I wish to move as an unopposed motion—

1. (1)
   1. (a) That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 22 (1), the House at its rising on Thursday, 28 January, adjourn until Friday, 29 January, at 11.30 a.m.; and
   2. (b) that on Friday, 29 January, business be suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.; and
2. (2) that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 42, the business of the House, excluding Questions to Ministers, set down for Friday, 5 February, be discharged and set down for Friday, 29 January.

I might explain that this is designed to meet the needs of the Leader of the Opposition in regard to his visit to London to attend Sir Winston Churchill’s funeral. It means the adjournment of the no-confidence motion from Friday to next Friday. Two ordinary private members’ motions will be discussed next Friday.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, before moving formally the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I hope that you will allow me to depart slightly from the rules in expressing the gratitude of the Official Opposition to the hon. the Prime Minister for making it possible for a representative of this side of the House to go as one of the official representatives of South Africa to Sir Winston Churchill’s funeral. I also want to express my thanks to him for the manner in which he has met me in regard to the arrangements in this House.

Sir, I move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, which is formulated as follows—

May I make it clear at once that by incompetent handling of national issues I mean not only poor and ineffectual administration, of which there are many examples with which I shall deal later, but I mean also the policy decisions that conflict with the best interests of the Republic. Now there may of course be differences of opinion as to when a policy decision conflicts with the best interests of the Republic and when it does not. I believe that in this country there is a very large measure of agreement in respect of two vital matters. The first of those is the maintenance, in the interests of all races in the Republic, of the security of that White civilization which has been built up here over the last 300 years. I say White civilization advisedly, as opposed to Western civilization, because I think that as the result of the happenings in the world over the last 25 years the term “Western civilization” is ceasing to have a distinctive meaning.

The second thing on which I think there is agreement is the ability to achieve and maintain a standard of prosperity high enough to enable us to defend ourselves against outside aggression and to ensure a higher standard of living amongst all our people, to give us time to find a final solution to our non-European problems and to cut away the ground from under the feet of the Communist agitators. When these yardsticks are applied to Government policies, what do we find? Particularly when the yardstick is applied to Government policy in respect of the Native reserves, the Bantustans, then when regard is had to what is happening in the rest of Africa, it seems to me that one must stand aghast at the incompetence and the blindness of the Government in continuing with its present policies, despite the experience it should have gained of what is happening in those emergent African states.

Now, when I speak about the intentions of the Government to develop these reserves, when I speak about the Bantustan policies, I am not speaking about the intention of the Government to develop these reserves and give them a certain measure of self-government. I believe it has for long been common cause between all parties in South Africa that the reserves should be developed economically, industrially and agriculturally to carry the maximum Bantu population with ever-rising living standards. I believe it has been common cause also on both sides of the House that the population of those reserves should in increasing measure have local self-government and a measure of control over their own affairs.

What?

I think we are agreed on that. We may disagree about the methods, but I think there has been agreement on that point in this House for over30 years.

Have you been reading the Sunday Times?

The Minister of Information asks whether I have read the Sunday Times. Does he not know that every English newspaper in South Africa is a political party on its own? [Laughter.] Of course the hon. the Minister of Information was not in this House when I offered cooperation in the development of the reserves, nor was he hereto hear the reply of the hon. the Prime Minister, who said: “How can we cooperate when we want to develop the reserves for different purposes?” Now, Sir, that is where we agree and where we disagree. We disagree in regard to what is happening in the rest of Africa and what completely fails to measure up to the yardstick of the maintenance and security of White civilization in the Republic in the interest of all races, and that is the determination of this Government to develop the reserves politically in the direction of ultimate sovereign independence, to the point where they can, if they wish, enter into a Commonwealth relationship with each other, where they can cut loose from the Republic, where they can enter into treaties with anyone they like, all of which implies complete sovereign independence for each of those members. Now, I know the hon. the Prime Minister when first dealing with this policy in this House stated that he was embarking upon it because of the forces pressing upon South Africa from outside. It is unnecessary for me to refresh the memory of the House, because that quotation is too well known. Well, has this policy ever led to a lessening of the forces pressing upon South Africa? So what is the point of going on with it? The Prime Minister said himself that it was not something he was anxious to do; he did not like the idea at all, but it was something he believed he had to do because of the pressures upon South Africa from outside. I say that those pressures have not decreased as the result of that policy. Why is he going on with it, especially in the light of what is happening in the emergent states on the Continent of Africa at present? If you look at those emergent states, you find that not only is there communist infiltration in almost every one of them, but there is competition in almost every one of them between communists from Peking in China and communists from Soviet Russia. In fact, the communist activity in Africa has never been at a higher level than it is at the present time when the hon. the Prime Minister is offering freedom and sovereign independence to the Bantu in the Republic. Hon. members opposite know a great deal about what is happening in Africa. They must do if their Intelligence Service is working, and I believe it is working quite well.

Patrick Duncan.

Well, I am not in communication with Patrick Duncan, but I did not know the hon. member was, Sir, at the People’s Congress on Communism which was held in April last year at Pretoria, there was the very gravest disquiet expressed about the dangers of communism in South Africa, and a great deal of alarm was expressed also. That People’s Congress or Volkskongres was greeted by the Transvaler in a leading article, indicating that it would lead to a widening of the perspective of the Afrikaner and would cause him to realize that the internal non-White problem was intimately bound up with what was happening elsewhere in Africa and also with happenings in other parts of the world where communism was attempting to destroy Western Christian civilization. I believe that is correct, Sir, I believe that was a fine comment. But what is happening now in the rest of the world? At the time of this congress the results of an African survey were released and it was reported that Russia and her satellites and Communist China had already given R638,000,000-worth of aid to the emergent African states. It was reported that Somalia had had R22,000,000-worth of military aid from the communist countries. It was reported that Russia had diplomatic representatives in 25 of those states. I believe it is now 26, with a new Embassy in Lusaka; and that Communist China had representation in 15. I think the Republic in all has representation in three states. It was reported as well that Guinea, Ghana and Mali were using Russian jet-propelled aircraft in their civil aviation services, and it was suggested that the danger-points for the year would be Somalia, Tanganyika, the Congo, Zanzibar and Uganda. What has happened since then? We know there has been a virtual communist take-over in Zanzibar. We know there has been a troop mutiny in Tanganyika, probably communist-inspired. We know there has been trouble on the border between Tanzania and Mozambique under the leadership of communist-trained leaders. We know there has been an appeal by the Portuguese Minister to the Foreign Minister of Great Britain to use her influence with Tanzania not to allow that territory to be used as a base for operations against Mozambique. We have seen the horrors of the Congo atrocities and things of that kind. It would seem that this forecast was fairly well founded. What was the remark of one commentator, reported in the Star?—

Sir, I think that is true. It is well surveyed in the book by Guy van Eeden, “Die Vuur Brand Nader”. He says—

He believes that Portugal and South Africa, the rich southern portion of Africa, are the ultimate objectives of the communists. He believes that attempts will be made to soften them and us up by means of sabotage and communist infiltration. He believes that they will have no trouble in getting weapons even from Western countries on the never-never basis, while both Portugal and ourselves will be forced to pay for our weapons even if we can buy them.

Sir, let us bring it nearer home. An hon. Senator in the Other Place, Jan Grobler, believes that these are the main objectives, and he points to the danger of the Congo coming under communist control as the result of the inadequacy of UN and the British and Belgian walk-out. Now, what I fail to understand, and what I should like to hear from hon. members opposite, is this very simple thing: Why will the Bantustans to be created and granted in dependence by this Government be free from attempted communist infiltration and influence, when virtually every other African state is subjected to those influences? That is the first question. The second question I should like to ask is why the granting of independence to these Bantustans will alter the objectives of Communism in Africa, namely, control over the minerally and industrially rich southern portion of the Continent? And, lastly, I should like to know why these newly independent Bantustans within our borders should not under communist influence provide even more dangerous launching pads for communist aggression than the existing emergent states of Africa. I think those are the questions to be put from this side of the House. Mr. van Eeden in his book says—

Mr. Speaker, we are not waiting for Southern Rhodesia or the Portuguese territories to fall. Under the policies of this Government, under the leadership of this Prime Minister, we are creating those communist launching pads right on our borders and right inside the borders of the Republic.

That is a new line, anti-communism.

The hon. the Minister of Information is very talkative. I think, is conscience is worrying him, but I want to say to him quite frankly: Is he and other members on that side of the House afraid of eight representatives of the Black people in this House, eight Whites in a House in which the majority will be representatives of the White people? Then how much more should we not be afraid of seven or eight sovereign, independent Bantustans which are not part of this Republic and are under communist influence? It is no good sitting there ostrich-like and saying it cannot happen here. Sir, it can happen here, and what is more, the Government knows it can happen here unless the proper steps are taken. But despite all this, they continue with a policy which is not the traditional policy of South Africa. It is nothing more or less than a pale reflection of the British colonial policy which has caused so much trouble in Africa in recent years, and which under the present Government in Great Britain may cause a lot more trouble, and very quickly too. [Interjections.] I believe that the moderate Native, of whom there are fortunately many, many millions, is not very interested in Communism or extremism, provided they are under proper control and get the proper leadership. What has the position been in many of the newly emergent African states which have been granted independence before they were ready for it? Many of those states are behaving like nothing more or less than teen-age delinquents who know no laws but the laws they make themselves and very often break themselves as well. What is happening amongst their people? Their peoples on the whole are poor, uneducated, undisciplined, untrained in the long and hard school of democracy, and their leaders are very often prepared to exploit them for party-political ends and to convert them into one-party dictatorships. What has the result been? The result has been the result of which I warned the Central Congress of my party seven years ago. The result has been chaos and instability, and on the whole the ground has been well prepared for the next step forward on the part of the communist infiltrators on the continent. I want to ask the hon. gentlemen opposite why the position should be any different in the Bantustans they are going to create? I know the Prime Minister believes that he can control the time-table. He believes that having offered them independence, he will decide when independence will be granted; he will decide when they are ready for it; he will lay down the law in that regard. But let me tell him that the whole history of what has happened on the Continent of Africa is against it. Once you promise the people independence they take control of the time-table. It is they who decide when they will fight for their independence. If you look at the examples of the emergent states in Africa you find that was the lesson in Algeria and Ghana and Kenya and of almost every single one of them. It is put very well by McKay in his book, “Africa and World Politics”—

People tend to acquire independence, ready or not, according to a time-table of their own making.

It was well put, too, by John Connell, the well-known journalist and author, in an address to the Royal United Services Institute last year in London, where he undoubtedly got the support of the audience there when he said—

The concept of the transfer of power as rapid as it would be peaceful and orderly from a colonial overlord ship to parliamentary democracy organized on the Westminster model is now completely obliterated.

But we have always said that.

Yes, you have always said so, but blindly you are going ahead because you cannot stop. Sir, they have got on a tiger and they cannot get off. Look at what has happened to the hon. the Prime Minister. He mounted the tiger and cannot get off, whereas in reality in the best interests of South Africa he ought to get off. Look at what is beginning to happen already. There is an embryo Bantustan in existence, with a Chief Minister, Chief Kaiser Mantanzima. He has not been in office for more than a year, but here are some of the things of which he has delivered himself. He has not been slow to make the point that economic strength is not a condition or a necessary prerequisite for independence, He is already making the point that the Transkei is no more a part of the Republic, but a state in itself. He stated clearly: “We are going to govern the Transkei alone without the Whites. They will have no rights whatsoever here.” He has not hesitated to oppose the Government on certain important measures and issues. Either personally or through his associates he lays claim to various areas of land, whole districts, which he says were traditionally Bantu lands, and which some of his associates say have been stolen from the Bantu by the White man. He has gone further and said that Whites would be welcomed to help in developing the Bantustans but they must not expect to own any land there. And the Bantu working in our urban areas must be told to demand land there which they can own. [Interjections.] What beats me is that this is a policy which is being supported by conservative Afrikaners, descendants of the Voortrekkers who are supposed to know and understand the Bantu. Can you believe it, Sir? These are the people who are supporting a policy of this kind despite the fact that they must realize that the populations of those reserves are going to have built-in grievances against the White population of the Republic because of the fact that they will always have a lower standard of living than will exist in the rest of the Republic. [Interjections.] I do not mind a little conversation which is intelligent, but I must say that some of those making remarks at the moment are not showing a very high standard.

Order!

These are the people who tell us that the Bantu will not be satisfied with limited representation in this House. Do they think they are going to be satisfied with the terriory this Government wants to give them? Do they think they will be satisfied with the limited political and economic rights they will get? Inextricably bound up with this policy is the problem of the Black majority which will for all time exist in the so-called remaining White areas of South Africa, a Black majority whose only political rights will be to vote in the Bantustans and bring pressure to bear upon Bantustan Governments, probably under communist influence, to intercede with the Governments of the Republic on their behalf, and to promote hostility between those areas and the Bantustans as they exist. It is quite beyond my comprehension that people can proceed with a policy of that kind after the experiences they have had with the emergent states in Africa and after what they have seen happening in those states.

Now, I am well aware that to a limited extent the very dangers I am forecasting are arising in respect of the Protectorates like Basutoland who are being guided on the road to independence by the British Government. We find that even under British control they have proved a real difficulty in respect of the asylum that they have given to agitators and saboteurs and some of those nefarious individuals who try to use those territories as a base of operations against the Republic. Already there have been signs of communist infiltration in at least one of those territories, and if the newspapers are to be believed—and I believe they are accurate in this respect—both the leading parties taking part in the Basutoland elections have been in touch with communist countries, one with communist Russia and one with communists from Peking. I wonder what influence those foreign countries are having on that election and what part they are playing in providing finance and things of that sort for the parties concerned. Already at the present time there have been border incidents on the western border of Basutoland as the result of cattle rustling, and the difficulties have been such that the hon. the Prime Minister had to instruct his Minister of Foreign Affairs in order to get intercession by the British Government itself so that law and order should be restored. What happens when British control is removed? We have seen this direction of the British Government, but what has surprised us has been the reaction of the hon. the Prime Minister and his Ambassador overseas saying how happy they are that the British Government is moving in that direction of the independence of those territories and encouraging them to do it and saying it is their policy. Does the hon. gentleman really realize the difficulties and dangers which may result from the premature granting of independence? Has the Prime Minister or his Government made any representations to the British Government to ensure that there will be stability in those areas before independence is granted? Has he raised that point with them, and in regard to the asylum that they may afford to political fugitives and saboteurs from South Africa? Has he discussed with them any steps to avoid the possibility of those areas falling under communist influence? Has he considered making any alternative proposals to the British Government in that regard? After all, we are the people who will suffer if that turns out to be an unstable Government, and not the British Government.

I want to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that time is running out; in respect of at least one of those territories independence is around the corner. It seems to me that because of their economic dependence upon the Republic, because of our long historical associations, they have a strong hand to play, and I do hope that history will not have to record that this is a case which has gone by default and that our Prime Minister, because of his belief in fragmentation, has allowed the creation of possible danger spots which will be a thorn in the side of the Republic in the future. Sir, the immediate reaction of the Prime Minister is all the more surprising because one remembers that just after he became Prime Minister in 1959, in an exchange with him across the floor of the House, he thanked me for my agreement that those territories should ultimately come under the wing of the Republic of South Africa, and he hoped that it might be possible to have a bipartisan approach. What has happened since then to make him depart from the policy which was followed by all the predecessors in his high office to follow a policy which is being favoured by those who are not afraid of premature independence, who will not be affected by it in any way?

Tell us something about race federation.

Sir, the hon. member need not be impatient; I will satisfy him. He is one of these people who can never contain himself. When you deal with the first three letters of the alphabet he wants to know how the last one is made.

He does not know his alphabet.

Sir, these difficulties which have arisen between the Protectorates and ourselves have arisen at a time when those areas were controlled by civilized governments. I wonder what the position is going to be when they have independence. It is inconceivable to me that with the experience the hon. gentleman has had already he can disregard the warning of those events and that he can still insist in trying to steer seven or eight areas inside the Republic in the direction of sovereign independence when he will have not only those difficulties but greater difficulties as well.

