I move the following amendment—

As the Committee can infer, there were merely printing mistakes in these cases of “dorpe” in Afrikaans, and “administration” in English. With reference to the objection raised yesterday by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) in regard to the English translation of this clause, I just want to add that it was thoroughly checked and the translation was found to be correct; it was in fact drafted by our Department but it was also scrutinized later by the chief legal draughtsman of Parliament, and this was felt to be a satisfactory translation. In fact, we have received no other alternative improved translation, and I trust that the amendments I have moved will satisfy the Committee.

The amendment moved by the hon. Minister does not remove the complaint of the hon. member for Natal South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) that it is difficult to understand the clause as it reads at present. Before we go into a detailed discussion of the clause, I would like the hon. Minister to tell us exactly what the new words mean, the words which have been added “or which is binding on the owner of the land concerned”. When the hon. Deputy Minister dealt with this clause at the second reading, he said that these amendments were being inserted mainly at the request of the Provincial Administration of the Cape where there had been difficulties in applying the law because the Administrator could only act where town-planning had been finally approved. He finds himself hamstrung now because if plans have not been finally approved, he cannot authorize any variation. But, surely the other provinces must have the same difficulties. The hon. Minister told us that the reasons given by the Cape Administration were that there is a shortage of trained and qualified town-planners and that there had been rapid development in the Cape. But I submit that the development of townships has been just as rapid in the other provinces, and we cannot see why the Cape alone should have these difficulties. You see, Sir, the only new words which have been added are “or which is binding on the owner of the land concerned”. Let me read the section. It deals with the Administrator having the right to publish an amendment to a town-planning scheme or to remove restrictions in a title deed. The Administrator can only do that in certain circumstances. It says—

Provided, Sir, that he cannot alter any restrictions in regard to mineral rights, and that he can only do this in certain circumstances. Now we want to know if this amendment is necessary now because of the Ronnie Motors vs. Van der Walt’s and Others case? You see, Sir, in that case the Administrator did remove certain restrictions and Ronnies Motors who were affected by the removal of those restrictions against the erection of filling stations in their vicinity applied to the Supreme Court of the Eastern Districts to have the Administrator’s action declared invalid. They failed there and went to the Appellate Division and the Appellate Division held that the Administrator could not act in that manner. The Cape and other provinces then found themselves in this difficulty that Administrators had been acting illegally, and so last year we were asked to amend the law by validating any action taken by an Administrator prior to 1 October 1962. If that amendment was satisfactory and was all that was required by the other provinces, why does the Cape now require some further assistance? The Administrator may by proclamation remove restrictions, but he shall not publish such a proclamation unless he is satisfied “that it is desirable to do so in order to enable the owner of the land concerned to use it for any purpose for which he may use it in terms of a town-planning scheme which is under any law relating to town planning, in operation in respect of the townships in question”. That is how the law reads at the moment, and now the hon. Deputy Minister wants to add “or which is binding on the owner of the land concerned”. I say that the law as it stands seems to give the Administrator the power to amend a town-planning scheme. Because what do these words refer to: “The Administration is satisfied that it is desirable to do so in order to enable the owner of the land to use it for any purpose for which he may use it in terms of a town-planning scheme.” Why are the words added “or which is binding on the owner of the land concerned”? Because, Sir, the operative words are “a town-planning scheme which is under any law relating to town planning, in operation in respect of the township in question”. Once a town-planning scheme is applied, it is in operation. I cannot see why these extra words “r which is binding on the owner of the land concerned” must now be added to give the Administrator the necessary powers to act before the town-planning scheme has been finally approved. It seems to me that these words “or which is binding on the owner of the land concerned” only apply to restrictions in a title deed. Is this the problem now facing Van der Walt and Others in the East London case that they cannot proceed to erect a filling station because of a restriction in the title deed? Because there is also a restriction in the title deed in that case as well as in the town-planning scheme. We would like the hon. Minister to give us the details and to tell us exactly why these words are being added.

