. Now the Administration has suddenly provided that it must be 20. That happens in the predominantly English-speaking areas. Contrary to the provisions of the Ordinance, it was arbitrarily decided that when the Afrikaans-speaking children want to go to high school there must be 20 students. The result is that children are placed in the English-medium school right from the beginning because in the higher standards they cannot receive mother tongue education. Other children are forced to switch over to the English medium after standard 6. Children leave school too early and parents who stand by their principles and who want to send their children to other schools must pay extra cost. But let us see what happens in the areas which are predominantly Afrikaans-speaking. Take Utrecht. In February this year in the lower classes up to Std. 5 there were 152 Afrikaans children, and only 8 in the English medium.
Are you in the Provincial Council now? I do not know what this has to do with the Vote.
The hon. member is getting hurt. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) referred to educational matters here and that was in order, but now the United Party does not want to hear about the sins it is committing in Natal. In standards 7 to 10 there were 45 Afrikaans-speaking children and only three English-speaking, but they receive education in English up to standard 10 in their own language. But where there are 15 or more Afrikaans-speaking children in the English areas, they cannot receive mother tongue instruction from standard 7 to standard 10 because they are Afrikaans-speaking. In Glencoe there are quite a number of English-speaking children, but just see how they are treated as compared with Port Shepstone, Eshowe and Amanzimtoti. There you have 658 Afrikaans-speaking students in all the schools and only 99 English-speaking children, and they receive education right up to standard 10. But let us see what happens at Estcourt, where there is a large number of Afrikaans-speaking children. There are two primary schools, the Estcourt Junior—there the Afrikaans-medium children number 93, and the English medium children 283. In Drakensview there are 185 Afrikaans and 97 English-speaking children. The total is 278 Afrikaans-speaking, but see how they are discriminated against when they go to high school. In standard 6 there are only 41 against 81 English-speaking children, in standard 7, 36 as against 117 English-speaking children, in standard 8, 11 as against 94 and in standards 9 and 10 not a single Afrikaans-speaking child. Now they must either switch over to English-medium or be sent away. I say this is a scandalous and deliberate anglicising of the Afrikaans child in Natal.
That is not true.
That is the process of anglicising the Afrikaans child.
I repeat that it is absolutely untrue.
Here is the proof. The Afrikaans-speaking children in Estcourt …
He is a liar.
Did the hon. member say that?
No, I did not say it.
That is absolutely untrue.
Order! The hon. member may continue.
That is the anglicizing of the Afrikaans child …
That is untrue.
The parental choice does not apply to the Afrikaans children in Estcourt. They want a secondary division to be established there at one of the primary schools, but that is being refused, and why? Why do they not want to give it to the Afrikaans child whilst they give it to the English children at Utrecht and Glencoe and other places where the Afrikaans children are in the majority? Why will they not do so? And then they say it is not true that there is an anglicising process going on in Natal. [Time limit.]
I hope the hon. member will forgive me for not following him in the running fight which he and the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) have been conducting over the last ten or 12 years in this House.
I was dealing with the reasons why I believe the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister will have to fail and have to fail very possibly within our lifetime, that is the lifetime of those of us who are sitting here. I was dealing with the inescapable fact which he had failed to take into account, and I was mentioning the position of the Cape Coloured people who are being treated by this Government in the manner outlined by the hon. gentleman, those Cape Coloured people who have no homelands and who, in my opinion, should be recognized as part of the Western group and should not be subjected to the administration of the Group Areas Act in the manner in which it is being administered at the present time or to the application of job reservation. I want to say, Sir, that this side of the House does not accept job reservation. We have always stood for the rate for the job. I want to say that the policy must fail because it has no provision in it apparently, as far as I can see, for the Asiatics, the Indian people, which is at all feasible and which can be worked out. They clearly do not want to be regarded as part of the Bantu. They are a race, a civilization of their own, so I cannot understand how we can continue in this manner without the hon. gentleman giving us any clear indication of how they are going to be treated. I want to say very honestly that I do not believe that any Government can be successful and continue to be successful unless, in its policies, it has the broad acquiescence of the people whom it governs. The tragedy, Sir, is that that is what this Government and the hon. the Prime Minister are losing at the present time in South Africa, if they have not lost it already. This unfortunate situation has developed in favour of a policy which I believe is either going to be difficult or impossible ever to carry out completely and fairly and justly. The hon. gentleman himself knows from the reports of the missions which he has seen, missions which have been appointed by this Government, what the economic sacrifices are that will be expected of the population of South Africa. In the 13 years during which this Government has been in office, there has not been the slightest attempt to face up to those economic sacrifices. When he was told by me earlier in this debate that the number of Africans in the urban areas had increased by over 1,000,000 during the last nine or ten years, he said: Oh, yes, but even the Tomlinson Commission said it would rise to a peak till about 1978 and then start falling away. The Tomlinson Commission also recommend the spending of a minimum of £104,000,000 on the Native Reserves over a period of ten years. What has this Government spent during the first seven years? Is it £6,000,000, £7,000,000 or £8,000,000? I wonder whether they are going to reach the peak at the rate at which they are going? I think it will be roundabout the year 3000, if they ever exist as long as that. What i; happening, Sir? Because of this policy which it is virtually impossible to carry out, we are being faced with the difficulties of the present situation. But let us suppose for one moment that it is possible to carry out the policy of the hon. gentleman. Let us suppose that the daydreams of the hon. the Minister of External Affairs are true, let us suppose that one day he will be appointed High Commissioner of the Union of South Africa to one of the new Black states on our borders what is the position going to be, Sir? Then instead of having South Africa bound in a federation, as we would like to see, there are going to be seven, eight or nine independent states, some Black, some mixed and in the mixed there will be more non-Europeans than Europeans. Instead of having one common patriotism for the Government with federal elements in it, there will be eight or nine separate