Now, Sir, at the outset I emphasize the importance of upholding White civilization in South Africa. I believe that the policy of this Government is undermining the security of White civilization in South Africa and I believe that it is undermining it very much more quickly than the hon. gentleman realizes.

Let us see how the Government fares when we apply the second yardstick which I set for determining whether the policy was in the best interests of the Republic and that was the need to achieve and maintain a standard of prosperity high enough to enable us to defend ourselves and to give us time to find a permanent solution to our non-European problems to cut the ground away from under the feet of the communist agitators. Sir, I want to admit at once that there is a high degree of prosperity amongst many sections of our community in the Republic at the present time. I want to congratulate the Government on the fact that that high degree of prosperity has been achieved, not because it has applied its policies, but because it has stood aside and allowed integration to take place at a faster rate than it has ever taken place in the history of South Africa. In other words, the prosperity that we enjoy at the present time is not because of Government policy, but because of the Government’s failure to apply that policy because of its inability to apply that policy. Of course, it is true the Government makes gestures to apartheid; that we know. The hon. the Minister of Labour doggedly maintains that job reservation will never be removed from the Statute Book, and then he sits by quietly while the Minister of Railways allows non-Whites to do work that was traditionally done by Whites, while the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs allows non-Whites to do work that was traditionally done by Whites, despite the fact that he knows very well that that is a direct denial of the objective which was embodied in the job reservation legislation. Job reservation does not apply to these two gentlemen, Sir; they are not worried by that Act. The hon. the Minister sits by without a protest and says that job reservation will remain on the Statute Book while the Railways adopt a policy which is diametrically opposed to it and Posts and Telegraphs adopt a policy which is diametrically opposed to it, but nevertheless the gesture to apartheid is made.

There is another gesture that is made to apartheid, and that is the Bantu Laws Amendment Act which was passed last year and which was the last word in the control of the life of the Bantu, not only in the urban areas but in the rural areas as well. Well, Sir, what has happened? In the last six months of 1964 between 3,000 and 3,500 new Bantu for new jobs were allowed by the Government into the Johannesburg municipal area alone. The Deputy Minister of Labour has told us that the labour force increased between 1959 and 1963 by 167,000, but of those 167,000, 39,000 only were Europeans; 128,000 were non-Europeans. The Europeans increased by 3.8 per cent, the non-Europeans by 6.1 per cent. But, Sir, there is the Act; it is a gesture to apartheid. In our rural areas in a nine-year period recently the Bantu population increased by 1,300,000; in the same period the White population decreased by just over 50,000. The legislation is there, Sir; it is a gesture to apartheid, but the direct opposite goes on and the Government and its Ministers sit there and tell us that they are applying apartheid. That is why we say that the Government’s policy is a fantasy; it is an illusion. They are like young people looking for the pot of gold at the foot of the rainbow; they never find it; they never find the foot of the rainbow, but that is their policy. We had a broadcast over Radio South Africa not so long ago from a big Afrikaans businessman who reminded us that 86 per cent of our workers in agriculture were Bantu, 89 per cent in the mines, 47 per cent in farming, 59 percent in the building and allied industries, 65 per cent in the electrical industry, 66 per cent in service industry. And, Sir, the percentage is rising. That is what our prosperity is due to; it is due to integration, not the application of apartheid. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, what does he tell us? 2,800,000 Bantu were working in the White sector of the Republic, 3,500,000 Bantu were living in the White rural areas and about 4,000,000 in the White urban areas. In other words, over half the Bantu population are living in the White areas of the Republic. But nevertheless the Transvaler, the official organ of the Government, cried out on 23 June—

Sir, how can hon. gentlemen tell us that that is the direction in which they are moving? Their own Department of Planning tells us that the estimated demand for non-White labour over the next four years is going to be 120,000 persons a year. What prospect is there for success of the Prime Minister’s policy when they want 120,000 additional non-Whites working in the White areas over the next four years? How can anyone believe that if that is the trend over the next four years, nine years later, in 1978, the Bantu will stop coming into the White areas for employment; that they will suddenly all turn about and start rushing back to the reserves, because the Prime Minister tells them that will be the turn of the tide? For how long are we asked to believe this nonsense; for how long can you go on governing South Africa and saying that you are applying a policy of apartheid when your entire prosperity is dependent upon integration taking place faster under this Government than it has ever done under any government in South Africa. You see, Sir, this Government has never been able to gauge correctly our country’s potential for greatness. They have been guilty of a lack of foresight and it is because of that lack of foresight, that incompetence in estimating what is happening, that I do not believe we are getting our fair share of the up surge in the economy which has been seen in the past few years in most countries in the world. In fact, the charge which I lay fairly and squarely against this Government to-day is that they are mismanaging the measure of prosperity we have in South Africa at the present time. I think we must ask ourselves where the fault lies. We have unrivalled mineral wealth; our gold output is reaching record levels; our farmers have performed miracles. We are not worried by depressions in other parts of the world. We should be saying “we have never had it so good”; but despite that we are faced with the fact that economists and business men tell you that there are already warning signals, that the fruit of prosperity may drop off the tree before it is properly ripe. There are signs of strain in the economy. Those signs of strain are due mainly to four things, firstly a labour shortage, secondly a shortage of essential materials, thirdly a transport bottleneck and fourthly a threat to the normal expansion of our local markets for our manufactured goods. Those are four signs indicating that our prosperity is not being properly managed. In fact, I have no hesitation in saying that it is being mismanaged. Sir, it is not as though these circumstances have suddenly arisen after sixteen years of this Government’s administration. Those signs were already showing some years back. We find ourselves in this position that our economy is very nearly on a footing equivalent to a war-time footing; we must produce more and import less; we must stop money leaving the country; we must find the means to produce commodities and certain supplies such as defence supplies with which other countries refuse to supply us, despite the fact that we are prepared to pay for them—and I may say I think it is nothing less than a disgrace that the countries of the Western World should take up that attitude in regard to us. Nevertheless, we are faced with that problem. The entire planning, the executive action, the administrative responsibility for this vast programme rests on approximately one-fifth of our population because by precept, by custom, by legislation the other 80 per cent are limited virtually to manual labour. The result is that throughout South Africa everywhere the refrain is the same: There is a shortage of skilled labour; output is being hampered, development is being strait-jacketed because they cannot get the necessary skilled people to do the work. In the motor industry there is a shortage of between 1,200 and 1,500 qualified artisans. The engineer responsible for the Cape Western circle irrigation area complains that they have a back login their department which is enormous and that they have no hope whatever of keeping up with the demand for new irrigation works. In some cases farmers are waiting three or four years for a small dam. Sir, how can you say that a Government is efficient when over the years it has neglected to keep its trained personnel, neglected to supplement them adequately in the interests of the country, neglected to find the necessary recruits? How can you say that they are efficient when they are so pre-occupied with ideological affairs when they are so pre-occupied with Bantustans that they cannot give attention to the essential things for the prosperity and the running of this country.

Read the last Sunday Times.

Sir, I will tell the hon. the Minister how to run his Railways. The first thing we need is a new Minister!

Sir, the Planning Department has shown that this is nothing new. They have shown that this shortage of manpower was beginning to develop some years ago already, despite the fact that at that time there was still unemployment, and they have shown that even with a net inflow of 20,000 immigrants a year, they expect shortages of skilled labour by 1969 of the order of 47,000. Sir, to what are these shortages due? I think they are due mainly to three things. They are due first of all to the Government’s neglect of immigration in the first 13 years of its period of office. Sir, that was a crime against the young White community of South Africa. I have no doubt that posterity will reproach this Government for what it did in that regard. The second reason is the lack of attention by this Government to the education and particularly the scientific training of our children. Do you realize, Sir, that at the present time 36 per cent of our mathematics teachers are not qualified to teach mathematics? Do you realize that 25 per cent of our physical science teachers are not qualified to teach physical science? Do you realize that 26 per cent of our biology teachers are no qualified to teach biology? Do you realize that 30 per cent of our teaching posts are filled by temporary personnel, of whom 21.2 per cent are classified as temporary and unsuitable personnel? Sir, this lack of trained personnel is having repercussions everywhere. The chairman of the South African Wool Board said not so long ago that in agricultural research we were 25 years behind Australia and that with our manpower position it would take us 20 years to catch up. Sir, there are very many other examples.

I think the third reason is the Government’s insistence on job reservation, its pre-occupation with economic apartheid and its failure to train our non-White people to do useful work throughout the country. Sir, there are some Nationalists who realize that. There was an article not so long ago by the chief editor of a group of Nationalist newspapers, Mr. Willem van Heerden, in which he said that the Coloured people—I take it he means the non-Whites—would have to play a greater part in our economic and industrial life. But, Sir, then comes the great illusion. He wants to move integration from Johannesburg to Rosslyn near Pretoria and from Durban to Pinetown or from Cape Town to the border areas; integration must not take place where the factories are; the factories must be moved outside to the border areas so that integration can take place there.

Sir, those are the causes. What is the effect of this manpower shortage on the ordinary man in the street? First of all it gives him a chance initially to earn more because there are too few people to do the job, but he very soon finds that increased cost of living is catching up with the increased pay; he very soon finds that double pay to keep a man in a job leads to higher cost of living for everybody. Sir, for once I agree with the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Eric Louw, when he says that inflation is a bigger danger than boycotts. Sir, that inflation which is developing under present circumstances is nothing more nor less than legalized theft from the pensioner, from the old man living on his savings, from the person with a fixed salary. We must not be misled by our fortunate position at the present time to overlook the less fortunate features of our economic life. We are being denied many of our glorious economic opportunities. Just as we say to-day that the Government was wrong 13 years ago in not going on with its immigration policy, so I am quite sure we will be saying in ten years’ time, “How could the Government have been so stupid as not to alter its manpower policy”? which is leading to greater trouble in South Africa. In fact, Sir, if I were to describe the situation of South Africa to-day I would say that South Africa is being crucified on the cross of dogma under this Government.

Sir, I think I have made out a case that in its non-European policy this Government is not acting in the best interests of the Republic. I think I have made a case that it is mismanaging what prosperity we are having at the present time, and I should be failing in my duty if I did not direct attention to the activities of four other departments. The first of those is the Department of Agriculture, which is presided over at the present time by two Ministers, assisted by one as a deputy, whom I would like to congratulate on his appointment. He has a very big task; keeping the present two Ministers in order is a man’s job as he will discover.

Sir, when I speak of the agricultural record of this Government I say without any question that one can only use the very strongest terms. This Government has been so preoccupied with ideological matters that it has failed to assist the farming community of South Africa on a constructive long-term basis. In fact, they have so consistently neglected the interests of the agriculturists in South Africa, the agriculturists who produce 10 per cent of our national income, that a large section of the agricultural population are in a very poor position at the present time. Sir, for years in this House I have been pleading for agriculture; for years I have been pointing to the weaknesses in the Government’s agricultural policy; for years I have been told from the other side of the House that I am trying to play politics with agriculture, that I do not know what is going on. Now, Sir, we have a statement from the President of the South African Agricultural Union, who said this in his presidential address to his congress in Bloemfontein in the latter part of last year—

I would like to say that to the address of the two Ministers of Agriculture—

Mr. Speaker, of course, the president is correct, and these two agricultural Ministers know it, and what is more the Deputy Minister knows it. When he left the congress, at half time so to speak, the congress passed a resolution unanimously supporting the decision and the statement of their president.

What is your policy?

No, it is no use hon. members opposite sending out the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker), to tell the farmers that they are better off in every way. They know it is not true; they do not believe those gentlemen any more.

Do you want an increase in prices?

Sir, the record of this Government is that 28,000 farmers have left the land during the period they have been in office. The committee of the Economic Advisory Council has told the Prime Minister that they are going to go on losing their farms at the rate of 2,600 a year. In 1957-8 90,000 farmers submitted tax returns; 17 per cent showed that they were farming at a loss; four years later 23 per cent were farming at a loss. At the end of 1963 the farming community was R4,900,000 in arrears in capital and interest payments to the Land Bank. You see, Sir, Mr. De Villiers was right, when he said—

And what do Government spokesmen tell us, Sir? Let me quote the Minister of Agriculture, Economics and Marketing—

Then the Deputy Minister—

Then, Sir, because the wine farmers, the fruit farmers and the wool farmers and some others are doing well, we hear that the farmers in general have no cause for complaint. In other words, if you have a broken leg and a healthy body you do not worry about the broken leg; that is their argument.

Now, Sir, I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister as a result of his efforts at that congress, that the farmers would be simply over joyed if their industry were in fact subject to the same laws as other branches of the economy. Does he realize that there is over R5,000,000,000 invested in agriculture in South Africa, that the average return is less than 3 per cent? The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has told us that he does not regard a 15 per cent return as excessive in industry and that there are many who get 10 per cent and some who get 20 per cent. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister know that the fundamental on which agriculture differs from other industries is that the secondary producer gauges his market and can limit his production accordingly? The primary producer is in a position where he simply cannot quantitatively plan production.

What are the solutions which the Government has been offering? The first solution offered is fewer farmers. In that regard they have been quite successful. As I say, their first solution is fewer farmers and then you hear all this talk about the elimination of the uneconomic farmer, who is usually the small man. The hon. the Prime Minister has this vision of the family units on the Orange River, a peasant farming unit, which, of course, is already outmoded in Europe and even in some of the communist countries. However, he has this vision for the Orange River scheme. Sir, they talk about the uneconomic farmer, the uneconomic unit, in spite of the fact that our farmers are producing the cheapest food in the world, in spite of the fact that most of the farmers who are farming on an uneconomic basis to-day are doing so because of the price policy of this Government. In fact it is becoming increasingly clear that this Government has ceased to appreciate the value of a stable agricultural community in South Africa.

Why did you not put up a candidate at Smith field?

Sir, I am afraid parliamentary usage does not permit me to say what I feel about that Minister!

Sir, what is the second solution offered? The second solution is a departure from the principles of the Marketing Act. In the old days we heard that the policy was one of “costs of production plus a reasonable reward for the farmer”; now, however, regard must be had to supply and demand; more weight must be given to supply and demand than to determining a reasonable reward for the farmer. Thirdly, there is price manipulation which has had such disastrous effects in the dairy industry, which is responsible for United States butter in South Africa and New Zealand cheese, something which has been condemned by every big agricultural organization in South Africa.

The Government’s fourth solution is farm planning, which requires agricultural economists. With their present manpower position it will take 29 years apparently to plan our farms and 80 years to put the plans into operation. One wonders how many farmers will be left on the land by the time this process is completed. So, Sir, we have got no comfort from the two Ministers of Agriculture. The only person from whom we got a little comfort was the Minister of Defence in one of his not infrequent forays into the field of another Minister’s portfolio. He told the farming community that all was going well with them because non-European wages had risen so fast. He said that the future was rosy provided they did not expect agricultural prices to rise faster than non-European wages. Sir, I do not doubt that would have been a great comfort to anyone who had confidence in the economic foundation of the Government’s non-European policy. But we have already heard from the Minister of Economic Affairs that they are prepared to bend or break the economy in order to see that their ideology is carried out. Sir, what happens to the poor agriculturist when they are bending and breaking the economy in order to carry out their ideological policy as far as the non-Europeans are concerned? That is all the comfort we have because there is certainly no long-term guidance from either of these Ministers of Agriculture. The only improvement we have seen is the appointment of a deputy Minister. I want to say quite frankly, Sir, that I think the hon. the Prime Minister would have done better had he appointed one Minister and two deputies because the separation between the Departments is already leading to somewhat lob-sided development.

The question is who will be the Minister and who the Deputy.

Yes, that is a question: Which one should be recommended to be Minister. I have no difficulty about that. I regard them both as friends of mine; I say “friends” in the political sense when they are an asset to your party and not necessarily to the other side.

Is there any man you would regard as an encumbrance to this side?

No, I do not mean an encumbrance.