I stated very clearly in my second reading speech yesterday that the Cape Province finds itself in serious difficulty as the result of the fact that its township schemes have not been finally approved. I am informed that even Cape Town’s township scheme has not yet been finally approved. Now the law advisers interpret it in such a way that the Administrator of the Cape Province cannot make any amendments in township schemes submitted to the City Council, and submitted by the City Council to the Administrator, before he has not first finally approved of those schemes. Surely that is quite logical. Such a scheme must first be approved by the Administrator before he can subsequently make any alteration. Now the question is, what is “binding”? As I explained yesterday, those township schemes which have not yet been finally approved by the Administrator of the Cape are in fact binding on the local authority which submitted them, and are in fact binding on the inhabitants of that area covered by the scheme, and those inhabitants in fact have the right to appeal to the Administrator in regard to any amendments. But now the law advisers, to whose opinions we are compelled to listen in regard to such legal interpretations, say that the fact that they are “binding” does not necessarily mean that they are effective. They are only effective when finally approved by the higher authorities, and now we add to this “what is effective in respect of the township concerned or what the owner of the relevant land thinks”. In other words, now the Administrator can make amendments in respect of title conditions not only in respect of these approved schemes but also in respect of the schemes submitted by the City Council and approved. That is the intention, and the need for it is very urgent. Because if one bears in mind that not a single township scheme in the Cape Province has been approved, our refusal to pass this provision means that we in fact want to freeze all development in the Cape Province. That is a responsibility which the Committee surely will not shoulder lightly. The position is that in the first place it is of importance to the Cape Province for the reasons I gave yesterday. I mentioned that the Cape argued that they did not have enough township technicians and that other development problems existed. Now the hon. member asks me why we passed this only for the Cape in view of the fact that other provinces must definitely experience the same difficulties. But they do not experience the same difficulties to the same extent, because for some reason or other they pass their township schemes more quickly. I understand that in the Transvaal a township scheme is passed particularly soon. Perhaps fewer requirements are set. I have no technical knowledge in that regard. I merely give the fact that in the Transvaal township schemes are passed more speedily. Therefore in the first place this matter will be of importance to the Cape. Now the case of Ronnie’s has been mentioned and the question was asked whether this provision is being introduced in view of Ronnie’s case. No. it is being introduced to serve the public in the Cape and in South Africa. We do not introduce legislation to protect the interests of an individual. I do not even know the people who are concerned in this matter, and I know particularly little about the matter, and the less I know about it the better. We are dealing here with the principle.

The hon. the Deputy Minister misunderstood me. Last year we adopted an amendment with a view to the decision in the Ronnie’s case. I ask whether the position is that this provision has become necessary because of that decision?

It is in the interest of the orderly development of our townships that this measure is being introduced. In so far as the decision in Ronnie’s case is concerned, my Department informs me—

Surely hon. members can follow the basic principle here. viz. that unless this concession is made for the Cape, which can also benefit the other provinces, it simply means that no town in respect of which a township plan has been submitted can make any amendment to provide that a plot which was, for example, indicated as a residential plot, will now be used for a clinic or a hospital or a police station. In this respect we dare not stand in the way of such essential developments.

The hon. Minister has indicated that the other provinces don’t have the same problem, and indeed so far as Natal is concerned, the hon. Minister is perfectly right. We do not have the same problem. But if the problem which the hon. Minister has outlined here is what this clause is intended to cure, then this could have been dealt with by the Cape Province Provincial Council. If the hon. Minister’s argument is right that this does not apply in other provinces and only applies in the Cape …

It applies in the other provinces too, but not to the same extent.