national groups, all separate and differing from each other. Where will the Cape Coloured people be at that time, Sir? Where will the Indian population be? Standing with the hon. gentleman or making common cause with the emerging Black states outside South Africa? What possibility is there, Sir, of this so called Commonwealth which the hon. the Prime Minister is going to build up in South Africa, existing? The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said that we were bankrupt that was why we were against these people and that was why we were working them up to be against the Government. Sir, who worked up the emerging African states against this Government? [Interjections.] Must I understand from that hon. member that he blames it all on the Opposition? Despite this wonderful Government with all its information officers, with its information service, with its wonderful Minister of External Affairs, we influenced all the states in Africa against this Government? What hope does he have of retaining the friendship of those emerging African states when they see the way their brothers and other non-Europeans are treated within the state which he says is going to be a White state.
You have the wrong perspective.
Let us deal with his perspective for one moment. He is going to see factories established on the borders of these Black, states—not in them but on their borders. Those factories are to be in the White areas. In other words, our entire labour force will consist of followers controlled by a foreign government.
With a Black king.
Under a President.
A Black president.
Yes, he may be Black. Will every labour dispute become an international incident? What is to happen to those factories when these states borrow capital from the International Monetary Fund or they get it from the communist states of the East and develop their own factories? What happens then, Sir, to the hon. gentleman’s approach.
What do you suggest instead?
I suggest a racial federation; you keep them all under one Parliament; you give them representations; you develop a common patriotism and when you have trouble with communist Russia they will fight on your side and not against you. What is the strategic weakness of this scheme, if it can be carried out? Here we are finding bases being prepared for an ideology inimical to the Union of South Africa.
Sir, if you take the scheme as outlined by the hon. the Prime Minister and you compare it with the bones of the structure which I have outlined, namely a racial federation, and even if you wish to look into the dim distant future towards which the hon. gentleman looks, then the prospect of the scheme of this side of the House is far more promising, far safer and far more certain to preserve Western civilization than that of the hon. gentlemen opposite. When you look at the immediate prospects of his scheme, you see the impossibility of ever carrying it out; you see it faltering and failing within our lifetime; you see people being called upon to make sacrifices for something which will never be achieved as against the sound and sensible policy which could be put into effect bit by bit from to-morrow morning and could change the face of South Africa within a very few years. [Time limit.]
At the beginning of his speech the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put a series of pertinent questions to the hon. the Prime Minister. I do not doubt for a moment that when the Prime Minister replies he will reply to those specific questions in connection with South West Africa. The crux of the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was based on his concept of a federation. He says that the United Party stands for the “ maintenance of Western Civilization ” and for “ White leadership “ White leadership ”, Sir, is in essence based on discrimination. It was because it could not satisfy his party as a whole that we have the Progressive Party to-day, the party which broke away from the United Party. I should like to put this question to the Leader of the Opposition. We had to wait a long time before the Leader of the Opposition once again gave us a summary this evening of what he envisaged with his federation policy. I want to ask him one question, if the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) will allow him to listen to me. I should like to ask him this question. Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that not many of us on this side of the House would understand him—probably only the lawyers. The longer he spoke the more confused he became, as far as I was concerned. I want to ask him this pertinent question: How is he going to maintain “ White leadership ” in his federal system? That is the pertinent question which I am putting to him. On a previous occasion the hon. the Prime Minister analysed the policy of the Leader of the Opposition and showed him step by step how this policy of the United Party—this recently discovered policy of the United Party—must ultimately lead to Black domination The Leader of the Opposition has not replied to that this evening. What we do want to ask him is how he is going to maintain “ White leadership ” in his federal system. I trust that when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has the opportunity at a later stage, he will throw more light on that matter. The Leader of the Opposition said “ If ever the-e was a time for bold and courageous thinking, this was the time ”. We agree with him. We are going through a serious period. Sir, where it behoves both sides of the House to think seriously about the problems which confront us. But are the personal attacks which that side of the House are making on the person of the hon. the Prime Minister in which they accuse him of false motives—I shall not repeat them, they are too unpleasant—signs of “ bold and courageous thinking” Mr. Chairman? I ask the Leader of the Opposition that question. If that party is serious about this matter, they will not be petty and try to make political capital out of the situation by making personal attacks on the hon. the Prime Minister and accuse him of false motives. If we can get away from that attitude I believe we will have taken a step forward. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition advanced the argument that the hon. the Prime Minister had asked him certain questions as though he (the Prime Minister) sought direction from him in connection with the application of our policy. That is a petty and weak argument which does not strengthen his case one iota. The Leader of the Opposition then enumerated a series of reasons why the policy of this side must fail. The first reason he mentioned why it must fail was the result of the “ economic interdependence of the races We in South Africa already have the pattern, to a certain extent, which we will reach in that we have the protectorates alongside us where there is economic interdependence between them and the Union of South Africa. That already is an example on which we can base our arguments and which gives us the right to say: That is the way in which we will develop in future. On what grounds does the Leader of the Opposition say that it will fail seeing that we already have a example of how it works? There is interdependence between the Protectorates and ourselves without the inhabitants of the Protectorates, who are in the Union temporarily because of the work they do here, claiming political rights in the White areas. We have the example. In spite of the example the Leader of the Opposition says that the policy must fail because of the “ Economic interdependence of the races ”. Very, very weak, Mr. Chairman.