Mr. Speaker, the second Department I want to deal with is the Department of Posts and Telegraphs because there are many knowledgeable people in South Africa to-day who regard it as a miracle that the Post Office achieves the standard of efficiency it does. There is a crisis in the Post Office to-day, Sir. One knows that it can be traced to a shortage of manpower for which I believe the Government is to blame. But I believe it is due to the indifference of the Government to the difficulties and the just requests of the loyal staff in that Post Office and the problems with which they have to contend. Much has been said about the difficulties of postal employees. I think their difficulties are typified by an article in the Postal Journal of June last year. That article made it perfectly clear that if the old United Party cost-of-living allowance had not been consolidated in 1952—or was it 1953—and they had remained on the basis of a fixed salary plus a cost-of-living allowance adjusted to rising living standards they would have been better off than they are at the present time. There are figures to prove that and I think when regard is had to those figures nothing exemplifies the callousness of this Government towards its employees better than the fact that, having consolidated that cost-of-living allowance, having said that adjustment would take place in future, the Government has placed them in a position that as a result of that consolidation they are worse off than they would have been if the old system which was in operation 13 years ago had continued to be applied. We now find ourselves in the position that it is only overtime and exertion far beyond the call of duty that is enabling this Post Office to keep running at all—even after delivery of the Christmas mail. Recently there were reports from Johannesburg that in an area like Park town postal deliveries were taking place once every two days; in Randburg twice a week and in Randfontein, at one time, once a week. There is no doubt that only two things are keeping the Post Office going. The one is temporary workers and the other is the employment of non-Europeans to do what was traditionally done by Whites. I want to say this: One can argue about the merits of employment of these non-White workers but one thing is absolutely certain and that is that I do not believe anyone in this country contemplates the employment of non-Whites in jobs traditionally occupied by White people to enable an employer, in this case the Government, to deny White workers their just due and to reduce the standard of living of a whole group of employees.

The Post Office also controls our telephone services. What can one say about our telephone service? There is not one member of this House who has not got a complaint of some kind or another against the difficulties with which the officials in those services have to cope. We know that it is to a large extent due to the shortage of manpower. Whose fault is it that there is that shortage of manpower? There is no indication that the Minister is paying attention to such problems as over-centralization of telephone administration and things of that kind. I cannot understand the Minister going ahead with a policy in respect of his employees which is placing him in a position where apparently last year—if I am to believe the Postal Journal—6,000 out of 36,000 employees resigned in the course of the year and there were very few recruits. I am told, also from the same journal, that at one time employees were resigning at the rate of 1,000 per month. Is it surprising, Sir, that there is a crisis? Efficient postal and communication services should receive priority in any advanced community; they are almost a standard of our civilization. They are important in our social and business life; they are important internationally As I have said, they are a standard of civilization. And here we are allowing their numbers to dwindle away despite the fact that on the whole this is a body of most responsible employees who, when it has been suggested that they should take drastic action, that they should work by the manual, that they should go slow, refused to have anything to do with things of that kind. They have shown a great measure of loyalty. It seems to me that if we want this country to go on running the time has come when loyalty should come, not only from the workers, but from the Minister and the Cabinet as well, towards those workers and for them to show appreciation to those workers for what they have done for South Africa.

That brings me to the third Department, the Department of the hon. the Leader of the House, the Minister of Transport. We find ourselves in the position that this great organization is quite clearly failing at the present time to meet the needs of a growing economy. The history of 1948 to 1954 is being repeated and gravely embarrassing the commerce and industry of the nation. You hear complaint son every side. You hear complaints from industry, commerce, agriculture, individual businessmen and individual farmers. I think I can best summarize the position by telling the Minister what was said in the November issue of Industry and Trade which found that the attempts by the Minister of Transport to avert a national transport crisis “were too little and too late. Something a little weightier is going to be needed from Mr. Schoeman than belated and half-hearted development schemes and a public relations programme which alternates a blank refusal to say anything with empty assurances.”

Then you have the Natal Chamber of Industries. They talk about their difficulties in Natal such as the non-availability of trucks, tarpaulins, even trains, delayed delivery of incoming traffic, late arrival of outgoing traffic, inadequate and delayed arrival of coal, coke and other consumer supplies and so on. We find that on the Witwatersrand the position has been so serious that certain industries have had to close their doors for short periods. On certain occasions power stations have had only one day’s supplies in reserve. I think what is worrying everybody is what is going to happen next winter. Last winter we found ourselves in the position that the hon. the Minister was unable to fuel all the people all the time. I remember when that happened in England when the Labour Government was in power people said “Vote Labour and shiver with Shin well”. I believe the war-cry next winter is going to be “stem Nat. en bewe met Ben”. The hon. Minister has had warning. In August of last year I appealed publicly to the hon. the Minister to institute a special investigation by a committee of experts representing the various interests that were involved. The hon. the Minister ignored that appeal but re-assuring statements were made by various spokesmen of their own. On 13 January of this year, when faced with the meeting of this Parliament, the hon. the Minister made a confession, a most interesting confession. He admitted that the Railways were experiencing and would experience serious difficulty in moving all the traffic offered. He put all his troubles down to the acute manpower shortage and admitted that the situation in regard to running staff in particular was critical. The Minister’s excuse that the manpower shortage is largely to blame is largely true but who is responsible for that manpower shortage if it is not this Government? And in any case I do not believe that is the whole truth. I believe we have again had an example of inadequate planning and a lack of vision in respect of the future of the transport system of South Africa. I know there will be many opportunities at a later stage to deal with this but I want to ask the country to consider just for a moment what the position would have been had the Minister consented at the time when original representations were made for the construction of that pipeline from Durban to the Witwatersrand. Would he not in that case have been out of a great many of the troubles in which he finds himself to-day? But he would not listen to this side of the House at that time. He would not listen to the oil companies. He would not listen to the motor owners’ associations throughout South Africa. He treated all their representations with contempt. Now when he most needs it he is without his pipeline. There is something else to which I want to draw attention. There is something very serious about this, and it is this, that it is not only the public who suffer. The Minister, in his confession, made mention of the intolerable burdens which rested on the shoulders of the existing staff. He spoke of the fact that shunters had to work long hours, that few stokers could be recruited, that locomotive engineers were restive because working conditions did not permit them to have the rest periods determined by regulation. Is this not a sorry picture, Mr. Speaker? In this great industry in South Africa we find that those responsible for the safety of the public are worried and upset because they are verging on a state of exhaustion. I think this Government owes the public a very real explanation as to how this state of affairs has been allowed to develop. It is not as though it has crept suddenly upon us in the night, Sir. The Government has seen it developing; they have been warned. They have been told of the difficulties. But nothing adequate has been done to meet the situation and now we are again running into a crisis situation. That is incompetence in two Departments but I want to deal with two more. The one concerns the hon. the Minister of Justice. During the past years we have had a number of trials for sabotage and crimes against the safety of the State which made it very evident that a serious situation had arisen in South Africa. I think all South Africans have indeed cause for gratitude to the police for the manner in which they unearthed these delinquents and dealt with them. I am sorry that after a performance like that one should have to witness the disappointment of the ordinary member of the police force at the moment in the rises in pay which have been granted but that can be dealt with on another occasion.

I want to say that there are two aspects of these trials that worry me considerably. The first is that I think most thinking South Africans are struck by the fact that in a large number of these cases the big fish have got away and that the small fry have had to take the rap. The big fish have got away either by escaping from South Africa or because they have turned State evidence and on that account have got exemption. I understand the difficulties of the Minister in that regard but I think that that must be a terrible lesson to many of our young people when they are approached by suave and persuasive individuals of this ilk to realize how they treat those with whom they are associated. I think also it shows how well justified were the warnings which came from this side and elsewhere to the young people of this country against leadership that sought to take control of organizations which were otherwise unacceptable.

Who defended Nusas?

I am not so sure that that hon. gentleman was not a member of Nusas, Sir.

The other thing that has worried me has been the escape of the big fish, very often the ring-leaders. I cannot think of anything more stupid, more indicative of incompetence, than the escape of Goldreich and Wolpe, something with which we have already dealt in this House. We also need an explanation as to how Vigne got away; how did Mr. and Mrs. Mutch get away or Anne Swersky or Schneider or Robert Watson and a number of others?

You said they were political offenders.

That is untrue.

I do not know why the hon. Minister is so afraid to get to his feet and make a speech—all his speeches are made sitting down. The list is a long one, Sir, and the tragedy of it is that the escapes do not appear, in these last series of cases, to have been due to the negligence of the police. If Press reports are to be believed then these escapes were due to a lack of proper consultation and cooperation either on the part of Cabinet members with one another or between the various agencies employed to ensure the security of the State. Here is a piece of interesting history which was unearthed by one great newspaper, published by it and which has hitherto not yet been denied and which, it would seem, has a measure of accuracy to judge from the statements made by the Security Police. This is the story of a young man, David Plotz, who became aware overseas of the activities of Watson and the African Resistance Movement as long ago as February, 1963. He apparently reported this information—if the story is correct—to our embassies and was put in touch with Military Intelligence. Military Intelligence instructed him to infiltrate infiltrate the A. R. M., to come back to South Africa and to report on its activities. It appears that he made a report and made certain information available to Military Intelligence. But it would also appear, Sir, that Military Intelligence failed to pass that information on to the Department of Justice. Lest this should just be thought to be newspaper talk I want to refer to the statements by the chief of the Security Police, Brigadier van der Bergh. He made two statements, the first was as follows—

He went on and said—

Sir, this is a terrible indictment of the Government. So far there has not been any denial in any newspaper. The statement by Brigadier van der Bergh lends colour to the whole story. I think this is a most terrible state of affairs, when one thinks of the wasted man-hours, when one thinks of the damage done and of the loss of life and when one is led to believe that this could have been avoided had there been proper liaison between the Police and Military Intelligence in South Africa. I believe in many countries of the world these facts, if they are correct, would lead to the fall of the government. How can you entrust the security of a country to a government when the one Department discovers valuable information but fails to pass it on to the other. Sir? It seems a most extraordinary state of affairs to me, Sir, and I think the Government owes us a very real explanation in that regard.

There is another explanation we want from the Government and this concerns the Department of Finance and to a limited extent the Minister of Transport in his capacity as the relevant Minister dealing with third party insurance. I want to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that in the last few years no fewer than 13 financial institutions, most of whom received money on deposit or as insurance premiums from the public, have either failed or had to be put under judicial management and in many cases liquidated. It is a long list, Sir: Unikas in 1962, the Farmers’ Bank in 1962, S. A. Board of Executors in 1962, the Johannesburg Insurance company in 1962, the Pinnacle Insurance company in 1962, the S. A. Reinsurance Corporation in 1962, the British and Overseas in 1963, African Horizon in 1963, Trans-Africa Credit and Savings Bank in 1963, Auto Protection in 1964, Provident Assurance in 1964, Yeoman in 1964 and Parity in 1964. Each one of these failures raises the question but I would like to refer briefly to the Parity Insurance company. I think this House is owed an explanation as to why there was such inaction on the part of the Minister of Finance and why a policy of non-intervention was adopted by the Minister of Transport. The history of the company is quite brief. It was registered under the relevant Act in July 1960 with a capital of R20,000. That enabled it to go into business and to collect from the public something between R8,000,000 and R10,000,000 a year for compulsory third party insurance, an insurance made compulsory by an Act of Parliament. In October 1962 it appeared from papers before the court that certain strange facts came to the notice of the Registrar of Financial Institutions, facts which caused him to regard the investment policy of Parity as undesirable. Consequently, in terms of Section 23 (1) of the Insurance Act, he prohibited Parity from disposing of any of its assets without the consent in writing of the Registrar. In November 1962 he wrote to the Public Officer advising him of the prohibition and adding—

That was in November 1962. I say at once, Mr. Speaker, that that inspector was not appointed until two years later. I think we have a right to know what happened. The Minister’s Department know that there was maladministration and possible prejudice to insured persons in October 1962, more than two years before the application to court and 18 months before the Minister refused a judicial commission of inquiry into certain financial institutions in this House in April of last year.

As the Minister knows there was a question on the Order Paper last year which gave him an opportunity to make a statement about this company. He also knows that representations were made to him by groups of insurers engaged in third party insurance. Had he appointed a commission last year he might well have avoided the Parity disaster. Now he comes in 1965 and appoints a commission which he might well have appointed last year or two years ago, and which I believe should have been appointed at that time with regard to the knowledge the Minister must have had.

Was I asked for a commission of inquiry into Parity two years ago?

I believe the Minister should have appointed a commission in regard to Parity two years ago. The Minister was asked for a general commission last year in a debate in which Parity was mentioned and the Minister declined to give any favourable attention to that matter.

On 12 November 1963 the Registrar withdrew the prohibition placed on Parity after the board of directors had been reconstituted but the inspector who had to do the investigation had not yet appeared on the scene. He appeared on the scene only two years later. Two inspectors were appointed and within eight days they gave a most devastating report in respect of Parity. What or why or who persuaded the Registrar of Companies not to go ahead with the inspection as he had indicated in October 1962? Let us go further. On 28 November 1963 the auditors reported that in their opinion the company was insolvent. This was disputed by the Directors and two more firms were instructed to make an inquiry. That inquiry lasted till January 1964. I want to know from the hon. the Minister why Parity was allowed to continue to operate while that investigation was in process and while the only report available was to the effect that Parity was already insolvent. A fresh report was issued in January in which the old auditors refused to depart from their previous finding and in which the new auditors said that when regard was had to certain estimates they believed there was an excess of assets over liabilities of R302,000. But at the same time that the auditors reported that Parity was in their opinion insolvent they put in another report to the effect that the dividend Parity had paid by way of a bonus share issue had been paid out of capital and was, therefore, ultra vires and irregular, contrary to the Insurance Act and constituted an irregularity under the Public Accounts and Auditors Act. On receipt of the report the Registrar immediately wrote to the company and told them that the irregularities were so serious that he would ask the Minister, in terms of paragraph C of sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the Insurance Act for his written consent to apply to court for Parity to be placed under judicial management. That was in December 1963. The Minister was in Cape Town. Various explanations were apparently given; reference was made to the increase in the capital of Parity, inter alia, by capitalizing its reserves to the extent of R169,000 and the company was allowed to go on operating. In the light of the history up to that date, Sir, you can ask yourself why Parity was given a second chance? When the inspectors were appointed in November it apparently took them eight days to uncover 15 major irregularities, most of them of long standing. Very few were of recent origin. I think, therefore, that the Minister owes the public an explanation in respect of this performance which has caused hundreds of thousands of innocent South Africans financial loss. I think the Minister of Transport owes the public an explanation as well because under the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act passed last year he has the most tremendous powers in respect of those people who are doing third party insurance.

The attitude of the hon. the Minister of Finance was made evident last year when we had a debate on certain financial institutions. One of them was Auto Protection. The Minister refused to take any action or to have the conduct of the relevant officials investigated. The Minister of Transport has tremendous powers under the Act but despite those powers he apparently made no investigation and despite the power he has to insist on certain action being taken. What is the result? The result is that 450,000 South Africans who have paid their insurance premiums to Parity have very largely been without cover unless they have paid additional premiums for cover by other companies. Even the Nationalist Press has said that in many countries of the world a debacle of this kind would lead to the fall of the Government.

What does Mannie Goldberg say about it?

That he will support an inquiry; he welcomes it. I am not speaking for Goldberg. What I want is an explanation of the inaction of this Minister. During the years that have gone by an extraordinary state of affairs has been developing but no steps were taken to ensure that the situation was under proper control and that the interests of the public were properly looked after, particularly those third parties who were injured and are now seeking recourse for their injuries and finding themselves in many instances in a most difficult situation indeed. I think that is one of the strangest things that has happened in our financial life and it falls directly under the control of this Minister. I think we are entitled to an explanation, Sir, because it seems to me that there is all the evidence of incompetence of a high nature in the handling of this matter. I could go on finding instance upon instance of the incompetence of this Government, but I think I have said enough to make it clear that there is an extremely strong case. From that substantiation flow the further charges: Firstly that this Government because of its incompetent choice of policies in respect of non-European affairs is endangering the security of White civilization here in South Africa; secondly, that it is mismanaging and endangering that prosperity which is so vital to our future, so vital to enable us to defend ourselves, so vital to enable us to have high enough living standards here and to give us an opportunity to find permanent solutions for our non-European problems so as to cut the ground away from under the feet of the communist agitator.