That is not what the hon. Deputy Minister said, but be that as it may, the hon. Deputy Minister says that this is a Cape problem. If it is a purely Cape problem and does not exist in the other provinces, then it is not necessary to pass legislation in this House. The Cape Provincial Council could pass the necessary legislation. But that is the very point that is made in Ronnies case. In Ronnies case the court said that the Administrator could not do what he wanted to do, that is to say, to allow something to happen in the interest of one single party; he had to consider what was in the interests of the township as a whole, and he had to do that because the section of the Act which is being amended by this Bill makes it compulsory for him—I read—

What has the hon. Deputy Minister done here? This law does not say that if there is a township or a town-planning scheme in the course of preparation, he can alter it. If that is what the hon. Deputy Minister is getting at, why does he not say so? What he actually says here is: Regardless of whether it is in the interest of the town-planning scheme, regardless of whether he could do it in terms of that town-planning scheme, regardless of all those factors which are the law as it stands now, he may change that title not having regard to those things. This is very important. As this clause is worded at the moment, it strikes at the very root of this Act. Why does the Act now say that you may not change that title unless it is a change which will enable the owner to use it for purposes for which he can use it in terms of the town-planning scheme, simply because town-planning schemes have certain rules applicable to them. Because the ordinary man in the street buys a property in a township knowing the conditions of title, and he buys a plot because he wants to live in a residential area. Under those conditions, knowing that it cannot be changed into any other sort of area, he will buy plot 21 knowing that plot 20 and plot 22 on either side of him will be residential areas, and that they will not be turned into service stations.

The case which the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) raised is one which is met four-square by this amendment. In other words, it allows the Administrator to do something in favour of one plot-holder alone which this Act, which the Bill now seeks to amend, prohibits him from doing. What the Administrator tried to do in Ronnies case was ultra vires of this Act. So it goes very much further than the Deputy Minister has indicated. If the Deputy Minister merely wishes to cure the case that the Administrator in the Cape does not have this power to do anything when there is a township in the course of preparation, he should say so; because the case the Deputy Minister made does not cover the case raised by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories. It does not cover the case of Ronnies Garage. It does not cover the case of the Administrator giving a special favour to one plotholder. But the clause covers that, although the Minister’s argument does not cover it. I hope the Deputy Minister will answer the question put by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories, viz. was this clause in fact inspired by Ronnies case? Because if it is so, it goes against the whole principle of town planning and it goes against every right enshrined in the Act which is given to the ordinary plotholder.

I hope the Deputy Minister will agree to the clause being negatived. The position at the moment is this, that where there are conditions of title those conditions, as they did in the past, govern the position until such time as the town-planning scheme has been accepted and is final; and we must remember that before a town-planning scheme is final there is ample opportunity for the public to get to know all about it; it is advertised and there is an opportunity to object. Now, that very sound position which has enabled one to do away with conditions which have been outgrown by the development of the town, has been found to be very sound. But the safeguard of surrounding people is that the change may not be made until after there is a town-planning scheme in operation which is binding, and which is known, and even then it is still necessary to make application for the amendment of the conditions of title, and there is a further inquiry. I have personal knowledge of cases where the amendment of conditions in a township was actually in progress, and the town-planning scheme was actually amended, and when it came to the amendment of the title it was refused, I believe, for good reason. It is a question of safeguarding existing rights. Very often, by giving rights to one person, you damage the rights of adjoining persons. The case has been mentioned of persons who have built residences in an area where it is proposed, for example, to put up a garage. It may be, on the other hand, that there are competing businesses in the neighbourhood. I say that it is a most satisfactory provision that you cannot interfere with those vested rights until such time as there is a final town-planning scheme in respect of the area concerned. If you rest on that the position is clear and the public is fully protected. On the basis which the Minister is now suggesting, it will be possible for persons to get amendments. It is true that they will still have to be advertised and perhaps there will be objections raised, but part of the protection enshrined in the existing law is now being taken away. I believe it would be a mistake for this House to put this provision on the Statute Book. The hon. the Minister has made out no case for it. It is all very well to say that the Cape has been slow, but don’t forget, simply because the Cape has been slow it is now intended to introduce new provisions which will enable the conditions of the title to be changed in advance of the final approval of the town-planning scheme. The result is that the protection people have in their title deeds can be swept away, and that not in accordance with an approved town-planning scheme. I do submit to the Minister that the amendment is thoroughly unsound. Certainly the reasons given by the Minister to-day in no way allay my own fears. It is far better to leave the law as it is, and where there are hard-luck cases, those persons can bring pressure to bear on the Cape Administration who finalize their town-planning schemes.