Ever since Monday when the Opposition started this debate, Sir, they have been putting up a sham fight, and they did so for this reason: They lack the support of their own supporters for the policies which they advocate in this House. They know it, Mr. Chairman. At the moment the Opposition is nothing more and nothing less than a tremendous political anachronism. Had they had that support there would have been big demonstrations in this country during the crises which we have experienced. In the past we have had demonstrations in connection with much smaller issues. They do not have that support, Sir, and that is the reason why they put up this sham fight. Why this sham fight? In the first instance it is obvious that by putting up this fight they want to arouse enthusiasm in the country amongst those who supported them in the past and prevent further desertion on the part of their supporters. That is their object, in the first instance. In the second instance their object is to make the outside world believe that there is a party in this country which, if it were to come into power, will succeed in lessening the tension which exists in so far as the world outside is concerned and perhaps even remove it completely. But Mr. Chairman, they omit to say how far exactly they intend going in their attempt to satisfy the world outside because if they were to do that the voters of South Africa will reject them lock stock and barrel. That is why they are as vague as they possibly can be in this respect. What methods do they employ in this sham fight? As I have already said, they resort to personal attacks on the hon. the Prime Minister. I have been sitting in this House for 13 years and during those 13 years I have on numerous occasions seen the type of attack which the Opposition has made on a Prime Minister, but never before, Mr. Chairman, have I known such attacks to be made in which false motives have been ascribed to a Prime Minister, as we have had since last Monday. What do they hope to achieve by that? Because he represents the policy of this Party, they are trying to stimulate and retain the enthusiasm of their own supporters by making a personal attack upon his person. [Time limit.]
When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke a few minutes ago, he made a prophecy that the hon. the Prime Minister would not be able to continue to hold the position in South Africa for his whole lifetime with his present policy. The hon. gentleman, in making that prophecy, was entirely correct but I do not think he will take it amiss if I say that he put it mildly. I believe for my part that if the present road is followed, or if any other equivalent road is followed, a road which seeks to govern this country internally and to demonstrate externally that we are governing this country here by domination of one section over all the others, I shall be extremely surprised if the position could be held for as much as five or ten years. When one listens to the hon. the Prime Minister, to the account which he has given us of what he proposes to do in the years that lie immediately ahead of us, in the first instance, to maintain internal peace, to create that degree of harmony which is necessary for our economy to go on, what he proposes to offer to the whole mass of a hostile world with the pressure that it is placing upon him now, one wonders whether even the prophecy which I have just made is not putting it too mildly. When the hon. the Prime Minister talks to us he is hurt and he complains; he exhibits a feeling of persecution and he says that the reason why the world is against us is not really because of our policies but because of ourselves—the fault lies with our star, Sir, not in ourselves, says the Prime Minister. It is the fault of the wicked communists who have persuaded Great Britain and America and those countries to vote against us at the United Nations. Of course there is truth in the fact that the internal political manoeuvrings at the United Nations affect the attitude which nations take up. But surely the hon. the Prime Minster is not really so naïve as to believe that there is a nation anywhere outside South Africa that will dare to-day to vote for a policy of racial discrimination.
Because it is wrong Sir; because it is in conflict with Western civilized principles, because it is in conflict with all the religions followed by Western civilized people and because it is in conflict with basic human dignity and because it is resented by human beings throughout the world. Whether it is discrimination on the ground of race or on the ground of religion or on the ground of language, it is resented. If the hon. member who has just interjected were told that because he has curly black hair, he has not got the right to sit in this Parliament, he will object and if necessary the hon. gentleman will take unconstitutional action to get his rights, I believe. Other people in the world who are told the same thing react in the same way as that hon. member would.