In the light of the failure of the Government, one could take a long time putting alternative policies before this House. They have been put before this House on so many occasions that I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat them in detail to-day. But of course, Sir, the most serious charge is that of endangering the security of White civilization. Sir, because of the deadlock between the Government and ourselves on this issue there have not been lacking those who have been seeking for a compromise solution in this regard. Sir, the latest suggestion of a compromise solution appeared in the week-end Press. I think it is right that it should be summarized for this House. First of all, the suggestion is that the Government should admit that apartheid has failed in the urban areas and that it should accept 90 per cent of the policy of the United Party in respect of the urban Natives, Coloureds and Indians in both the political and the economic sphere.

Then comes the second one, that the United Party should accept 50 per cent of the Government’s Bantustan scheme—but not that part which involves the ultimate sovereign independence of the Bantustans. Sir, we always accepted 50 per cent of the Bantustan policy. We have pointed out the difficulties, the difficulties of consolidation, we have pointed out the difficulty of the treatment of the Whites in the Bantustans, we have pointed out the futility to try and develop those areas when you fail to use private White capital; we have pointed out a lot of other difficulties.

Then there is a third proposal, namely that the United Party should abandon 50 per cent of its race federation policy.

Not 50 per cent, 100 per cent.

It seems that the hon. gentleman cannot read a newspaper article intelligently. It is suggested that the United Party should abandon 50 per cent of the race federation policy, though retaining those vitally important elements concerning the representation of non-Whites in Parliament.

Then, fourthly, what conclusion do we arrive at? This, of course, leaves us in the air as to the future relationship between the Bantustans and the Republic. What is the relationship going to be? Apparently the idea of sovereign independence is to be thrown overboard: 50 per cent of race federation is to be thrown overboard. What is the relationship going to be under this new scheme, the relationship between the Bantustans and the Republic?

What I want to know is how you can go on preaching freedom, how you can go on with the policy which this Government has embarked upon, the whole moral justification for which is that you are ultimately going to grant them freedom, where thereupon you deny them that freedom which you promised them all along. That I fail to understand. I fail to understand how one can say that you can exclude the possibility of a federal relationship between the developed reserves and the rest of the Republic in looking for alternatives.

Anyway, these proposals are before us and apparently we are now to reach a compromise in a vacuum—provided of course the Government is prepared to admit that the aparthied policy has failed in the urban areas—where do we stand? Of course if the Government admits that the aparthied policy has failed in the urban areas, then obviously the only solution is the United Party solution. If the Government is prepared to admit that, then I believe a new chapter is to be opened in the political life of South Africa. The onus is on the Government. I have shown to-day how that policy has broken down. I have shown to-day, Sir, how our prosperity is due not to Government policy but the opposite of Government policy—to integration. I have shown all the dangers and the difficulties on the road followed by the Government. If this Government is prepared to admit that its policy in respect of the urban areas is a failure, I believe a new chapter will indeed be opened in respect of race relations in South Africa.

When you deal with this problem, and a solution which we seek in a vacuum, then I believe there are three fundamentals: The first of those fundamentals is that White leadership must be maintained over the whole of South Africa, not just a part of South Africa and other parts left exposed to communist influence and infiltration. I suggest that the second fundamental is a vigorous White immigration policy, not only to strengthen our White population, but to assist in our manpower shortage. Let me say that I am not impressed by the efforts of the hon. Minister of Immigration in the past. Far too many of the immigrants up to now are those who have fled from the Central African countries. There is not a high enough proportion from European countries to give us any confidence that he is going to be able to maintain the rate of immigration, and I believe that unless proper attention is being given to that matter, next year this time there will be a charge against that Minister as well.

Then I believe there is a further fundamental and that is that a defined share of government must be given to the non-European, but coupled with a readiness to limit it in the interests of civilized governments, and a readiness to limit it with all the means at our disposal.

When you have accepted those three fundamentals, then you really have accepted the fundamentals of race federation, and when he has done so I will welcome the hon. the Prime Minister to this side of the House.

I move the motion standing in my name.

A newspaper reporter who reported the United Party Congress at Bloemfontein, last year, wrote as follows—

This man Graaff, who started his parliamentary career in 1948 with an inauspicious speech on sardines, carries great responsibility with disarming ease.

I suggest the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should confine himself to sardines. To a very large extent we have had a rehash of what that hon. member said on previous occasions; it was the same hotch-potch; he tried to deal with every possible matter, and some of the matters could better have been dealt with by back-benchers. He dealt with Bantustans, apartheid, manpower, agriculture, wages of post and telegraph workers, transport, justice, insurance companies, Parity. There were only two significant omissions and they were the Broederbond and the 90-days. I am rather surprised that we have heard nothing from the honourable gentleman about the Broederbond, because that was such a favourite subject of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition until the time when a commission of inquiry was appointed. Now it has faded away. We do not hear a word from him about the Broederbond and probably will not hear about the Broederbond from him in the future.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also took the opportunity of replying to the Sunday Times and the hon. member said that he was not prepared to accept the advice of the Sunday Times. That advice was that race federation should be abandoned. The hon. gentleman said that the suggestion was that only 50 per cent should be abandoned. If I read the article correctly, the Sunday Times said that race federation must be abandoned because it is so complicated that nobody understands it.

It is remarkable that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who wants to give the Bantu representation in this House, who wants them to be trained as skilled workers, wants according to the race federation plan (that nobody understands) to give them their own parliaments, allow them to govern themselves to a certain extent to deal with their own affairs, on the other hand has so little confidence and faith in them that he is trying to frighten the House and the country about communist infiltration and communist influence should they gain independence. But, Mr. Speaker, the same can happen in the protectorates. He talks about jumping-off grounds for the communists. Can the same not happen in the protectorates? Neither the hon. gentleman, nor that side of the House, nor this side of the House can prevent that from happening. I do not want to deal with this matter, but what is the alternative? The only alternative to the policy of this side of the House is race federation. Now it is rather remarkable that the hon. gentleman said that we must look to the north and to what has happened in the rest of the countries of Africa, and he says the same will happen when these Bantustans want to gain sovereign independence. I suggest that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is a man who should look to the north to see what has happened under the policy of partnership that he supported.

No.

Does the hon. gentleman think for one moment that 9,000,000 Bantu will be satisfied with eight White representatives in this House? The hon. gentleman is suffering under a delusion. He does not know what has happened in the north when he thinks that 9,000,000 Bantu will be satisfied with eight White representatives in this House. The hon. gentleman will be disillusioned if that state of affairs should ever come about. I do not want to deal further with the Bantustans. The hon. the Prime Minister will probably deal with that. What I want to deal with, Mr. Speaker, is in the first place “Parity”. The hon. member has stated that the Minister of Transport should have taken action and that I as Minister of Transport have great powers under the Act. Apparently the hon. Leader of the Opposition has not read the Act. He apparently has not read the Third Party Insurance Act, because if he had read it he would not have made such a statement. I have no powers at all under the old Third Party Insurance Act. All that I can do is to publish the name of an insurance company that is prepared to undertake third party insurance, and I cannot even remove the name of that insurance company from the list unless it becomes incompetent to undertake insurance.

Have you read Sections 2 and 3 of the Act?

Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke about transport. The hon. gentleman said that the Railways have failed to meet the demands of the country and he quoted certain Chambers of Commerce. He also said that he understood that certain industries had to close their doors for certain periods as a result of the Railways not being able to meet the demands of Industry and Commerce. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the House that many of these reports are exaggerated. The Railways have actually moved 10 per cent more traffic this year than in the corresponding period last year, and no industry has closed its doors for the said reason. That the Railways are experiencing difficulties, I have admitted, but it is not as the hon. gentleman says due to inadequate planning and lack of vision. He has not substantiated that allegation. The only thing he did mention was the building of the pipeline. He said that if the pipeline had been built when it was originally asked for, there would not have been so many difficulties. That, of course, is nonsense! The building of the pipeline will certainly not eliminate the difficulties the Railways are experiencing in moving the traffic. To a certain extent it may help. But apart from that, if the hon. gentleman would only go back and read what happened at that time, he would find that the Van Eck Commission actually recommended that the pipeline should be constructed at a later date than it is being constructed now. That was after a full inquiry and investigation. So there was no purpose in the construction of the pipeline at that time. I challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) to give one instance of inadequate planning and lack of vision.

There are plenty of examples.

I can give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the assurance that the Railways are providing the necessary facilities, that the planning is adequate—the trouble with the Railways is that there is an acute shortage of manpower. And that is the matter I really want to deal with.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition of course blames the Government for the existing shortage of manpower.

Hear, hear.

I agree. The Government is to blame for the shortage of manpower. If this Government had applied an economic policy during normal times which would have resulted in a surplus pool of labour, there would be no manpower shortage to-day. But whereas this Government followed a policy of full employment in normal times, it is quite obvious that during a time of such unprecedented expansion there must be a shortage of manpower. Of course that is so. If the Government had followed a policy of unemployment during normal times and the creation of a pool of surplus labour, there would be no manpower shortage to-day. The hon. gentleman says that there should have been immigration on a bigger scale. But even if immigration had been stepped up during those years and there was full employment, there would have been a shortage of manpower to-day. Everybody with any commonsense will be able to see that immediately.

This shortage of manpower is not only confined to White workers. There is a shortage of manpower of non-Whites as well as Whites. According to the figures of the Department of Labour, in Cape Town only 550 Coloured men and youths are registered as unemployed. In Durban 1,200 Asiatic adults and youths are registered as unemployed. And it must be accepted that many of these are unemployable. There has also been a shortage of Bantu workers, for instance in some coal mines in Natal which were unable to step up their production because of the shortage of labour. So this is not confined to White workers. But I can give the assurance to the House that the Government is fully aware of the seriousness of the problem and has taken steps and is taking steps to meet the position. Immigration has been stepped up to such an extent that all previous records have been broken. The training of workers has been extended. The number of bursaries for students have been increased. Steps are continuously being taken to increase productivity, and more and more non-Whites are being employed to serve their own people, and where practical and feasible, jobs formerly done by Whites are being done by non-Whites. And that is not a new policy. That has been done over the years. I can quote numerous examples where jobs which were formerly done by Whites were eventually done by non-Whites. On the Railways there are some 9,000 to 10,000 Bantu doing unskilled labour that was formerly done by Whites. That is not a new policy. But what is the solution offered by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to overcome the shortage of manpower. To-day he has not given any solution. All he said to-day was that he could give a lot of alternatives.

I have done that so often before.

Yes, last year the hon. Leader of the Opposition announced a crash programme. I wonder whether the hon. member still stands by that crash programme?

Yes.

I am very pleased to hear that, because, usually, Sir, their programmes and their policies change from year to year. That crash programme was supposed to be the solution to this acute manpower shortage. Sir, I think we under-estimated the ability of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I mean to announce and to suggest a programme such as that! One might have expected that of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel)! The hon. the Leader of the Opposition gave five points, but he dealt with six. Firstly, he mentioned an increase in the salaries of the technical staff, that is to say in the Government Service and at the universities. That would be one of the methods of alleviating the shortage of manpower in South Africa. But, Mr. Speaker, private enterprise can always outbid the Government in regard to salaries and wages, and when there is a general shortage of manpower in the country, an increase in wages is not going to reduce that shortage. It would merely transfer the shortage from the private sector to the public sector or vice versa. But that was one of the solutions of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Then the hon. Leader of the Opposition suggested better salaries for the teaching staff. But private employers can always outbid the Government. What the hon. member was actually suggesting was that there is a general shortage of manpower …

Why?

There is a general shortage of manpower in the country. By merely embarking on an auction, by merely increasing wages, you are simply transferring that shortage from one sector to the other and that should be obvious, even to the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

What you are saying would result in a reduction of wages.

I am only saying that that would not reduce the shortage of manpower as such, because private enterprise would simply pay higher wages. We are experiencing that every day. I am dealing with this wonderful solution of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. His second solution is: “Relaxation in respect of overseas qualifications”. For whom? For doctors? There are certain qualifications they have to have in South Africa. But it does not apply to engineers. They can come from overseas and are employed, and the same applies to artisans. That will not alleviate the shortage. Then the hon. member says “Encourage the employment of older people”. But all the people who are physically fit are employed to-day. They are not unemployed.

No.

I’ll give anybody of 50 a job in the Railways if he is physically fit.

And then you take away his pension and allowance.

That is the most silly answer I have yet heard. It is quite obvious that if a man can earn R1,000 a year, why should he exist on a pension of R400? If a man can earn twice as much by working, why should he remain unemployed and just draw a pension?

The hon. Leader of the Opposition said that the employment of older people should be encouraged. That is being done.

Then he said that assistance should be given in respect of every child who shows ability to be educated to the maximum of his ability, regardless of the parent’s capacity to pay for such education. Sir, primary and secondary education in South Africa are free. So obviously the hon. member refers to university education. But surely, Mr. Speaker, well-to-do parents do not require such an inducement to send their children to the university. That would not make any difference. And the shortage is not only confined to professional men such as engineers. I have a shortage in the Railways of hundreds of shunters, guards, station-foremen, firemen. The educational qualification those people require is a Std. VI certificate. The five suggestions made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition in his crash programme surely will do nothing to alleviate that shortage, the shortage of hundreds of shunters, guards, station-foremen and firemen. That is semi-skilled work and the educational requirement is Std. VI. That is the solution of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to reduce the manpower shortage.

Why don’t you employ non-Europeans?

The last and most important point in this crash programme was that we should end job reservation and replace it with “the rate for the job”. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made that statement without any qualification: End job reservation and apply the rate for the job. It was a clear statement.

No, in consultation with labour organizations.

We are concerned about the principle, whether there is consultation or not. The principle the United Party stands for is to end job reservation and to apply the rate for the job. I want to analyze what job reservation actually is. First of all you have the statutory job reservation in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, but that is only applicable to a very small number of industries, not more than a dozen in South Africa. It affects very few jobs in comparison with the number of jobs in industries in South Africa.

2 per cent.

Yes, as my hon. colleague says, it affects 2 per cent of the workers. Then we come to the statutory colour bar which is embodied in the Mines and Works Act. That is job reservation. Certain jobs are reserved for White miners. That is the colour bar that has been in existence for the last 40 years. Then we have the Native Building Workers Act. Again job reservation. Native building workers are not allowed to be employed in European areas. They are confined to their own areas. Building workers’ jobs in the White areas are reserved for White and Coloured men. That is job reservation.

Then we have the conventional colour bar in regard to the training of apprentices where apprenticeship committees simply do not allow non-Europeans to be indentured where they have to be trained by Whites. It is a conventional colour bar, but it is again job reservation. We have the traditional non-statutory job reservation for instance on the Railways, where you have skilled artisans which are White, non-Europeans not being employed as such. You have your engine drivers. It has been traditional not to employ non-Europeans as engine drivers. The same applies in the case of station-foremen, guards and numerous other jobs. That is job reservation in South Africa not only job reservation in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, but job reservation in terms of other Acts and conventional job reservation that has been in existence for many years. Those are all the forms of job reservation that the hon. Leader of the Opposition wants to end. He did not qualify his statement. He said it should be replaced by “the rate for the job”. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) said according to the Natal Mercury—he was supporting the Leader of the Opposition and he was not referring when he spoke to job reservation in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act; he was referring to job reservation on the S. A. Railways, i.e. the traditional work for certain White people; the hon. member for Umlazi said that job reservation had failed and the eventual and only solution must be the United Party policy of the rate for the job. The hon. member was honest enough to admit that he said that. He was referring to the shortage of manpower on the Railways and not to job reservation in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act. He said that job reservation had failed on the Railways and the only solution was the United Party policy of the rate for the job. He supported the hon. the Leader of the Opposition faithfully. Do away with job reservation. [Interjection.] Whether it is done in consultation between the employers and the employees or not, it is still doing away with job reservation; the principle remains the same. Do away with job reservation and replace it with the rate for the job. But in the same newspaper on 4th December the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) said this.

What newspaper?