We listened very carefully to the Deputy Minister when he originally put his case in the second reading and it seemed quite clear that his objective was that he wanted to meet the difficulty where town planning was a little behind schedule, and he did not want to prejudice the rights of plot-holders and did not want them to be held up in their development because the scheme had taken so long to be finalized. But the Act as it stands gives the Administrator all the necessary powers. Without this particular amendment, the powers the Administrator has are very wide and they have been used very extensively over a number of years. In fact, it is my submission that it has worked so satisfactorily that there has never been any sound reason to seek for an amendment of those particular powers which have stood the test of time since 1946. I do not think that the reason that the Deputy Minister has given for this amendment is sufficiently sound. I do not think it meets what he feels is a deficiency in the law, because no such deficiency exists. In addition to that, let me be perfectly frank. The wording is not very grammatical. It takes a little time to discover in one’s mind what exactly the Minister wants. One had to wait for his explanation in the House to find out what the purpose was. My view is that in this type of legislation one has to exercise the utmost care in the wording of such a clause because here powers are given which override the rights of the citizen. But there is a reason why those powers are given, and there is elaborate procedure laid down—I am talking about the procedure in the Transvaal—whereby all persons who may be interested are apprised of the application and are given an opportunity to make their representations before the township’s board, which appoints a special subcommittee to listen to the representations of both sides. Those representations are then considered and a recommendation is made to the board itself, and then the board submits its recommendations to the Administrator. That elaborate machinery has worked very well in the Transvaal and I imagine it could work well anywhere else because it has been set up to achieve a certain purpose, to amend a restriction in a title deed where it can be proved that there may be a hardship or that it is necessary for the development of the township. In fact, the township’s board goes further. Because it concerns land which is the subject of a town-planning scheme, it actually consults the local authority and seeks its views in the matter, and the views of the local authority are very vital. Now, I do not think the Deputy Minister should proceed with this clause. I would suggest, in all fairness to him, that perhaps this clause should be held over and that it should be reconsidered by the Department. It is not a simple matter to deal with. It involves land and we in South Africa have always jealously guarded any provisions in our laws dealing with land. We have our deeds registration which jealously guards land rights. The Minister knows the problems we have had over the years in regard to farm tenure and servitudes over land. He knows that there is legislation pending which deals with the question of removing restrictions in wills which can bind the disposition of land for many generations. We have had to deal with that problem because land was put under restrictions for four or five generations under fidei commissum in many wills. These matters have been dealt with already, but only after the most careful consideration. We feel that an amendment tacked on in the manner in which this one has been tacked on to an important clause of this nature cannot be dealt with lightly. Unless the Minister has something much more substantial to offer to us than the explanation that has been given, I do not think that we on this side can accept this clause as it stands.

I said yesterday, and it was repeated by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes), that we have had difficulty in understanding this clause. I have paraphrased the clause to try to get at its meaning. I hope the Deputy Minister will correct me if I read into it a meaning which is not intended. We are dealing here with the owner of land which has been encumbered. It says that he, the owner of the encumbered land, may use the land in terms of a town planning scheme which is in operation or which is binding on the owner of the land concerned. If I am right, in the second place, i.e. in terms of a town planning scheme which is binding on the owner of the land concerned, that is not a scheme which is in operation.

Because it has not been proclaimed yet.