Sir, the Prime Minister offered us certain ideas of grandeur. He said that he believed that in due course the whole world who now so strongly disapproves of us, will change its outlook. All we have to do is to hang on and the time will come when the world will realize how foolish it has been. Again I say no doubt world politics may change from time to time and attitudes may change but for anybody to believe that the world is going to return to the centuries of colonialism, to the centuries where the doctrine of the supremacy of race, of the supremacy of a fairer skin, could be upheld in this world, is to believe the impossible. Then the Prime Minister comes with the policy which he believes can work in South Africa. It is not necessary to add anything to what has already been said by the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members about this policy offered to the Coloured people and the policy offered to the Africans. A state within a state, a Parliament hanging somewhere suspended between heaven and earth governing some people who live in a country governed by another Parliament. What it means in fact, of course, is that some sort of council or assembly will be created which will be subservient to this Parliament. It simply means that for these people the answer is, to use the opposite of the expression which the Prime Minister has used, “onderhorigheid”. It is imperialism, Sir, as my hon. friend reminds me; it must mean that those people will be governed from here. If it does not, Sir, then either some portion of South Africa has got to be taken off and given to these people or they have to be given rights in this Parliament. But to say that there will neither be a separate geographical area for the Coloured people nor will they be represented in this Parliament is to propose something which is a constitutional absurdity. As for the Africans, no answer has been heard either in this debate or in the previous debates in which that question has been raised. No answer has been given to the arguments raised by the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld). That hon. member has again this evening quoted figures which make the most arrant nonsense of the whole concept of any Bantu homeland, figures, Sir, which show that the progress which the Government is making will give them some chance of carrying out their policy within 500 years. And no reply is forthcoming except for one hon. gentleman who got up and said “ that is a matter of detail.” There can be no Bantu homelands, Sir. The solution to this whole problem which is offered to us is that the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government propose to go on for as long as they can dominating everyone else in South Africa and hope for the best. We have sat here for 13 years and we have watched this happening and we are still watching it happening. The hon. the Prime Minister said that we should not be startled or in any way criticize the Government because the number of Africans in the towns is still increasing instead of decreasing. He said quite correctly that he prophesied that that number would continue to increase up to 1978. That is correct, Sir, as far as it goes. The hon. the Prime Minister prophesied years ago that his policy would move backwards till 1978. Are we supposed to believe that in 1990 or in 1995 he can begin to apply this policy? How far ahead are we expected to look? How far ahead is the African expected to look for some hope? One hundred years? We have listened for a long time in this debate to the hon. the Prime Minister speaking on this policy of his; we have listened to his speaking continuously in terms of groups. We have listened to him continuously missing the vital concept which is at the bottom of the crisis in which South Africa finds herself to-day—we have not heard a word from him about the human individual. Sir, what is Western civilization if it is not the doctrine that the individual human being is supreme? The Prime Minister has said so but I have strong reservations about the efficacy of this. The Prime Minister has suggested that he does recognize the dignity of people in recognizing that the Bantu group as a group must get certain rights. What, Sir, about the individual African who is a professional man, a businessman, a lecturer, a teacher and who lives in the cities of South Africa? What about him? As an individual he is ignored. He is seen as a member of a Black group. He is seen as having the abilities, the talents of the average member of that group and that is what is nonsense. No philosophy that pretends that by taking a hundred human beings and establishing an average or norm and treating them all as though they conform to that average or norm will work because such philosophy denies the fact that there are human individuals in the world, individuals with aspirations and individuals with talents. By way of some consolation the hon. gentlemen opposite say that they have a great many votes in the country and now that a by-election is about to take place they will even be able to show greater support. I am not going to argue whether that is so or not, what I am going to say is that if the hon. gentlemen think that by increasing their majority in Swellendam or Bethal-Middelburg they are going to get South Africa out of her present difficulty, then they are really producing of all the remedies they have produced so far, the most stupid remedy. They are far more likely to aggravate South Africa’s present difficulties by doing that than by relieving it.
The Prime Minister said one wise thing which we should all take to heart. In reply to the Leader of the Opposition who had pointed out the dangers of the course which the Prime Minister was following, the Prime Minister in turn pointed out that there were dangers attached to any course which might be followed. Of course there are because the dangers that are present in South Africa are not so much the dangers of this or that policy, as they are the dangers inherent in the situation itself, the situation of a multi-racial society in a developing country like ours. Therefore in politics as in business or anything else, there are risks attached to any course that you take and these risks have got to be present. [Time limit.]
It really hurts me to have to say, as far as the speech of the hon. member for Maitland (Dr. de Beer) is concerned, that he was malicious—deliberately malicious …
Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.
Must I withdraw “ deliberately ” or merely “ malicious ”, Mr. Chairman?