The Natal Mercury. He said—

The Leader of the Opposition wants to do away with all forms of job reservation as long as it is done in consultation with the trade unions, and he wants it to be replaced by the rate for the job. The hon. member for Umlazi supports him, but the hon. member for Umhlatuzana says: “Oh no, we want to retain the colour bar in industry.” In other words, all these forms of job reservation, i. e. the conventional colour bar, the colour bar in the Mines and Works Act, they want to retain, but he says that the Government in the manner in which job reservation is applied … that is the Government’s way of breaching the colour bar to alleviate the manpower shortage. In other words, the Government is breaching the colour bar, but the United Party wants to retain the conventional and the statutory colour bar in industry. [Interjection.] Sir, now the House will wonder what the attitude of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) is. After all, he was the chief Labour spokesman for quite a number of years. The House will probably be surprised to hear that the hon. member for Yeoville is in favour of job reservation. He supports it. The hon. member for Yeoville does not support a fixed policy of the rate for the job. He does not want job reservation to be replaced by the rate for the job. The Johannesburg Municipality, which is controlled by the United Party, introduced job reservation on their transport services. They do not apply the rate for the job. The Bantu transport workers receive considerably less payment than the White workers. But what does the hon. member for Yeoville say? He says according to the Star of 16 November last year—

So when the United Party applies job reservation they say it is a good thing, but when the Government applies it they say it is an evil thing. The Leader of the Opposition says: Abolish job reservation in all its forms and substitute the rate for the job as long as there is consultation. The hon. member for Umlazi says he supports the Leader of the Opposition, but the hon. member for Umhlatuzana says no, they want to retain the colour bar; and the hon. member for Yeoville says that they support job reservation. They do not even support the rate for the job as long as it is applied by a United Party municipality. Now that is the problem. The Leader of the Opposition on 19 November 1963, at the Bloemfontein Congress of the United Party said the following in regard to job reservation—

Mr. Speaker, after what I have said I think that such sanctimonious clap-trap is enough to make one sick. Then this is the party which is announcing a new slogan for the Provincial election. They have not been very fortunate with their slogans in the past. I remember that slogan, “Vote for the Right to Vote Again”, in 1953. Now they have announced a new slogan and that is “We Can Rule Better”. But Edenvale did not believe that. Edenvale did not believe that they could rule better. In fact, Edenvale rejected them with an even bigger majority than during the last general election. Edenvale had no confidence that they could rule better. I am quite convinced in my own mind that the voters of the country will have no confidence in the slogan that they can rule better when the Provincial Council elections take place. But, Sir, they have given their reasons why they can rule better, and these are the reasons, and I am quoting from the Star, who took it from the publications of the United Party. These now are reasons why they can rule better—

Sir, has South Africa stood still since 1948? I can only say that in 1948 the United Party Ministers did their work so well that at the first opportunity the country rejected them. Then they say—

[Laughter.] Sir, I am overwhelmed. The United Party claims credit for me for something which I never got. I aspired to become an engine-driver but did not succeed. Then they go further and say—

Now, who could that be? Could it be the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman), or could it be the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje)? After listening to some of the economic speeches, of the hon. member for Jeppes, I feel he would be much more at home in philosophy. Then they say that they have a Rhodes scholar. Well, I do not think it is necessary to say who that is. It might be a reflection on the judgment of the Rhodes trustees. They say they have an ex-Secretary for Justice and a former Auditor-General.

They must have counted him twice.

Yes, but he might have a split personality. [Laughter.] They say they have two experts on African affairs. Well, they must have been hiding their lights under a bushel because we have not come across them in this House. At least, I cannot recognize them. Then they have a brigadier with 28 years’ service in the Permanent Force, but they say nothing about the major they have, the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl), and I think it is simply unbelievable that a United Party Cabinet can be deprived of the sartorial elegance of the hon. member for Green Point. Last but not least they have a past Chairman of the Wool Board. Sir, I am trying to show what the leading lights of the United Party are, and how adolescent they are when they come along with this sort of tripe. But they have one significant omission and that is that they do not say that they have a Sir in their ranks. I must admit that we cannot compete with them there. Then they go further and say that this looks like a pretty good answer to anyone who dares suggest the United Party cannot form a Cabinet. But nobody has ever suggested that. Any party can form a Cabinet, but the question is what type of Cabinet it will be. If we have to take the people they mention, doctors of philosophy and the rest of it, then heaven preserve South Africa from having such a Government and such a Cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, there are serious and important problems facing South Africa, and a responsible and effective Opposition can make an important contribution to the solution of these problems. But such an Opposition must put principle before expediency, must be constructive in its criticism and must be politically honest. Then it will have the respect and not the contempt of the country, and then it can with justification claim to be the alternative Government of the country. I want to commend this to the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I must frankly admit that I listened with a good deal of interest and some amusement to the speech of the hon. the Minister of Transport who has just sat down and I do not propose to follow him very far in regard to most of the remarks he made, but I think they do call for some observations from this side of the House at once. Firstly, it took him one minute at the end of his speech to say that there were many serious difficulties confronting South Africa. He was dealing with the political questions of South Africa up to one minute before he sat down, when he said there were many serious difficulties confronting South Africa, but having made that observation he left all those difficulties alone and sat down, just at the moment when we thought we would hear something worthwhile from the Minister. The second point is this, with all due respect to the hon. the Minister who does have a certain sense of humour. The Minister has now replied to the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this time last year in this House. It has taken him 12 months to catch up with it. On his own showing, he told us that he has studied the speech. He paints a picture of himself sitting there and burning the midnight oil studying the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition 12 months ago, and now he answers it in January 1965. So, as so often happens in the light of past events, the prophet who prophesies what has already taken place is so often found to be right. The Minister will be found to be right now because he is going back over the last 12 months to answer that speech made a year ago and now he says: Look how right I am! But it is 12 months late, and that is what we are complaining about. We say to the Government and the Minister that they should try to get up to date because this is 1965 and not 1964. Where is this wise planning for the future that we hear about? The Minister is still talking about the policies of 12 months ago.

Have you changed your policy in the last 12 months?

No, Sir, he has made no attempt to show that there has been any change of policy, but although he realizes the serious difficulties facing South Africa he just mentioned it a minute before he sat down. When are we going to have the solution of these problems? The Minister will get up in January 1966 and having studied the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to-day, he will then reply to the solutions to the problems mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition to-day. I know that the hon. the Minister of Transport goes bowed under the extra responsibilities he is carrying at present but nevertheless he can do much better than this. This is not the Minister of Transport at his best; he is very nearly at his worst. [Interjections.] But we all have respect for the hon. the Minister on this side of the House owing to the fact that whatever the job was on the Railways that he occupied, he has become a Cabinet Minister, and not one of the least able either. But the Minister of Transport talks about us forming a Cabinet. Oh dear, just look at the Cabinet we have at present, and most of them were picked by the Prime Minister himself. But we can say to the Minister of Transport: Ben, you have done a good job and you have come a long way and we respect you for the work you have done. But now the Minister must get down to tin-tacks because the whole of the transport system, the vital arterial link in the whole of the economy of South Africa, is in a muddle. The Minister staked his reputation on putting the Railways right and we want him to deliver the goods, because we are all in trouble over the trains, from beginning to end, and not only in Natal. The whole of the system is trembling under the impact of the ordinary development of South Africa, and it is no good telling us that the Government has foreseen what is taking place and that they are planning to meet the situation. The Minister of Finance has been telling us for the last number of years that this development, this blooming economy, was something that was foreseen and planned for. But he did not let the Minister of Transport into his confidence and his plans. He did not let him know what he was planning for, with the result that the Railways has lagged behind, and we know that the railway system cannot be built up just in five minutes. We know that it takes time and that it needs planning, and we look to the Minister to put the matter right.

The Minister very cursorily brushed aside the whole question of Bantustans. I wonder why? You see, Sir, what is the good of making plans for the Railways or for anything in South Africa if the concept of separate independent Bantu states within the Republic has to reach fruition? If that is the Government’s policy and it has to be carried out, it will be the doom and the death of White South Africa, and particularly of the Railways. Whatever excellent railway system we may have, and whoever may be the Minister in charge, what is it for? For something that is dead? Is this to be the measure of the sacrifices we made, when we sacrifice White South Africa in the interest of the Government’s policy of Bantustans? Because if the Bantustan policy succeeds, then the Railways are gone. It will not then be a question of job reservation for Whites or the traditional method of job reservation or the colour bar. Let me ask the Minister of Transport whether he thinks that in the event of the Bantustan policy succeeding there will be a traditional colour bar on the Railways?

I do not know what you are talking about. Surely the hon. member knows what the Government’s policy is.

The policy is that the non-Whites should serve their own people. How is a non-White shunter and a non-White engine driver and a non-White conductor going to differentiate between the goods carried in that train which carries the goods for their own people and the goods for the rest of the population of South Africa? Or are we going to do that? Why does the Minister give me a stupid answer like that? Or are we to be in the position that there will be no railways in the Bantustans?

Of course. What do we do with the railways in the Protectorates?

Are there to be no railways in the Bantustans? Or if there are, will they be run and serviced by non-Whites?

Eventually they will.

So that is part of the ultimate sovereignty of the Transkei. When that times comes, they will have their own railways and run it in their own way. [Interjections.]

Not necessarily. If the hon. member will allow me to reply to him, I can give him the information. Why does he ask me questions if he does not want me to reply? But I will reply to it when my vote comes on.

Yes, we will have an opportunity later to deal with the Minister on these particular points. Now, that brings me to the next point. There is the repeated assertion of the hon. the Prime Minister that this Bantustan policy will lead ultimately to a commonwealth. I have noticed among Government members in recent months a tendency to get away entirely from the commonwealth issue. They do not want to talk about a commonwealth within the geographical boundaries of the Republic, a commonwealth created by seven or eight independent Bantu states and a truncated White state, with more Bantu living within its boundaries than there are White people. Nevertheless hon. members opposite talk about it as White South Africa. We want to go forward and take the next step now, because the Bantu want to take the next step. We want to know more about this commonwealth. We hope that we will now get a little more clarity on the subject. What kind of commonwealth is contemplated exactly? Is it to be a commonwealth which is merely to be an advisory or consultative body and where nobody has any powers, where it is just a case of eight Black Prime Ministers and one White Prime Minister getting together? We want more information on that point. The supreme development of the Bantustan concept, through the mouth of the hon. the Prime Minister, has been a commonwealth of states here in the Republic of South Africa and we want to know what that supreme example of political development is to be. The Leader of the Opposition just now, in dealing with this question of the Bantustans, said this: White leadership is to be maintained over the whole of the Republic. That is point No. 1, in the United Party’s non-European policy. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration made an interjection. Will he tell me whether it is his desire to maintain White leadership over the whole of the Republic of South Africa? [Interjections.] You see, Sir, how easy it is to test this. When my hon. Leader made that statement there was a dumb silence from every one of the hon. members opposite, because not a single one dared dispute it. Not a single one, from the hon. the Prime Minister to the back-benchers, would get up here and say that it is the policy of the Nationalist Party to abandon the sovereignty over part of South Africa.

Does leadership mean sovereignty?

I do not want any cheap interjections. That is what my Leader said. Point No. 1 of our policy is that White leadership should be maintained over the whole of the Republic. [Interjection.] I repeat that not one of them opposite will get up and say that fundamental point in the policy of the United Party as adumbrated by our Leader is wrong. We do not stand for the abandonment of White leadership over the whole of the Republic of South Africa. The Minister of Bantu Education, anticipating becoming the Minister of Indian Education, I know, will be interested in this particular point. He can read my Hansard and then make up his mind as to whether he will say: The Government, of which I am a Minister, does not stand—in fact, we repudiate the idea—of having White leadership maintained over the whole of the Republic of South Africa. [Interjection.]

Order!

The various developments that have been taking place in the field or Bantustans—and now I want to speak from first-hand knowledge—have led to a feeling of insecurity on the part of all the Bantu people of South Africa. There is to a large extent a lack of understanding as to precisely what is implied, and when we take part in a debate like this I do not blame the Bantu for failing to understand what is implied. They do not know where they are being led by the Government. I want to repeat some of the things which have been said in this House and I want to emphasize them. The Bantu in South Africa have never, never, never, through the mouth of one single leader, ever asked for independent separate states. They have never asked for it. The Government have never produced the name of a single Bantu leader in South Africa who, before the Government started off, on the path of the Bantustans, ever asked for independence. Sir, this is not what the late General Smuts once called “home-made bread”. This is an artificial conception foisted upon the Bantu with the whole weight and emphasis of the Government itself; this is something manufactured entirely by White people outside and beyond the ken of the Bantu people themselves. That they may take the bait hereafter, I think, goes without saying. It is inevitable, if you go on with the whole of the emphasis, the weight and authority of the Government behind it, in preaching a creed of this kind under the circumstances which we are facing in Africa at the present moment, that there will not be lacking members of the Bantu race who realize that what they have to do is to grab at the opportunity that the Government is foisting upon them to get independence.

Agitators.

Sir, what is the difference between a Bantu agitator and a Bantu patriot when he does nothing more than to repeat precisely the words uttered in this Parliament by the hon. the Prime Minister? What is the difference? We have a law on the Statute Book which says that it is a criminal offence to create discord and trouble between Whites and non-Whites in this country, between Whites and Bantu. I remember, when the late Mr. Jansen was a member of this House, certain documents were issued when he was Minister of Native Affairs in connection with an election for Native senators, and which he had roneod and sent all over Zululand. I wondered at the time—and I raised the point in this House—as to whether that was not interference in White-non-White political relationships; whether that was not creating discord and trouble. But the point I want to make is this: Ten years ago, if a Native had repeated precisely the words used by the Prime Minister in this House since 1960, he would have been had up for sedition. He would have been had up for sedition under the leadership of the late Dr. Malan, who was the leader of the Nationalist Party when it come into power in 1948. Sir, the hon. the Chief Government Whip may well cover his face; he knows perfectly well that what I say is true. If Natives had used that language ten years ago they would have been charged with sedition. And what must they do to-day? If they are to show that they are loyal supporters of the Government and backing its efforts and its policy, then they have to say “parts of Africa for the Africans”. Yet we do not know which parts yet …

The whole of South Africa eventually if your party comes to power.

Sir, now there is a ray of light coming to the Chief Whip, the hon. member for Brits. The hon. member knows, as my Leader has said, that once you have promised independence to these people, you lose control of the rate of progress, of the timetable. There is not a single case in Africa where the metropolitan powers have been able to determine the timetable, and the hon. member knows that perfectly well.

The policy you are advocating will lead to that.

No. Sir, I am not going to be diverted, but what I want to say is that when we had the representatives of the Bantu in the House, it never led to that, and I see no reason whatever why it should lead to that now. What we want is a government that is not going to give way, as the hon. the Prime Minister did, to outside pressure to make him follow a policy which he did not want, a policy which he said we did not like and which he would not have followed if it had not been for outside pressure. We want a government in South Africa that is going to be strong and do the right thing here in the interests of South Africa, and that means cooperation with the Bantu and getting them to accept the position that in South Africa they are part of the generality of the people of South Africa and entitled through their. White representatives to a voice in this House. We believe that we can put that across and have it accepted, and there is not a single man who can say me nay, because what is the position which faces the Government to-day in trying to get its Bantustan policy accepted? It is facing nothing but trouble and opposition from every Native authority. Not a single Native authority in South Africa has yet willingly accepted these proposals. The trouble in Zululand is complete opposition. Even in regard to Zululand, there appeared in the Press a few days ago the first clear indication that there are not lacking members of the Bantu race—Zulus—who are going to take advantage of the opportunity which they believe the Government is giving them to apply influence, power and absolute authority in regard to their own affairs. I say that we do not know where that area is; they do not know where it is, the Prime Minister does not know where it is, nobody knows where it is; nobody knows where the boundaries of the Bantustan will be. The Prime Minister least of all knows because he says that the boundaries will only be decided when the Black governments have been installed and established, and the boundaries will then be established by negotiation with the Black Governments. Sir, how many times in the history of mankind have boundary disputes led to trouble? We are not satisfied with the existing difficulties that we are in regard to, say, Basutoland and so forth, but we are to create another eight Bantustans each with its own boundaries, each creating border incidents here in our own country. And the hon. member for Brits says that that policy is one which is not nearly so dangerous as the policy of putting eight Europeans in this House to represent the Bantu. The hon. member for Brits knows in his heart of hearts that his policy is fraught with the greatest danger, but here we have this position that this artificial concept manufactured by the Prime Minister, as the result of external pressure—not a South African concept at all, nothing to do with our traditional way of life, nothing to do with the traditional way of life of the Voortrekkers or the 1820 Settlers or anybody else who came to South Africa—is anathema to the Bantu. Nothing could have been greater anathema to them than the sort of suggestion which is being put up to-day, but this foreign concept, this artificial concept is to be presented to the Bantu, whereby even Native girls of 18 are to acquire a vote, as they have in the Transkei. The hon. member for Brits knows something about the Bantu. Is he going to tell me that this concept of Native girls of 18 years of age having the vote is a Bantu concept; that that has ever been considered and accepted by the Bantu as something that it germaine to and in line with their own traditions and their own background, that that is something which is entirely Bantu in its origin?