Yes, it is not in operation, so that it boils down to this. In the other provinces the Administrator will not touch such a matter until the scheme is in operation, but because in the case they are dilatory the Minister wants to interfere before the scheme is finalized and make changes in regard to these restrictive conditions and the title. Now, why should Parliament be asked to agree to that? Are we now to legislate because of the dilatoriness of a particular Provincial Administration? That is what it boils down to. The Minister said that they were slow with their schemes in the Cape. I say that if they were to get a move on and provide machinery for the quick handling of these schemes, as is done in the other provinces, there would be no need for this kind of legislation to come before us in Parliament. The Minister need only approach the Cape Administration and tell them to put their house in order and do their work properly. Why should Parliament be asked to pass legislation to ensure that a lazy lot of people do their work properly? Because that is really what it boils down to. Why should we have to pass legislation like that not only to get the Cape out of its trouble because it is dilatory, but the Minister also said to me yesterday afternoon in an interjection that it may apply to the other provinces later on. Why should it be assumed that they will also be dilatory? Surely the answer should be that the Minister should warn them that he will not put up with that kind of request. There is only a mere assumption that such a need may arise in the other provinces. But we are asked to legislate for one province because it is dilatory and unbusinesslike in dealing with these matters. Sir, I do not want to emphasise what my colleagues have already said about the entirely undesirable principle of interfering with a man’s title deed. When a man has his title deeds he should not be interfered with by somebody who approaches the Administrator or the Minister through Heaven knows what channels. That sort of thing will lead to a lot of trouble if it is allowed to happen. We feel that no justification has been made out for this clause, and I hope the Minister will see it in this light and that he will withdraw this clause. No case has been made out for it. It is not necessary in three provinces, and in the Cape they can deal with it adequately if they would only get on with the job.

If my reading of this clause is correct, I believe that it strikes at the whole basis of town planning. As the position is at the moment, as soon as an area is taken into consideration for a planning scheme, it is frozen and the planning body is able to take into consideration all the restrictions contained in the various title deeds, and they can plan the area as it is, and that is the basis of the whole town plan. But according to this clause, if it becomes law, it means that whilst that area is in fact being planned, while it is still in the course of being planned, the Administrator can come along and break down the whole basis of that town planning scheme, even when it might be nearly completed, by removing restrictions in the title deeds and using for a totally different use an area which is intended for a certain use in the plan. If we are going to allow legislation which will achieve that, why worry about town planning, because the whole basis of town planning is then broken down. I am sorry, but I cannot agree with this clause as it stands. I admit quite frankly that as it is worded I am not absolutely clear as to what it means, but if the Minister agrees with my interpretation, that the Administrator can remove restrictions if they are in conflict with a town plan … [Interjections.] At the moment the Administrator cannot remove restrictions if the town plan is not complete. I think that is a fair interpretation of the original Act because before he can remove it he must refer it to the townships board. Now he will not have to do that any more; he can just remove those restrictions without having any regard what ever to a town planning scheme which is still in the course of preparation. I think that is a very bad thing.

I think this discussion indicates a basic difference of approach between this side and that side of the House. Our approach is that one should at all times try to serve the public and not cause it unnecessary inconvenience. It is true, as the hon. member for South Coast has said, that the Cape Province should put its house in order. It is all very well and good to reprimand them, but we will not help the people here by telling the Administrator that he should put his house in order. That will bring us no further in regard to the present problem, because it will still take years before the township schemes in the Cape are approved. Is the public of the Cape Province still to suffer for years as the result of our obstinate attitude in this House? Is it not our duty to be helpful in such a case? It is correct that the Administrator, I take it in good faith, acted irregularly last year when he approved the application in Ronnie’s case, but he did so in order to allow the development of the township to continue. But the court found that he had acted irregularly in terms of the Act, and therefore it is our task to assist local authorities to function as smoothly as possible. It is not true to say that I said: “It is purely a Cape problem.” No, it is primarily a Cape problem. It may be that in the course of time similar problems will arise in other provinces. But I should like to take this opportunity to reply to the allegation that we do not want to protect vested rights. I can assure hon. members opposite that this side of the House is just as anxious as they are to protect vested rights. But by passing this clause we intend extending that narrow interpretation—as the hon. member for South Coast called it—“is in operation”, which really means that it must be proclaimed in order to be effective, so that if it is binding on that local authority, there can also be amendments in respect of those cases. To allege that perhaps this will be abused and that there are not enough safety valves is wrong. I think I must remind the Opposition that there are numbers of safety valves to prevent arbitrary action being taken in this way; because before an Administrator can issue a proclamation in regard to the amendment of any conditions of title, he must first refer that application to the townships board for investigation and report, and the opportunity is given to people to lodge objections, and eventually it is the State President who has to approve it by way of a proclamation. And before the President proclaims it the application is referred to the Administrator, who has already had the matter investigated by the townships board and who has received its report, and there has already been an opportunity for objections to be lodged. Then the matter is referred to the Department of the Interior which is entrusted with the administration of this legislation, and the Department investigates the matter very carefully, and then that proclamation, after all these safety measures have been applied, is tabled in the House of Assembly and the Senate. I can hardly imagine more safety valves to stop any abuse or any violation of vested rights. Therefore I say that the passing of this provision is necessary in the public interest, so that we do not hamper progress but assist it.