The hon. member must withdraw both.
I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman, and I say that he revealed malice in ascribing to the National Party as motive for its apartheid policy, a desire to dominate non-White races and all races in South Africa.
Order! The hon. member cannot use the word “ malice ” either. He must withdraw that.
I withdraw it, Sir, and I say that he deliberately adopted a bullying and hostile attitude towards the National Party. He knows that the policy of the National Party is to do justice …
On a point of order, the hon. member has not withdrawn the word “ malice ”.
Has the hon. member withdrawn the word “ malice ”?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The hon. member may continue.
I say that the apartheid policy of the National Party and its policy of separate development of the various races, indicate our desire to escape from the dilemma of how to retain our right of self-determination without oppressing the other racial groups or without doing them an injustice, and the hon. member knows that as well as any Nationalist … [Interjections.]
Order! I want to appeal to hon. members at the back not to speak so loudly.
The hon. member knows that as well as any Nationalist but he deliberately makes that incorrect statement. His object is to try to find justification for an alternative policy which will surely and immediately lead to the extermination of the White man in South Africa.
I now want to return to the remarks of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the hon. the Prime Minister was living in the strait jacket of his own unyielding theories, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is the person who pre-eminently wriggles around in the strait jacket of his own contradictions. He says the objective of their very vague policy is to share the fruits of Western civilization with the Bantu; they do not wish to hand over to a Black proletariat, they wish to maintain Western civilization in South Africa. He admits, however, that he cannot say what the ultimate consequences of his policy will be. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not denied or tried to disprove any one of the logical consequences which as the Prime Minister has pointed out will be the direct outcome of his so-called race federation policy. The fact remains that if we start by placing the Coloureds on the common roll, in which case they will dominate a great number of constituencies, and by having representatives of the Bantu in this Parliament—the number given by the Leader of the Opposition varies; sometimes he says six and sometimes 12—we will create a political situation which must inevitably have its effect in this country. What is more important is this: They continually admit the importance of pressure from outside. How on earth is he going to get the world outside to approve of this principle of his party viz. that they merely wish to share the fruits of Western civilization, that they do not wish to hand over to a Black proletariat, that they want to maintain Western civilization, whereas the declared policy of the Pan-Africanists is the direct antithesis of that.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said that the hon. the Prime Minister was vague and he asked him certain questions. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is a first-class exponent of vagueness as far as his own policy is concerned. He admits that. He says: I do not want to define my policy. He says: I merely wish to erect signposts along the road. There is a saying in Afrikaans that the “pad-predikant” (signpost) indicates the road but does not follow it himself. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is afraid to follow that road himself because he knows that his road will inevitably lead to the disavowal of the very things which he says he wants to retain. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition once again advanced the well-known argument that the Prime Minister of Australia and other persons and the majority of the members of UNO have said that we were wrong. I agree that it means something when other people differ from you, but the truth has never as yet been measured by the smallness of the minority which proclaims the truth and in this dark hour in the history of South Africa, it is surely not a justifiable attack on our policy of separate development, to say that we are in the minority. We admit that we are in the minority, but we dare the world to deny that this is a case where the minority is upholding the truth.
I want to analyse the attack made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on our policy. He alleges that our policy is impossible of carrying out, that it must fail. His first attack was that we refused to face un to reality as far as South Africa was concerned, that we ignored the economic interdependence of all the racial groups. Nowhere in any of his statements or in any of his expositions of the policy of separate development did the Prime Minister give any indication that there should immediately be complete economic separation between the races. It has been admitted that as a result of this concept of partition, there will be economic separation, and something to be aimed at is that the White community should be less dependent on non-White labour, but never has it been said that that is the immediate aim of our policy. Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made the point that people could not be moved about. What has happened in South Africa? During the past 30 years the Black people have moved to the White areas on a very large scale and as that shifting took place organically it should be possible to have a similar movement back by bringing into play those same sociological and economical factors which attracted them here in the first instance. To that the hon. Leader of the Opposition couples the question how are we going to satisfy the aspirations of the Bantu under our policy? I want to know how we can satisfy the aspirations of the Bantu under his policy, according to which the Bantu will in any case be a spiritual and material sojourner and inhabitant of the peri urban areas.
What are the aspirations of the Bantu?
I should say that the aspirations of the Bantu, aspirations which we want to satisfy, are to have property rights within their own areas, to be active in the political field and to be leaders within their own areas and to assist, administratively and otherwise, in the development of their own people and, that those Bantu who want to follow professional careers, be invited to come to those areas. The problem which confronts us in carrying out this policy is the very fact that insufficient Bantu are imbued with the ambition to become something and to play a creative role amongst their own people, to become leaders and to create something. That impedes the process. I agree that it has taken time, but we have reached the stage where the foundation has been laid and the Bantu can now achieve those objects in a newly created urban environment. Will the aspirations of the Bantu not become a reality in that way?