You want to integrate them in this Parliament.

The hon. member for Brits need not worry; if he is very good and behaves himself and makes the right appeal to the voters in the right manner, they might elect him to be one of their representatives in Parliament. He must not lose heart. I say then that the position is this: point No. 1 of our Leader’s speech this afternoon is recognition of the fact that White leadership is to be maintained over the whole of the Republic of South Africa. That is the kernel, the beginning and the heart of the whole of the policy of the United Party …

Lip service.

… and from that flows whatever further details there may be, whether it is by negotiation with the people concerned—and we propose to negotiate with them—or whether it is by negotiation with the White voters—we propose to negotiate with them by means of referenda and so forth—but after negotiation that principle must remain, and I challenge any Government speaker who now gets up to say: “We abhor that principle, we reject it, we will have nothing to do with the principle which is a basic principle of United Party policy.”

I honestly have a measure of sympathy with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the United Party in Natal, the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). To-day they have the unenviable task of trying to persuade the country and this House that this House no longer has any confidence in the Government whereas the very opposite is becoming more evident day by day throughout South Africa. They still have to convince themselves that this House has no confidence in the Government, whereas at every by-election and in every possible manner it is being proved that the country’s confidence in the Government is waxing and that confidence in the Opposition is waning. After 16 years’ of National regime, 16 difficult years of National regime, the National Party has not yet reached its highest peak and the United Party not yet its lowest and that is the dilemma which confronts those hon. members.

I want to deal immediately with the question posed by the hon. member for South Coast, viz. whether we advocate a policy of White leadership throughout the entire South Africa. I want to give a clear and honest reply immediately but I first want to reply to that question by posing a counter-question: Is it the policy of the United Party that there should be White leadership throughout the entire South Africa for all time? Is it their policy that there should be White leadership throughout the entire South Africa for all time? In what respect does that policy of theirs differ from the policy of domination (baasskap) which they condemn so vehemently? Mr. Speaker, is there not inherent in the policy of White leadership throughout the entire South Africa racial discrimination in South Africa for all time? Their policy amounts to nothing else than racial discrimination throughout the entire South Africa for all time.

What is your policy in respect of the Coloureds?

They think that policy of theirs will satisfy the Indians; they think they will satisfy the Coloureds; they think they will satisfy the Bantu in South Africa and they think their policy will satisfy the world. I shall try to show that we with our policy stand a much better chance of satisfying world opinion, of satisfying the West, than the United Party with the policy they now say is their policy, namely, racial discrimination and racial suppression for all time in South Africa. Because that is what it amounts to. In South Africa you cannot apply a policy of White leadership by 3,000,000 Whites over 12,000,000 people of other races and maintain that you are not following a policy of discrimination. Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wrote the following in an article in the Star—

His argument is that if you apply their policy and you only make certain concessions whilst retaining a policy of racial discrimination you will overcome the hostility of the world, you will then break through the wall of prejudice the world has built up against South Africa. However, the whole history of South Africa proves that that is not the case. The whole history of South Africa proves that the hostility of the world, the threat of sanctions, including even military sanctions, has nothing to do with the policy of this Government. It revolves round this specific question of racial discrimination. They do not want the White man in Africa to govern the Black man and least of all do they want the Whites who are in the minority to govern the Black man. Least of all do they want a minority of Whites to govern a minority of Blacks. To-day, however, they tell us that that is their policy and they think they will get away with it. Think of the history of the Rhodesias, the history of the Federation of Southern Rhodesia. Sir, they made far greater concessions than the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to make. Take the case of the Federation. Who went further than Sir Roy Welensky in making concessions in an effort to satisfy the world? Who went further than Sir Roy Welensky as far as the Federation was concerned in order to satisfy Britain? He acceded to all their requests. He made far greater concessions than the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to make. Sir Roy Welensky went much further but when the position in the Federation was put to the test the yardstick was not: “What did we promise Sir Roy Welensky, what did we promise the Federation, what undertakings did we give to keep the Federation going” but it was: “What do the Black leaders want?” That was the yardstick and the demands of those Black leaders were acceded to and Sir Roy Welensky and the rest were thrown overboard. There is no better answer to the claim of the hon. member that his policy can satisfy the West and will satisfy UNO than Sir Roy Welensky’s “Four Thousand Days.” In that lies the complete answer, proof positive, that you cannot satisfy the outside world with that policy. If any further proof were required just take the case of Southern Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia has a constitution which gives the Blacks in Rhodesia 15 seats in their Parliament. A motion was introduced at UNO condemning that constitution. Sir Edgar White head went to UNO and asked that that motion be not adopted; he gave them the assurance that within 15 years the Blacks would be in power in Southern Rhodesia but in spite of that that motion was adopted with only South Africa and, I think, Portugal voting against it; even Britain did not want to vote against it. You cannot, therefore, solve the problems of South Africa by way of making concessions; you cannot solve the internal problems by way of making these concessions and you cannot solve them vis-à-vis the world outside. I am afraid the task is much more difficult. I do not have the slightest doubt that we are busy convincing the world, the West, that the policy of apartheid is the correct one. I think there are a few things we shall have to do in order to surmount our difficulties. We shall have to convince the world that we as a nation of 3,000,000 Whites in this country are just as entitled to our country, the Republic of South Africa, as the Americans are entitled to America, as the Ghanaians arc entitled to Ghana, as the Basutos are entitled to Basutoland and as the Malawis are entitled to Malawi. We shall have to convince the world that we cannot be expected to share the government of this country with other nations simply because large numbers of those races work here with us, just as little as Switzerland can be expected to share its government with the millions of Italians, Spaniards and Portuguese who work there. We shall have to convince the world that no pressure of any kind, no threat of economic sanctions, no threats even of military sanctions, will weaken in the slightest our determination, our faith in the continued existence of the White nation of the Republic of South Africa and influence us to make any concessions.

What then is the difference between us?

No, I am not saying that there is any difference in that regard. I am very grateful if hon. members opposite say that and there are signs that they are saying it more and more often. I welcome that wholeheartedly.

We are, moreover, convinced that if we follow a policy of separate freedom we as a White race will be able to live in peace with the Coloured, the Indian and the Black races of Southern Africa. We shall have to prove that that which we are demanding for ourselves we are prepared to give to others. In the words of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, we shall have to convince them that we are slowly moving away from racial discrimination in South Africa as we are in reality doing. But we shall have to convince them that in the process of moving away from racial discrimination we shall not for one moment tolerate the idea that it be replaced by a policy of discrimination against the White race of South Africa. But we shall also have to convince them that we are in deadly earnest about our policy which is popularly called the Transkei policy; that this policy is not simply an experiment but that it is the pattern for the future. I now wish to deal with the fear of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of this so-called Transkei policy, his fear that the Transkei will become a springboard for Communism, his fear that if you eventually have an independent Transkei as well as other independent Bantu states, as announced by the Government, Bantu states which may eventually develop into independence if the Bantu has it in him to develop as far as that, it would constitute a tremendous communistic threat to Southern Africa. But, Mr. Speaker, we must remember this: Communism has gained a foothold in Africa in those countries which were granted independence precipitately, countries which were not ready for it, countries which did not know how to govern themselves and which do not yet know how to govern themselves. Let this be very clearly understood: The policy of this Government is that the Transkei can develop, even if it is into ultimate independence, if those people have it in them, but it is just as much the policy of this Government that they shall not attain independence until such time as we regard them ready to have it; until such time as we are positive that they have built up a reasonable economy there; until such time as we are positive that they can govern those countries in a peaceful and orderly manner and make progress. That is just as much an essential part of our policy as the admission that it is possible for those people ultimately to develop to independence. What is the danger of Communism in such an area? To-day the Government which is in power there is strongly anti-communistic. We are busy teaching those people the philosophy of separate freedoms: we are busy teaching those people what benefits there are in co-operating with the rest of South Africa and in cooperating with the White man. We are busy showing them what tremendous economic prosperity can be theirs by retaining our friendship, by working with us as friendly neighbours. That being the case what possible danger is there of communist infiltration? But if communist infiltration must inevitably follow on the granting of independence to African states it must follow when Basutoland attains its independence; then we need not wait for the Transkei to become independent; in that case we shall discover soon enough whether that communist danger is real. And if a well-governed Transkei and a well-ordered Vendaland, countries which have been led by a mature and civilized Government to the stage where they are in a position to take over the government, can constitute a danger of communist infiltration, how much more does that not apply to countries like Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland? Then surely there will be communist infiltration to a much greater extent. But if that is the case then surely communist infiltration is not a result of the policy of the National Party; then it is only a result, a fruit, of the fact that we are children of Africa; then it is because we have to live together here with independent Black states and then that will simply be another problem we shall have to meet. The Leader of the Opposition thinks that the granting of independence to a Black state must of necessity mean communist infiltration. I say that if his supposition is correct the danger is a thousand times greater in Basutoland, Swaziland and those countries which will in any case become independent—a state of affairs which we cannot alter—and in that case we shall simply have to live with that problem.

Please reply to the question of the hon. member for South Coast whether there should be White leadership over the entire South Africa?

White leadership over the entire South Africa at the moment, but it is very clear that the possibility exists that the Transkei and other Black states can develop into entirely independent states in future and attain sovereignty in future. I have now replied to the question of the hon. member. Will the hon. member now reply to my question: Is their policy one of White leadership over the entire South Africa for all time, in other words, discrimination for all time? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, they say “yes”. We are quite prepared to meet them on that ground but then they must never again say that South Africa is in danger; then they must never again say that this Government is to blame for the fact that UNO wants to apply sanctions to us and that the world outside wants to take action against us and that type of nonsense.

May I ask a question?

My time is very limited but the hon. member may nevertheless ask his question. No, the hon. member has now been ordered not to ask questions and when he is ordered not to do so by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) he has to remain silent.

I just want to ask the hon. member when they introduced their policy of immediately abolishing all discrimination against the Bantu in the cities of South Africa?

Nobody has said that discrimination will immediately be abolished. I quoted the words of the Minister of Foreign Affairs when he said that under our policy we were trying gradually to move away from discrimination, but it is also clear that in moving away from discrimination we shall in no circumstances allow discrimination against the White people. The policy of the United Party will amount to that because our submission is that their policy must inevitably lead to it; they will be able to maintain discrimination against the Coloureds for some time but if that process is reversed it will immediately mean discrimination against the White man. I now want to reply to the question put by the hon. member for South Coast, namely, what this Commonwealth idea of the Prime Minister means. I have said that, whether we wanted it or not, within a short space of time we shall have three independent Black states within our borders—the three Protectorates. I personally have no serious objection to it; as far as I am concerned they can become independent immediately. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wanted to know what the Prime Minister had done in this regard. The Prime Minister made a very clear offer to Britain. He did not ask for the Protectorates to be handed over to us; he said: “Let us guide the Protectorates to independence and economic prosperity.” However, that is not something we can be allowed at the moment. As far as I am concerned I say this: the sooner the Protectorates become independent the better because I think that if we negotiate with the Protectorates direct we shall do much better than via Whitehall; I think we shall encounter far fewer difficulties. I personally have come to the conclusion that the fact that communist agitators and fugitives who have contravened the law here go and hide in the Protectorates and the refusal to extradite them is not so much the action of the authorities in the Protectorates; it is the action of White hall who is trying to justify their action in the eyes of other African states. That is the trouble. But my question is this: Why cannot we live in peace and harmony with these Black states which must inevitably come into existence? All the indications are there that those states want to co-operate with us. All their political leaders have said that they cannot even entertain the idea of boycotting South Africa because they simply cannot do so. They have said that they did not agree with our policy but that they have to co-operate with us. Where does the idea come from that you have to agree with a country’s policy in order to co-operate with it? Does Germany agree with France’s policy? Does France agree with Britain’s policy? In their own interests those people have to cooperate and the Protectorates will, from sheer necessity, have to co-operate with us. They will have to do so on all planes—on the economic plane in the field of education, on the political plane. We shall continually have to consult with them. That is how I regard the idea of a Commonwealth of Southern Africa states of the Prime Minister’s. The hon. member for South Coast wants to know which countries will belong to it. It is very clear that the Republic of South Africa will belong to it and all those countries in whose immediate interest it is to work together, all those countries whose interests are intertwined and cannot be separated. That will be the Republic of South Africa and the Protectorates when they become independent, the Transkei, when it becomes independent, the Portuguese territories, Southern Rhodesia and, as the Prime Minister has said, Malawi and Zambia if those people want to do so. And they are going to do so just as surely as we are sitting here because it is absolutely in their own interests to co-operate with the Republic of South Africa. We are going to create a common market of Southern Africa states because economically those countries are dependent on us. To a certain extent we are also dependent on them. Our political freedom in this country will be much better ensured if there is political peace and quiet in those countries. It will, of course, be an advisory body. What was the previous British Commonwealth which was lauded sky high as such a wonderful combination of nations? It was only an advisory body and everybody spoke about the tremendous benefits which flowed from it. The hon. the Prime Minister is thinking precisely along those lines. I wish to suggest to the hon. the Prime Minister that we should perhaps change the word “Commonwealth” and find a better word. I have no objection to the word “Commonwealth” but we cannot get away from the fact that it has such associations that it gives rise to the type of question we have just had. Perhaps we could call it “the Association of Southern Africa States”. (Vereniging van Suidelike Afrika-State). As surely as we are sitting here to-day we shall eventually have to devise some method whereby we can cooperate with the independent Black states on our borders, states which will number three to begin with within the next few years. They will develop more and more and the Republic of South Africa is going to be the leader of that Association of Southern Africa States, an association in which it will be the only White state. It is going to be the leader not because it is a White nation but it is going to be the leader because of its tremendous economic strength, because of its tremendous military power, because of its extensive political experience and because of its experience in maintaining law and order. We shall be the leader because of our tremendous start in the scientific field, in the agricultural field, in the economic field, in the field of political acumen and apart from that, because we are the only country in the world who, over the past 300 years, has had experience of how to live with these people. That is the vision of the Prime Minister. And it is not only a vision, Mr. Speaker; it is the only really practical road to follow. In this way we are going to convince the world that our policy is the only correct policy. We shall not gain the approbation of the world by making concessions. We shall gain the approbation of the world by proving to the world that our policy is correct and that it is the only policy which can be followed where you have the position which we have in this country.

Is the independence we are giving the Transkei not a concession?

It is not a concession, Mr. Speaker. It is to show the world that these people are entitled to develop to independence provided they are capable of doing so. The world takes it for granted that they are entitled to it and that they should get it at all costs. We too say they are entitled to it but we say they can only attain it when they are ready to govern themselves. If we are to get an Association of Southern Africa States it will economically be the most prosperous part of the entire Africa. It is going to be so because we shall assist those people to develop; we shall advise them; we shall assist them in the economic and scientific spheres. When the world realizes that the Republic of South Africa can give guidance to such an association, not only the world will realize that the Republic is capable of solving the problem, but the other Black Africa States will realize it. They will realize, in the first place, that in the Republic they are dealing with people who work for the welfare of the entire Africa; people who work not only for the welfare of the Whites but for the welfare of the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks. The world will realize that the Republic is prepared to consult with the representatives of that association and the highest plane in the best interests of the various countries. That, Mr. Speaker, is the direction we are following. Nobody says we shall not encounter difficulties on the road. Has a road ever been followed in South Africa on which no difficulties were encountered? Nobody says it will not call for tremendous sacrifices. There will be those who will try to bedevil the relationship between us and the Protectorates, between us and the Rhodesias, between us and the Transkei, between us and Malawi and those countries. Those people will be there. They were the same people who tried to thwart the emergence of Afrikanerdom; they were the same people who tried to thwart our tremendous economic upsurge; they were the people who tried to thwart the establishment of a Republic; they were the people who tried to thwart the establishment of Iscor and Sasol. They are the people who are today doing their best to thwart the new union between the Afrikaans and English-speaking sections. They failed dismally in the past and they will fail equally dismally in the future. The ideal we are striving for is that justice must be done to every racial group. But the world must also realize this that justice must also be done to the 3,000,000 Whites of the Republic.