What the Deputy Minister has said may have had some force were it not for this fact, that as far as the scheme is concerned it can always be altered by the body promoting it. Many schemes have been altered in the course of their going through, and the real and proper safeguard in this matter is that a change of this nature, which may have very serious consequences, should only be made after finality has been reached. I think it is utterly wrong and no amount of argument can convince me that it is right that before there is a final town-planning scheme changes can be made which in fact determine what the final form of that scheme will be. It is basically unsound and I submit that the safeguards in the law as it stands are right and proper and should not be interfered with.

Can the Minister give us one or two examples of the difficulties facing the Administrator of the Cape Province? For years under the Cape Ordinance dealing with townships, municipalities, acting under pressure from the owners of land, and intending users, used to get amendments to town planning schemes “in the course of preparation”, and the town planning schemes themselves never came to finality. The Administrator, acting within his powers, introduced amendments to the Ordinance as a result of which town planning schemes in the course of preparation were regarded in exactly the same light as actual schemes. The Administrator took away the powers of local authorities in regard to changing the use of land under town planning schemes in the course of preparation, and put an end to a state of uncertainty which was growing up. I put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister, that the Administrator surely does not wish to act now in terms of the very powers which he took away from the local authorities. A town planning scheme in the course of preparation must surely affect the use of the land until that scheme is finally published and proclaimed. Then everybody knows exactly where he stands. Without casting any aspersions or suspicions, I put it to the Deputy Minister; Is it not possible that pressure may be brought to bear for changes of usage to be made while town planning schemes are in the course of preparation? The Deputy Minister might give us one or two examples. I think he should let consideration of this clause stand over until such time as we have them. I do not think, with all due respect — and I have had some experience of administering the townships ordinance in the Cape Province — that the Deputy Minister has made out a very good case.