Five hundred thousand pounds in the Bantu Development Corporation Fund will not help.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred in particular to the urban Bantu when he said that their aspirations could not be satisfied. Didn’t the hon. the Prime Minister in his most recent speech state, or rather did he not again refer to the fact that the urban Bantu would be incorporated in the political structure in his homelands and that in turn the political structure will be imported with the local government of the urban Bantu [Time limit.]
I do not think it is necessary to reply to the statement made by the hon. member who has just sat down. I think that the hon. the Prime Minister must be a very unhappy man to-day as he witnesses the state into which he has brought us and the gathering storm that is descending on South Africa as a result of his policy, the policy that he and his Government have followed during the past 12 years. Sir, when he was appointed as Minister of Native Affairs, the United Party moved the deletion of his salary on the ground that Dr. Malan, the then Prime Minister, had made a grave error of judgment in making that appointment. How justified that protest was has been proved by the events, though I do not think any of us, not even the Prime Minister’s Nationalist supporters, anticipated the catastrophe that has fallen upon us to-day. And he will be deeply blameworthy before history for the evils that have overtaken South Africa during this fatal period. He and his Government have led the people astray with smooth-sounding platitudes. They have refused to face unpleasant facts and they have sought electoral success without regard to the vital interests of the State. Now, Sir, he talks of national unity. His Government has been the most explosive force in stirring up racial strife. By his apartheid policy, by stirring up racial divisions and by insidious propaganda he has created a situation that has become a grave menace to the progress and security of South Africa. We can expect no good from him and his followers, until they have bettered their understanding and reformed their consciences.
Sir, one of the gravest elements of danger for the White man in the present situation in South Africa is the formation of a common non-European front. The calling of a national convention of the three Coloured races—the Coloureds, the Indians and the Bantu—by Coloured leaders is another tragedy in racial affairs. In practice the divisions between these three groups have proved to be very deep and that has prevented the establishment of a common front in the past. But to-day the Group Areas Act and other apartheid measures bear heavily upon each one of them, and this is leading to the formation of a united non-European front which adds to the difficulties and dangers of our position to-day. It is an unfortunate development that has been foreseen by all competent observers and the Government has been warned time and time again. The Government by its policies has driven a dangerous wedge between ourselves and the moderate elements of the non-Europeans of South Africa upon whose co-operation the future welfare of this country depends. Sir, the responsibility for this apartheid policy that has brought about the crisis of to-day rests squarely upon the shoulders of the Prime Minister and upon him alone. It is a policy of despair and an attempt to evade the real problem. Whatever may happen to our unfortunate country, there is one thing that is certain, and that is, that this policy of the Government will end in futility and disillusionment, and, as the Leader of the Opposition has stated, it is doomed. But while it lasts it will be regarded as an insuperable embarrassment by those who would wish to be our friends and as an asset to our enemies. The retribution that awaits South Africa as a result of the Prime Minister’s folly is going to be bitter indeed, not merely for Nationalist supporters, but unfortunately for those of us who have opposed these policies. Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister has been primarily responsible for the restrictive laws against the non-Europeans and their harsh administration that are at the root—and at the bottom of all the ill-feeling and suffering that has been inflicted upon them, and the grievous consequences that are overtaking us in our exclusion from the Commonwealth, and they are responsible for the critical situation in which we find ourselves at the bar of world opinion.
Sir, hon. members who wish to gain an overall picture of these restrictive laws as they affect the Bantu should endeavour to gain access to a draft Bill entitled “ Bantu in European Areas Bill ” which was circulated by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, among local authorities and other public bodies towards the end of last year. I cannot go into the details of this document because I have not got the time, but I do wish to say that it is the embodiment in concentrated form of all the restrictive laws and regulations ever devised to keep the underdog in his place, and it is these restrictions that have been responsible for the resentment and bitterness among the Bantu people, and the arrest during 1959, according to the last Police Report, of no less than 835,000 Bantu for petty offences, most of whom should never have been subjected to criminal sanctions.
I think it is one of the most serious indictments against the Prime Minister that he has not found it possible to revise these laws and to get rid of the discontent that has made normal administration of Bantu Affairs impossible and brought South Africa’s name down into the dust.
Iniquitous pass laws.
Mr. Chairman, we are being ruined by medieval ideas, by racial obsessions and job reservations that remind one of the Middle Ages—what was known in the 18th and 20th centuries in Europe as the Craft Guild System, whose heads fixed the work classifications and imposed restrictions upon the freedom of movement of labourers much as is done in South Africa to-day. But it provoked so much resistance and evasion that the employers were forced to reject the system, and the Prime Minister will be compelled to do likewise, whether he wishes to do so or not. Sir, hitherto the Nationalist policy has been a policy of apartheid for non-Europeans. Now that the Nationalist Republic has been forced upon us, it is we as Europeans who will realize what apartheid means, with our country ostracized by the whole world. Sir, the Prime Minister seeks above all things the triumph of his party and his tenets, but his life’s work will leave no inheritance for South Africa.