I think the recess has done the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) a world of good. To-day we saw that hon. member in a somewhat more pleasant light, as one of the great philosophers of the Nationalist Party. He dealt in an interesting manner with the idea of a commonwealth in which evidently at a later stage there will be no discrimination between the various races. He had much to say about discrimination. He said that if we adopted a particular course we would, as it were, discriminate for ever. I now want to ask the hon. member when he and his party will cease discriminating not only against the Bantu in the cities but against the Coloured and the Asian in South Africa. The basic philosophy of the Nationalist Party is that it is prepared to grant to the other man that which he demands for himself. That is the basis of no discrimination. And whether the hon. member for Vereeniging was so very concerned about this question of discrimination or not, I should like to know from him when he will give the Coloured that which he is prepared to give himself, viz. a Prime Minister, a President and a Cabinet, to make his own laws, etc. If the hon. member answers that question he lands in another difficulty, because then I will ask him: Where will he give them those things? In the air? Or are we just to accept the word of Danie Scholtz, who said: “We will give them their area in Namaqualand”? We expect replies to these questions.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) posed a very interesting question. He said that we stood for White leadership in South Africa. The first speaker opposite who followed the hon. member for South Coast was the hon. member for Vereeniging. That is not a question from which one should run away. Why did the hon. member for Vereeniging, with his philosophic approach to the problem, run away from it?

I replied to him clearly.

No, Mr. Speaker. I again ask the Nationalist Party: Do you or do you not stand for White leadership over the whole of South Africa?

At the moment, yes. (Laughter.)

When are you going to cease standing for it? The hon. member for Vereeniging says the Bantu will assume independence if they have it in them to do so. Who will decide whether they can do so or not?

We.

I say this, Mr. Speaker, that just as the Bantu, when we put him on the road to independence, will draw up his own time-table, so he will also decide as to whether or not he is capable of becoming independent. Hon. members opposite are afraid to tell the people that they are prepared to abandon their sovereign power over the whole of South Africa. The hon. member for South Coast correctly stated that the people of South Africa will not tolerate hon. members opposite being in power a moment longer if the people are to believe that this story of independence granted to the Bantu states is true.

The hon. member for Vereeniging is one of those people who have told us about the growing confidence in the Nationalist Party and the increasing lack of confidence in this side of the House. I think I am correct in saying that the hon. member bases his statement that the public has great confidence in the Nationalist Party not on the policy of the Nationalist Party in respect of the Coloureds or the Asians—I do not think they have any policy in respect of them—but on the so-called Bantu policy of that party. I think we will all agree that the so-called confidence of the people in the Nationalist Party is based on the acceptability of their Bantu policy.

I think I am correct when I say that one can divide a policy into two parts. On the one hand there is the objective one hopes to attain by means of that policy, and on the other hand there is the method one wishes to adopt in order to attain that objective. I also think I am right in saying that the objective which the Nationalist Party wants to attain by means of its policy is the safe continued existence of the Whites in South Africa. I wish to add immediately, however, that that objective is not exclusively limited to the Nationalist Party. It is the object of 95 per cent or more of the people of South Africa, viz. the continued existence of the White man and his way of life in this country.

Now what has happened over the years? Over the years the Nationalist Party, by means of propaganda, has succeeded in creating the impression—a distorted impression—in the minds of the people that it is only the Nationalist Party which tries to achieve that particular objective.

What are the qualifications you lay down for the Common Voters’ Roll?

There we now have one of the other philosophers of the Nationalist Party. I am sure he will receive an opportunity later to expatiate not on a federation but on a confederation. Over the years the Nationalist Party has created the wrong impression in the minds of the people that it is the only party which is interested in achieving that objective, viz. the continued existence of the Whites, and that all opponents of the Nationalist Party, including the United Party, are either not interested in the Whites or are prepared to abandon them. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) has already strengthened my case. The political history of South Africa abounds in proof of this sly propaganda of the Nationalist Party aimed at creating this impression in the minds of the people.

That is not true.

I shall come to the truth in a moment and then we shall see how fond that party is of the truth. Over the years they have been accusing the United Party of following a negrophilistic policy. Even last year, when a matter was raised by this side of the House, we had to hear how somebody opposite said: “You are again fighting for the Black man”. Every year we have to hear about the un-South African attitude of the United Party, and that the United Party is therefore by implication a party which must be associated particularly with the Britain of the Western world; with those who left the Whites in Africa in the lurch. The result of this propaganda is the creation of the impression that it is only the Nationalist Party which fights for the survival of the Whites in South Africa. [Interjections.] Do you see, Mr. Speaker, how anxious they are to allow that impression to continue? If there is a ray of light emanating from a newspaper, e. g. the Burger, which says that the United Party also fights for the continued existence of the White man, then the Nationalists say: No, it is only the Nationalist Party and not the United Party.

Here you now have the two pictures, Sir. On the one hand we have a party which just wants to fight for the Whites, and on the other hand a party which wants to have nothing to do with the Whites. And I want to say to-day that a large measure of the so-called confidence, or a large measure of the support granted to that party, is granted to it not because the people have confidence in its policy but because they believe, together with you and I, in the objective—the continued existence of the White man, together with the fact that they believe that only the Nationalist Party are the people who strive to achieve that object. Therefore I say to the hon. member for Vereeniging, when he boasts about increasing confidence and support, that that confidence and support are based on distortions and wrong impressions. I say to the Nationalist Party: Remove that wrong impression; admit frankly that 95 per cent or more of the White population, including the United Party, are fighting for the survival of the White man, and that the so-called confidence in the Nationalist Party will disappear like dew before the morning sun.

What qualifications do you lay down for the Coloured voters to get on the Common Voters’ Roll?

You see, Mr. Speaker, the impression is being created that if one is a member of the United Party one wants to have nothing to do with the White man. That is the type of propaganda one gets from hon. members opposite. Is that hon. member now really trying to tell me that this side of the House is not interested in the preservation of the Western way of life in South Africa?

It is just lip service.

The hon. the Chief Whip regularly puts his foot into it, but I shall not exploit it to-day.

I wish to continue, however, and say that this is not the only wrong impression with which we have to deal. If one removes the ignorance, the untruths and the confusion which exist in regard to the practical policy of the Nationalist Party, then the confidence of which that side of the House boasts to-day will become the lack of confidence of tomorrow.

I think it was the late Advocate Strijdom who said in this House that the old adage that the truth always overtakes a lie is not true in politics, and that it does not apply to politics. I agree with that, but I also want to say confusion is not always followed by clarity in politics; that political ignorance is not always overtaken by political knowledge. I accuse the Government of deliberately allowing that ignorance to exist, of deliberately allowing that confusion to continue, and that they will not move a finger even to remedy an untruth in regard to their policy in the minds of the public as long as that untruth suits their purposes. I shall prove that, Sir.

The party opposite continually tell us that the United Party has no policy. I now ask the ordinary Nationalist Government what is the policy of the Nationalist Party? Except for the parrot-cry of apartheid, you will get a different reply from every second one. The point on which all Nationalists are agreed is the objective they strive for, viz. the continued existence of the Whites, but ask them what the policy is that the Government wants to apply and you will receive a thousand different answers. And that confusion exists not only among the ordinary Nationalists but also among the leading figures in the Nationalist Party. The confusion and ignorance are so great that numbers of Nationalists to-day say that one is telling a lie if one tells them that the hon. the Prime Minister has promised independence to the Bantu states. Those who have not the courage to say that one is telling a lie say: “Yes, we are aware of that promise but it is window-dressing; it is only talk intended for the outside world. The hon. the Prime Minister will never grant them independence.” [Interjection.]

The Nationalist Party knows about this confusion and ignorance; they know that the concept of separate freedom is nonsense unless it is accompanied by independence. Now I ask them why they do not inform the public correctly?

We do that.

I do not know how effective the work of the Minister of Information is overseas, but they do not hesitate to make use of the S. A. B. C. The word “apartheid” is an every-day word on the radio. Why do they not state the case correctly? I will tell you, Sir. The answer is simple. They do not want to state it correctly. The greater the confusion and ignorance, the better are the chances of the Government to remain sitting where they are.

May I put a question?

No, Sir, my time is limited. In regard to the removal of the Bantu from the Western Cape one finds the same confusion of tongues. The Nationalist Press calls the removal of the Bantu the touchstone of the policy of apartheid. Unless the Bantu are removed from the Western Cape, that policy cannot succeed, says their Press. But speak to the ordinary Nationalist and he will tell you: “Yes, my friend, we want to remove them.” He answers you in the language of the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden), who told us during last session: “Yes, we will remove them but nobody will suffer.” This is a typical example of the double-barrelled shotgun with which the Nationalist Party hunts the voters. On the one hand they say: “People, this is a policy which demands sacrifices; the Bantu must be removed from the Western Cape and that will demand sacrifices.” But scarcely has that warning been uttered than they say on the other hand: “Vote for us, people; you need not be concerned; there will be no sacrifices; you will not suffer any harm.”

Let me give another example, Sir. We have a person like Chief Minister Matanzima who, as it were, stands in the forefront of the practical implementation of the policy of apartheid. He is a person who ought to know the essence of that policy. Does he not sit at the same political table and eat the same political food as the Nationalist Party? Surely he, above anyone else, ought to know that it is basic to the policy of the Nationalist Party that no property rights should be granted to the foreign Bantu in the so-called White areas. He ought to know that, but when he met his kindred spirits in Natal he told them: “I shall ask the Government to grant you property rights.” He does not realize the truth; he is too ignorant to realize that this promise of his is diametrically opposed to the basic policy of the Nationalist Party. He is just as ignorant in regard to that policy as the thousands of Nationalists who to-day follow that policy. Nor is it merely a question of ignorance; let me come to the untruths which are being told not only in connection with our policy but also in regard to that of the Nationalist Party. Listen to this choice which is put down in black and white—

That may perhaps be a new word for many hon. members; it simply means “bastardized” (verbasterede)—

That means one thing only; vote for the United Party and you vote for a bastard nation. Here we now have a modern adaptation, in modern Afrikaans, of the old “Kafferboetie” politics of 20-30 years ago. What a vile accusation to make against a fellow South African simply because politically he thinks differently from you! What is more, what a shocking untruth to be told by a party which always with priestly piety holds itself up to the people as the party with the high motives and the noble ideas. That is now the Christian National Party, Sir.

Let us now see how true the second choice is: “Vote Nationalist, and you vote for a White South Africa.” Putting it at its mildest, this is an obvious untruth. At the most, the Nationalist Party can claim that they want a non-Bantu South Africa, and even that appears to me to be an idle dream. But what right have they to talk about a White South Africa? There has never been anything of that kind and there never will be, unless the Nationalist Party becomes so energetic (kragdadig) as magically to make the Coloured and the Asian disappear from South Africa. This is the type of propaganda and the untruths we get. I want to read to you from the Vaderland of 24 November, Mr. Speaker. I mention the date because that is the date on which the Edenvale election, of which hon. members opposite are so proud, took place. It was on the occasion of that election that these untruths were dished up to the people as the holy truths of a Christian National Party. I read—

I say that only those who do not know the position in South Africa have confidence in the false image created by that party. Thousands of people who support that party do not know what their practical policy is. Recently the Burger wrote that the greatest missionary work should not be done among the members of the United Party, but among the supporters of the Nationalist Party. If one has to become converted in respect of a policy, then surely one knows nothing about that policy. But the people vote for that policy. The fact is that the Nationalist does not know that policy but he votes for it as the result of the image which the Nationalist Party has built up over the years.

There is still something else, Mr. Speaker. I say that those who support the Nationalist Party because they think that the policy of that party will ensure the future of the Whites in South Africa will lose that confidence when they realize that the Nationalist Party cannot succeed in complying with the basic requirements of that policy. The first requirement I wish to state is that the number of Bantu who are at present in the so-called White South Africa will have to be reduced to a number appreciably smaller than the number of Whites.

Do you subscribe to that?

The hon. member asks whether I subscribe to it. Does he subscribe to it? That is a very important question.

You have always said something different.

The hon. member for Kempton Park asks a peculiar question. He asks whether I subscribe to this basic fact. I ask him, as someone who propagates and advocates this policy, whether he subscribes to it?

What other standpoint have I ever adopted?

In other words, he does not agree with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development who says that for generations to come we will still have millions of Bantu in our midst. I want to repeat that the Nationalist Party makes the statement that it wants to keep the White people white. I state it as my conviction that in terms of its policy it has not the slightest hope of keeping the White population white unless it can reduce the number of Bantu in South Africa to such an extent that it will be appreciably smaller than the number of Whites. And when I say that I also say that they should be able to reduce the number be times, and appreciably.

Are you now abandoning influx control?

The Government has never yet given the slightest indication that it has any conception of the urgent nature of this matter.

But secondly the question arises in my mind as to whether the Government has ever given any proof that it wants to do this. This afternoon the hon. the Leader of the Opposition gave us significant figures showing that in sixteen years of Nationalist government the Nationalist Party has not yet done anything in support of this basic fact. Even here in the Western Cape, where the problem is smaller, and which constitutes the test, they have not been able to solve the problem. They blow hot and cold. They preach one thing and do another. They ridicule economic integration and reject it as a fact. And then they come and tell us, like the hon. member for Kempton Park, that in order to save the White man you must remove the Bantu until their numbers are appreciably smaller than those of the Whites in South Africa. I put it to you …

May I put a question to the hon. member?

Not at the moment. I put it to you, Sir, that unless the Nationalist Party complies with this cardinal requirement it does not have a hope of safeguarding the White man in South Africa. And that is only one of the requirements.

One of the prerequisites.

I am not even talking about the requirements stated in respect of the Black states. I also want to say that when I think of the report of the Tomlinson Commission, which stressed the urgency of the matter, and I think of the existing circumstances in Africa and in South Africa, then I say that the Government does absolutely nothing to prove that it realizes the urgency of the matter. But what is more, if they do not do that they are doing absolutely nothing to safeguard the Whites in South Africa, but they are creating a greater danger for the Whites. Because what are they doing? They are creating a politically aware Bantu in his own state, a Bantu who will be inspired by Black nationalism (which the Nationalist Party helped to cultivate), a Bantu who will be inspired by Pan-Africanism (for which they opened the back door). But the Government says: “Here in the White area you will exercise no rights; here you must live in a political vacuum, in a position of political sterility.” And that is being told to people who have discovered the power of the franchise. I say that a more explosive situation against the White man cannot be imagined, and one day if the explosion comes only one Government will be responsible for it, and that is the Nationalist Government. The confidence of the people in the Nationalist Government does not rest on that policy; this confidence rests on the fact that they are not applying their policy in South Africa.

There is one thing on which I want to congratulate the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) and that is that he has now made it clear to us that the year 1965 is once again going to be the year of the more conservative section of the United Party. The Sunday Times has spoken, and the hon. member tells us that they are now going to follow the more conservative course. But at the same time the hon. member let the cat out of the bag. He gave us to understand quite clearly what was behind this whole movement. He also gave us to understand quite clearly what argument they propose to use at the forthcoming provincial elections. Their main argument, which he advanced here, is that in 16 years we allegedly misled the country by giving the electorate the impression that the National Party was the party which stood for the maintenance of White civilization. It is perfectly clear what the hon. member has in mind. Over the past 16 years they have seen how the United Party has been losing ground, not only in this House but also in the country. They now realize that the English-speaking section and everybody else are beginning to realize that the policy of the National Party is the only policy that we can possibly apply and that is why the United Party now suddenly changes front They now propose to say to the voters at the provincial election, “It is not true that the National Party is the only party which stands for the maintenance of White civilization. We also stand for White civilization and the Nationalists have been telling the country an untruth.” Sir, I want to say to them that that is not going to save the United Party. As far as ideas are concerned, as far as conditions are concerned and as far as principles are concerned the United Party is as dead as the mummy of Tutenkamen. All that is happening to them is that they are shrinking and becoming smaller, as happened in the case of the mummy. They sit over there to-day, and that is where they will continue to sit. The mummy remained there for three or four thousand years. We will probably continue to have the United Party in opposition for another few thousand years. There is no life in that party. Now at last, after 16 years, they suddenly discover that they too stand for White civilization.