The instances quoted by the hon. member really constitute the reason why this provision should be inserted. The Administrator of the Cape Province had cases where he made amendments, and the court told the Administrator that he had acted irregularly. We accept that he did so in good faith. The fact is that it was done; according to the court it was irregular and Cape Town can continue with its development only if this amendment is accepted.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—85: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, J. M.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J.; Frank, S.; Grobler, M. S.F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Henning, J. M.;Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.;Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—46: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bloom.berg, A.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Lewis, H.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and T. G. Hughes.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Just before the debate was adjourned yesterday, I pointed out that we were grateful to the Minister and his Department for the memorandum we received dealing with the various provisions of this Bill. I also said further that most of these provisions of the Bill struck us as being good ones. We definitely think that it is a good thing that provision be made to pay gratuities to Native employees of the Railways who, due to circumstances over which they have no control, are compelled to leave its employment. We also think it is a good thing that the fines for certain offences should be revised to correspond with the value of money to-day and to be in line with fines imposed for other offences. We think it is a good thing that where expropriation documents should be served the practice in ordinary life should now be legalized. It is good that telecommunication facilities should not be limited merely to railway lines; that should have been changed long ago, ever since the Railways have also had to deal with air services, and now even with petrol pipelines. We also consider it a good thing for consequential amendments to be made which flow from the fact that we have become a Republic. All these things and many others are of course desirable and the hon. the Minister may be assured of our support in this matter. There are other provisions which we support but in regard to which we have certain questions we want to put to the Minister before the Committee Stage, in the hope that the Minister’s reply will be such that it will save time at that stage. There are, e.g. the very sound provisions in Clause 79, which give Railway servants the opportunity to join the pension fund if they did not do so on 1 January 1949 or on the occasions thereafter which were granted to them. We understand that the object of this is also to give them due notice as to the obligations they will assume if they join the fund. That has never been done before. It appears strange to us that it should have taken 16 years before something so practical and obvious was tackled. What we deplore is the fact that there is a very large number of Railway servants who. in the meantime, have retired on pension and who probably did not have a chance to make use of this opportunity of joining the fund, knowing what their obligations would be. One wonders whether something cannot be done to give these people who have now left the service, and who are not being given this opportunity in terms of this Bill, a chance to improve their position also, in the full knowledge of what they are embarking upon and of what they have been deprived in the past due to what one can only call defective administration or a lack of insight on the part of the Administration.

This is the type of question on which we will be glad to have replies from the Minister when he replies to the debate, and there are quite a few others also. There is. e.g. the clause raising the retiring age of Airways personnel—pilots and other officers who undertake flights. Provision was made for this in the Bill, and it is explained in the memorandum. But during his second-reading speech the hon. the Minister informed us that because the relevant personnel is opposed to it he would remove the provision and an amendment would accordingly be placed on the Order Paper. Well, there are two questions: Firstly, the hon. the Minister ought to explain to us, if I am correct, that these people in fact have the choice voluntarily to remain on longer, or is that not the case? Have they no such choice?

Not if this proposed amendment is adopted.

Then we on this side of the House particularly regret it and we wonder whether the Minister cannot take this matter further because these people are trained, highly technical men who during the present shortage of manpower are of inestimable value to us. It is tragic that such people should retire on pension at an age where it has been proved medically and otherwise that they can still make valuable contributions to the Airways.

I quite agree.

I am very glad to hear that, but then what I cannot understand is this—and here the hon. the Minister must help us: In the explanatory memorandum there is reference on page 8 to the fact that this proposed original amendment to the Act was introduced in consultation with the personnel concerned. The memorandum reads—

and then follow the provisions of the Bill. Has this personnel group changed its mind? Was there some misunderstanding? I think that the House is entitled to that information. But then I want to emphasize again that I am glad to learn from the Minister that the matter will be taken further; South Africa cannot afford to lose these people at an age when they are still able to render valuable services to the community.

Then there are the liquor provisions. In terms of Clauses 1, 34 and 35 of the Bill, it is necessary—and we immediately realize why it is necessary—that the ordinary liquor laws in so far as restaurants are concerned should not apply to the services provided at stations and airports, etc., because the object here is to cater for the needs of the travelling public. There is just one matter in regard to which we want to give the hon. the Minister notice—we will not take it very far in this discussion—namely, that we are concerned that with the handing over of many services to private initiative, a principle of which we approve, attention is devoted practically exclusively to the services rendered to the public, and perhaps not enough attention is being devoted to the staff of the S.A. Railways. We can take the matter further and say that the services rendered to the travelling public are perhaps not intended for the personnel, but then something must be done in the way of providing canteen and other services to railway officials who work in distant places in order to make life easier for them. As I have said, I do not want to go into that now, but I think the hon. the Minister should note that this is a matter which we will discuss with him thoroughly on other occasions.