The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) said at the beginning of his speech that he thought the hon. the Prime Minister should be one of the most unhappy persons in this House to-night as a result of the position in which we find ourselves at the moment. I agree with the hon. member for East London (City) inasmuch as the hon. the Prime Minister should be one of the most unhappy people in this House, but not as a result of the position in which we find ourselves, but as a result of the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister has to deal with an Opposition which, in spite of the fact that matters are explained to them in the most clear and explicit terms, simply refuse to accept the position. During a speech which lasted half an hour the hon. the Leader of the Opposition blamed the hon. the Prime Minister and said that things were wrong in the country as a result of the policy of the Prime Minister and the National Party. He blamed the Prime Minister for many things in respect of which he ought not to blame him. He accused the Prime Minister of still drafting plans in connection with the urban Bantu, whereas in actual fact the hon. the Prime Minister never said anything like that; the hon. the Prime Minister and the National Party follow a clear policy as far as the urban Bantu is concerned, a policy which they have time and again put to the people of South Africa and to the Leader of the Opposition.
Tell us what it is.
If a brain is as dead as that of the hon. member’s for Durban (Point) so that he does not understand it as yet, after it has been explained to him on so many occasions, it will be no use explaining it to him again. The hon. the Prime Minister continuously tried to explain to the Opposition what his policy was in connection with the urban Bantu. Only yesterday he did so again in a wonderful speech. What the hon. the Prime Minister added was that the policy had not been finally rounded-off. Of course it has not been. It is natural that the policy still has to be rounded-off but that does not mean that there is no policy. There is a policy and a very minutely worked-out policy which has been explained to the Opposition ad nauseum. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition then got up and said that the policy of the National Party and the Prime Minister on the colour question in South Africa must lead to chaos, that it could not work and that that was the reason why the policy of the Opposition should be accepted so that White civilization in Africa could be saved and the happiness not only of the White people but of the non-Whites in this county could be ensured. And then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put forward his supposedly excellent federation policy. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition put forward his federation policy and said that that policy would ultimately lead to it that Whites and non-Whites would sit together happily in the same Parliament and that when we had to fight Communism, they would fight together happily. I ask this question: Will the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members of the Opposition never learn from world history? Will they never realize that attempts have repeatedly been made in the direction which they suggest to solve the problems of South Africa, to tackle the problem in that way and that it has never as yet worked in a multi-racial society?
Where for example?
In the Federation of Rhodesia. There they went so far as to have partnership. In Kenya they started with a junior partnership. But nowhere in any of the countries of the world has that satisfied the non-Whites and in all those cases they have continually asked for more. That is why instead of remaining a partner the White people have completely disappeared in all the countries where they have tried to apply the policy which the Opposition advocates.
Where is there a race federation?
It cannot work. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said that the heavens will descend on us because the National Party refuse to govern this country by way of consultation! I say we must learn from history. In the past, under the United Party Government we had consultation, and what was the result of that consultation?
Not as bad as it is now.
Order! That hon. member has interjected three times during the past three minutes. He cannot continue to do so.
There was consultation when the United Party was in power. I want to remind you, Sir, of the days when the United Party introduced their Indian franchise legislation. At that time a measure was laid before Parliament which provided for certain exempted areas in Natal, which provided for certain areas where both White and non-White could buy and own land. There was strenuous objection to that but the the Prime Minister of the day said that that kind of apartheid could not be applied because the Indian community would not be satisfied with it in this connection. I want to quote from Hansard. You will find it in Hansard of 25 March 1945, Col. 4177. The Prime Minister of the day said the following—
That was in respect of the exempted area in Natal—
The present Minister of Education then asked by way of interjection—
The reply was—
Mr. Chairman, there you have an example of consultation. When there is consultation and the non-Whites are not satisfied, the White man has to be satisfied to let matters take care of themselves and that leads to the ultimate downfall of the White man. That is why we say that you cannot continue in this way and that is why we say that the only road that we can follow is the road of apartheid, that road along which we as Whites may demand for ourselves the right to continue to exist as a White race along which we can ensure that we will continue to exist but also the road along which we will give the non-Whites of this country all the rights which are humanly possible to give them, along which we will give them all the rights which we claim for ourselves, the right to develop, the right to self expression, the right of the educated non-White—the Opposition complains about that—to apply his knowledge in his own area to the benefit of his nation in forming an independent nation in a separate area.
The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché (Jnr.)) has once again in expounded a beautiful theory, the apartheid theory, and theoretically there is a great deal to be said for it. The trouble is not that it is not a beautiful theory, but the trouble lies in its practical application. I personally have serious doubts about that and I believe the country as a whole has those doubts, except the wishful-thinkers of the Nationalist Party.