Sir, what struck me in this motion was its wording. The hon. Leader of the Opposition begins by saying that this House has lost confidence in the Government. He knows that he dare not say that the nation or the electorate has lost confidence in the Government. That is why he limits it to this House and he alleges that this House has lost confidence in the Government. I was also struck by the fact that he started immediately with what the Sunday Times had told him, that is, that the United Party must simply accept the policy of Bantu homelands as the correct policy. The hon. member also told us that “it was common cause”—between the Parties, I assume—“that the Bantu areas must obtain self-government.” We have therefore convinced them now. But immediately thereafter the hon. member for Natal South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) stood up and condemned the policy of Bantustans from beginning to end and said, “This is the end of everything.” He says that if a Bantustan policy is followed it means the end of the Railways, it means the end of everything. He does not even know where these territories are. He had the Tomlinson Report in his hand; he also saw the maps in that report; he saw which areas were marked as Bantu areas in terms of the Act, but the hon. member tells us that he does not know where they are. What is one to do with a party, the leader of which says that he agrees that self-government must be given to the Bantu areas while his deputy leader stands up here the same afternoon and condemns the policy from beginning to end?

What also struck me was the fact that although three United Party speakers have now spoken, not one of them had a single word to say about their much-vaunted solution to the race issue, namely race federation. I want to ask them what has become of their policy of race federation. We have never quite known what this thing really means and I should like to try to-day to find out what “race federation” means. Not one of them had a single word to say about it. Or has the United Party now thrown overboard the policy of race federation, just as they have thrown the Senate plan overboard? Is that still their policy or is it no longer their policy? I shall be glad if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will reply to this. There is no reply and I take it that they simply cannot answer these questions. What does their policy of race federation mean; why do they not put it forward more often as an alternative plan to the policy of this side, the policy of promoting self-government in the Bantu homelands? No, they remain dead silent and they leave it to us to guess what their policy is.

The hon. member for South Coast now says that it is clearly recorded in their policy booklet that White leadership must be retained over the whole of the Republic. I do not want to cover the field which has already been covered by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). I just want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether, for our information, he can define a little more closely what he means by White leadership. What is White leadership? Does it mean that the supreme authority will vest in the White man? Does it mean that the White man will take the lead by way of consultation? What precisely does he mean by it? There are only three ways in which one can become a leader. One can become a leader through the permission of those whom one leads. I want to ask the hon. member for South Coast whether he thinks, particularly as far as the agitator element is concerned, that the small agitator section amongst the Bantu will ever give the United Party permission to act as their leaders? The Whites do not even want to accept them as leaders. Will the Blacks do so?

The other way in which one can become a leader is by way of elections. Have they any plan in that regard? Is the choice going to be given by way of an election to everybody to say whether they are prepared to accept them as their leaders? Is there any prospect that the Blacks will choose them as their leaders?

There is a third way in which to obtain leadership and that is to say: “It does not matter what you say or what you want; we have passed legislation and in terms of that legislation we are the leaders.” And if they do that, then the attitude which they adopt amounts in the long run to precisely the attitude described here by the hon. member for Vereeniging; in that case their attitude in the last resort is one of perpetual discrimination against the Blacks; it is an attitude of baasskap.

So far three of their members have spoken and already the United Party have indicated two or three different directions. The position that has arisen in Rhodesia is that the British Government is refusing to give self-government to the voters who make up the present electoral roll which consists largely of White voters, but with the prospect of a growing non-White vote. The hon. member for South Coast says that the United Party’s policy is that there will only be eight White representatives to represent the Blacks in this Parliament. His leader said in Natal about a year ago that he would rather have eight Blacks sitting here to represent the Blacks than have eight Bantustans. At first he said he agreed that the Bantu should be given self-government in their own areas; subsequently, however, he spoke against it. Similarly, he said at first that the farmers should be given higher prices for their products, but he added that there must be no rise in the cost of living. He speaks, as he usually does, with two voices; he sits on both sides of the fence. The point is that Rhodesia is unable to get independence from Great Britain for the present electorate in spite of the fact that they have 15 Blacks in their Parliament at the present moment. And the United Party now tell us that they want to give eight White representatives in this Parliament to the Blacks—the Leader of the Opposition may be prepared to allow eight Blacks to sit in this Parliament—and in following that course they think they are going to satisfy the Blacks in South Africa and that they are going to satisfy Britain. If Britain is not satisfied with the position in Rhodesia, is it likely that it will agree with what is suggested for our country by the United Party? Sir, I should like to read out to you the reaction of a man of English descent who is now in South Africa. He resides in the same constituency in which I live, Simonstown. Before I quote his words, I just want to refer to his reaction, as a person of British descent, to the action of the British Government. This was his reaction, not mine. Although I was born on a farm which was burnt down in the Anglo-Boer War, it is an open secret that I have always had a respect for that small island nation which conquered half the world. I cannot say that of the present-day Britain. But I want to emphasize that this was the reaction of this British-born person, not my reaction, although I wholeheartedly agree with the last portion of his remarks. He lives at Sea forth and on 4 November 1964 he wrote as follows in the Argus under the title “A Briton’s Lament”—

I just want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for South Coast that if they think that they will be able to win the goodwill of Britain by giving the Bantu in South Africa eight White representatives or even eight Black representatives in this Parliament, bearing in mind the fact that that is Britain’s attitude towards Rhodesia, then they must really be the most naive politicians in the whole wide world; if they are so naive as to believe that the Bantu in South Africa are going to be satisfied if they are given eight White representatives here, then they compare unfavourably with certain leaders in the Africa states.

What about the Coloureds?

Are these people not going to start agitating for more than eight representatives; are they not going to ask for 18?

What about the Coloureds?

Let the hon. member first answer this question. The Coloureds do have their representatives here, that is another problem. I want to tell hon. members opposite that the sentiments expressed in the words which I have quoted by English-speaking South Africans ought to make the United Party realize that they have no earthly hope of succeeding with their race federation plan and that they have no earthly hope either of succeeding and getting away with this somersault of theirs unless they throw in their weight behind the policy which is being followed by the Government. And if they want the sympathy of some of the Western Governments like the present British Government, then they will have to become Black, because they will only get this sympathy if they are Black: “You have to be black to be right.” There is not the slightest hope that they will ever succeed along these lines. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition really believes that independence should be granted to the Bantu areas then he should make use of this opportunity to repudiate the hon. member for South Coast because the hon. member for South Coast still adheres to the policy which they advocated when they condemned Bantustans at the outset and described them as launching pads for Communism. Otherwise they must follow the good advice of the Sunday Times and throw in their weight behind the Government’s policy and see to it that they support the Bantustans.

I would like, before proceeding, to touch upon one or two points that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) made.

Mr. Speaker, if one takes what the hon. member said at its face value, then we have at last discovered one hon. member opposite who has not got a copy of our “Handbook to Better Race Relations”. I suggest that he can find all the answers there to the questions he put in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and others opposite have been attempting to perpetuate in this debate a big propaganda story of the Nationalist Party. There are other propaganda stories of theirs which we have exposed and which they have now dropped. But the latest one is to suggest that there is any similarity between the United Party policy and that of the British and other colonial powers in Africa. It is a complete untruth. Indeed the very reverse is true, and I shall prove that the policy of the present Government is in line with the policies of the various colonial powers in Africa. First of all, a loyal organ of the Government has made that perfectly clear. In the Burger of 7 September 1962, we find—

When was it the policy of the British Government to have White leadership over and maintain it over its colonies in Africa? I trust that our honourable friends opposite will cease harping upon that point. Let me remind them that I can call the hon. the Prime Minister in evidence upon this point. He has said—

He likened it with what he was doing vis-à-vis Bantu territories. (Hansard 1959, Col. 64.) He said that what he was doing was what the outside world praises when colonial powers give independence to territories. That is what he is doing. And then hon. members opposite have the nerve to say that our policy has failed in the rest of Africa. It is the policy of the Nationalist Party which has been found wanting, their policy of pulling out of territories, colonial territories, which have then gone back to disorder and turbulence which we all abhor so very much.

We have heard a certain measure of elation from hon. members opposite because they are satisfied with the progress of their party at elections. I want to say to hon. members opposite that they should derive no satisfaction for their party from recent election results. Those election results were not a vote for the development of independent Bantustans, but very much the contrary, as hon. members opposite know in their hearts. I would like to see them put this policy of independent Bantustans strongly to their people with all that it entails. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, from the reaction I get opposite, I take it that hon. members opposite are very confident of their strength in the country, as indeed the Burger said to-day. I say to them: Never has a party been more cowardly in not carrying out its policy—if they are so strong. Because here they have a majority of 50 in this House and they say they are getting stronger every day, but they have not got the courage to get on with the policies which they and their organs say are absolutely vital to the future of this country. Sir, few of us in this House are admirers of Mr. Wilson, but at least with a majority of three he apparently is going to have the courage to go sternly ahead with his policies which he promised to bring into force.

I have said that the Government are lacking in courage to carry out their policies. The Burger in its discussion with Trouw as long ago as December 1963, was clearly calling for what it calls “’n massiewe ontwikkeling”. It said—

It goes on—

We find from the institution which so strongly has supported the Government, SABRA—I quote from the Burger of 23 August 1963—

And then we had a similar sort of statement in October 1963 from the Director of Bantu Labour in the Department of Bantu Administration, Dr. P. F. S. J. van Rensburg, who said—

What have we found? We have had words and words and action of an absolutely minimum kind. We have not had the action to slow down this flow, let alone stop it, and even less so to reverse. And this party has been prepared to support the Government in development here.

Let us take the Transkei, the great example of this policy. In the five years since this border industry policy has been announced approximately 2,000 jobs have been created on what are called the borders of the Transkei. (I may say that these borders are actually about 30 miles away, mostly in the valleys leading down to East London and near East London itself.) It is 2,000 in five years, and apparently the figures show that it is required to find jobs for 50,000 people per annum from those territories, away from the land. Sir, it is not as if the hon. the Prime Minister himself is unaware of this. In a statement following the meeting of the Economic Advisory Council last year he said that the border industries were not going up fast enough to help solve the two major problems facing the Government in the implementation of its policy of separate development, the population in the cities and the poverty in the homelands, and he referred to the poverty and unemployment in those areas. I ask the Government what great schemes have we had since that time which have in any way introduced a change in that state of affairs? All we hear is that in well-established areas like Durban and Pretoria industries are growing up in the old industrial areas. But in a place like the Transkei, which has the sympathy of the Government, we now hear that the Toyopet Motor Company itself has decided against going there, notwithstanding considerable inducements which were offered to it. So I ask hon. members opposite where their courage is.

Sir, various hon. members have touched upon the question of the Protectorates. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition gave certain facts to this House of the infiltration of Communism there, and I wish to give others from Government sources. Colonel van den Bergh, one of the senior heads of the Security Section, said in August 1963—

We had the same thought appearing in Dag-breek of April 19, 1964—

This is confirmed by the hon. the Minister of Justice, who said in 1964—

I am surprised that the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) actually said that he welcomed the rapid advance to independence of those territories. He virtually said that they should advance to independence as soon as possible. If he says that, I ask him why he does not say the same about the Bantu territories in South Africa.

I said I preferred what the hon. the Prime Minister offered them. [Interjection.]

No, the hon. member said he would rather negotiate with them than with Whitehall. I would ask him to consider that attitude very carefully. He suggested that nothing else could have been done in regard to the Protectorates. But it was the policy of every member on that side of the House, until very recently, that the Protectorates should be incorporated in the then Union, and I charge the Government with its failure not to secure those Protectorates and to incorporate them. But if we had had another, decent Government to negotiate, we would have had the Protectorates.

Order! Is the hon. member suggesting that the Government is not decent?

No Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Minister must withdraw the word “indecent.”

If I said “indecent” I withdraw it, and say that the Government is incompetent. But I would remind the hon. member for Vereeniging and other hon. members opposite that when they approach this whole question of negotiating with the Protectorates, once the Protectorates get their independence and there is a dispute between us and then, it becomes an international incident, and that can involve a threat to international peace and order. So I sincerely hope that they will give thorough consideration to the matter, more than the hon. member for Vereeniging has given to it; that they will ponder the matter. [Interjection.] Since the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) has so much to say, I would like to turn to a topic upon which he has expressed certain views.

I come now to the question of the sovereign independence of these Bantustans. I should like to make it perfectly plain that what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) said, namely, that we certainly stand for the development of those areas, is true; but the point is where we have to draw the line, and we draw the line at granting them sovereign independence. Now I ask hon. members opposite, when is it their intention that the Transkei should have independence? Because I want to say that I consider that we are entitled to conclude from the evidence that the Government is thinking of granting them independence in between eight and 13 years’ time. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Heilbron, when addressing the Institute of Citizenship in February 1963, is reported to have replied in answer to a question as to whether he would not get barbarism returning to those Native areas, as follows I quote from the Burger of 15 February 1963—

Sir, there we have a clear implication.

I said—“eight to 13 years” because the hon. member said this two years ago. I subtract two from 10 and from 15. The hon. member for Heilbron is not just an ordinary member of this House.

No, he is a very extraordinary member. There is nobody quite like him.

Among his particular qualifications is the fact that he is a member of the Bantu Affairs Commission.

The chairman.

I beg his pardon; yes, he is the chairman. He obviously had in mind those periods. He will never admit it now, but I do not doubt that he has changed his mind now that he has seen what has happened in the rest of Africa, and what will happen in the same sort of state that he is creating here.

Why not ask him what he will say now?

Yes, what would the hon. member say now? He is too nervous to say anything now. But those were the days when the Nationalist Party thought that you could create these independent states and live happily ever after, just as the British did; but the United Party never believed that.

I want to say this, especially to the hon. member for Vereeniging: When you have created these Bantu states and they attain independence, what have you done but create new dangers? We still have the greater part of the Native peoples outside those areas, so you have by no means got away from what you greatly fear, namely this so-called majority government. With the Government’s failure to have the courage to establish industries in the reserves, these people are streaming into the White areas; the figures are growing daily; more and more jobs are being taken by them and that is the way things will go on.

Sir, I conclude by saying that it is our role to bring civilization to all the peoples of this country and to obtain their loyalty against the day when it may be needed, and we shall certainly go on doing this notwithstanding any temporary apparent advantage hon. members opposite may have achieved at elections.

I merely rise to say a few words in regard to the allegations the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made against my Department in respect of Parity. I would not have risen to speak had it not been for those allegations. I have already announced that a judicial commission of inquiry will be appointed and I would have thought under the circumstances that it was not necessary to anticipate the findings of that commission.

What are they going to investigate?

I know that many other things can also be said about the officials of Parity. According to rumour, there are also people who are closely connected with the Opposition, but I do not rise to make any allegations.

Will you tell us what the terms of reference of the Commission will be?

That I cannot at the moment precisely say; I can just say in general that the commission will be appointed to investigate the causes which led to the Parity debacle, to the Liquidation of Parity, and to make further suggestions, bearing in mind the legislation which is now before the House for the protection of the interests of policy-holders in general.

Has the Judge been appointed yet?

As I have said, I do not wish to make any allegations, but I cannot allow the opportunity to pass without correcting certain statements of fact by the Leader of the Opposition. I fear that the Leader of the Opposition’s instructions were not clear enough to enable him to state a stronger case, a stronger case in the sense of its being more in line with the facts. I do not want to expatiate on the probable motive which moved the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to raise this matter here.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the lateness of the hour I wish to move—

Agreed to; debate adjourned.