I want to deal with a point raised by the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn). Things often appear easy when that hon. member talks. He says that there has been a tremendous influx from the non-White areas to the White areas. That of course is true. But his further deduction that the stream can be turned back just as easily is incorrect, that will be the crux of the whole problem. The matter is very simple when you forget for the moment that the people who have come from the platteland, the Native reserves, are Black people, and regard them simply as inhabitants of the platteland employed in primary industry, just as the majority of the White people were in the past employed in primary industry. As those people develop, the White and Black people, who work in primary industry, the natural economic pressure on them is away from the primary industry on the platteland, from the reserves, towards secondary industry. The problem which they constitute has assumed dangerous dimensions during the past 30 years. But nowhere in the world do you find the flow in the opposite direction, back from secondary and tertiary industries to primary industries or comparatively weak secondary industries. The hon. member for Kempton Park and all those who think like him will have to explain to us how they are going to bring about that flow in the opposite direction. From an economic point of view there is only one way in which it can be done. You will have to create a magnet in the form of secondary and tertiary industries in the non-White areas which will have the same magnetic force, or preferably a stronger magnetic force, than the magnetic force of secondary and tertiary industry in the White areas. If you do not do that, it is no use our talking here, in 1978 the hon. the Prime Minister will still be confronted with the inescapable fact that so-called White South Africa will become more and more Black if the economic magnet in White South Africa, in comparison, remains stronger than the one in the non-White areas.
Do you think that is impossible?
If that is the case, I want to refer to a statement which has practically become a battle cry of both the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Kempton Park, namely the battle cry of “ political independence but economic interdependence.” I prefer to call it “ political independence but economic integration.” There is only one respect in which any thing can be said for it and that is in respect of the fact that economically the whole world is integrated, the entire world is interdependent but nevertheless you have political independence of the nations. That is the only respect in which it means anything and it will only mean anything if the objects of the hon. the Prime Minister, namely that the native reserves should ultimately develop into independent political states materializes—even then there will still be a measure of indirect economic integration between those states and White South Africa. But as I have so often said, Mr. Chairman, that aspect of the White/non-White problem is actually the smallest aspect of the problem, the less dangerous aspect of the problem. There is no doubt about it that the dangerous problem is to be found in what we call White South Africa, an industrialized South Africa where we have large numbers of non-Whites which have to a very great extent already become integrated with the White man in the economy of the country. I know the hon. the Prime Minister refuses to admit that there is any form of segregation, but I want to tell him that in that respect the economists of the whole world and also those of South Africa disagree with him. And if the position is that we have integration in the second phase of this integration process, which I have often called “ qualitative integration ”, you will in the long run not be able to prevent political integration from taking place. That has already become an established fact because the real power is the economic power, Sir. During the past 30 years we have given the non-White who is qualitatively integrated in our economy, political power through his economic power, a fact which is fast bringing us to the position where it will not depend on us whether we want to give him rights or not, but to a position where he will demand those rights on the strength of the political-economic power which we have given him. The mistake we often make in our discussions is to think that political rights and political power are the same thing. I want to repeat that unless the Prime Minister succeeds, not in 1978 but in the near future, to break that political power which the Bantu has in our urban areas by virtue of his economic power, the political power which we have given him in South Africa will erupt in the form of a revolution which we will be unable to stop. And when we think that the whole world, without even mentioning really confronts us in South Africa. [Time Africa, will support that, Sir, we realize what limit.]
For years we have been listening to the sombre predictions which certain Opposition speakers have been making throughout this debate and which we have again had from the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie) a moment ago. These sombre and dismal predictions are as old as the National Party itself and as old as this Government itself. Nobody wants to deny that South Africa is going through a very difficult period, but I also want to say that nobody denies that a test is being applied to-day to every right-thinking White South African who lives in South Africa. A test is being applied not only to the Government and to members of this side of the House, but a test is also being applied to the nationalism, to the South Africanism of every individual living in this country. We should like to make this appeal, and we are making it—perhaps it may penetrate some time or other—that our approach to our racial relationship in South Africa should assume a pattern different from the pattern we have had in this debate from the Opposition. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask this question of the Leader of the Opposition, and in his absence I want to put it to the United Party: Why does the United Party wish to place the legislative power of South Africa in the hands of the non-Whites? Why do the United Party, to judge by their actions and their policy, refuse to realize what the results and consequences of their policy will be in South Africa? In recognizing Bantu homelands and a Bantustan and a Bantu Government within those homelands, why does the Leader of the Opposition still wish to share White South Africa with the Black man? Why does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition refuse to accept the undertakings which the hon. the Prime Minister has given throughout his career, where he has shown that he is a man of unimpeachable character and great integrity? Why does he refuse to accept his explanations? Does the Opposition think for one moment that by aggravating racial relationship in debates, they will gain political advantage and obtain political support? I can assure them that they are completely wrong because many of their former supporters or many of those people who voted for them do not feel that way about the matter.
At 10.25 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported and leave asked to sit again.
House to resume in Committee on 13 April.
The House adjourned at