Then we come to Clause 12, which we find to be a particularly interesting clause. This is the clause in which the Minister takes power to retaliate against countries which deny South African ships access to their harbours, and also to take action against ships which contravene the law within our fishing zones around our coast. The Minister has carefully considered the matter and has come to the conclusion, after thorough consideration, that no self-respecting state, no self-respecting nation, can deny its executive such powers. If we want to be worthy of our sovereign independence, then the executive of our country should have the power to relatiate when such reckless acts, such unjust and such wrong acts, are committed against the interests of South Africa. I hope the hon. the Minister will realize that that is how we feel, but now there are two questions. The first is particularly important, in my opinion. Can the hon. the Minister tell us whether in terms of this clause, the so-called “mercy” clause in shipping practice is being preserved? The hon. the Minister will know that international conventions concerning shipping contain what is commonly known as a “mercy” clause, which amounts to this, that where a ship is in danger, where there is danger to the lives and the safety of the crew of a ship, or when there is serious disease on board ship, then such powers are suspended in the interests of humanity. There is nothing in the clause to show that it will be preserved, and we shall be glad if the hon. the Minister would inform us as to the intention and whether he does not feel that one should perhaps write something like this into the Bill in order to state South Africa’s standpoint in regard to this question of humanity much more clearly so that there can be no misunderstanding, and so that there may be no distortion of our standpoint by people who are not well disposed towards us.

Then I should also, again in the hope that it will limit the discussion in the Committee Stage, like to ask the hon. the Minister a question in regard to the new Clause 4bis (c) of this proposed provision in regard to shipping in Clause 12. If the Minister will look at it, he will see that it amounts to this—

To deny access to a harbour to any ship—

Mr. Speaker, that seems very far-reaching. It seems to me as if the Minister is asking for more powers here than he actually wants to use. It is quite clear to me, from the spirit in which the hon. the Minister made his second-reading speech, that what he wants here is power to take action against countries which apply boycotts against us, where he considers that necessary—and he shall have to use his discretion—or otherwise to take action against people who commit offences against our interest in the sphere of fishing within our fishing zones. I take it that the hon. the Minister wants to limit his powers to that, and that he does not want further powers. But if one reads this Clause 4bis (c) together with the definition of territorial waters and fishing zones as contained in Act 87 of 1963 it would appear that the position is the following: Supposing a ship is sailing within six or 12 miles of our coast and that a former member of the crew commits a crime in Cape Town or Johannesburg, an offence which has nothing to do with boycotts or with the fishing industry in our fishing zones, then that ship can be prohibited from entering our harbours. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will not consider moving an amendment in the Committee Stage to state this limitation of his own rights for which he is asking here more clearly, and in that way to eliminate misunderstandings and distortions. We have already drafted an amendment which we are going to submit to him, but such an amendment should perhaps come more appropriately from the hon. the Minister himself.

Then I come to Clauses 75 and 76, which deal with the elimination of level crossings. We are quite happy in regard to Clause 75. It is clear that such measures are necessary. There may be certain other members opposite who would like to have information about it. In regard to Clause 76 I should like to have an assurance from the hon. the Minister. Clause 76 amounts to this, that the Minister or the Administration will have the power to use some of this money in the Level Crossing Elimination Fund to erect warning signs at existing crossings. That sounds reasonable and wise. So long as we can just save lives and make the traffic on our roads which cross the railways safer, we must welcome it. But we just want the assurance that this will not mean that there will be delays in regard to the elimination of such level crossings; that there will be no delays firstly because the money in the fund will be reduced, or secondly, because we will then be inclined to relax and to say: There are now warning signs and we need not concern ourselves with the necessity for completely eliminating that level crossing.

You will realize, Sir, that these questions I have asked do not make it necessary for the Opposition to vote against the relevant clauses. But when we come to Clause 57 we find a different position. Clause 57 is a very far-reaching clause which follows on the decision of the Airways technicians towards the end of last year to work according to the manual. It provides that where criminal proceedings are instituted against members of the personnel who participated in a strike and it is proved that through joint action they deviated from existing practices and norms in their work, which led to a reduced production or a decrease in the tempo of work, which in turn had a deleterious effect on the schedules of the services of the Administration, they will be as guilty as if they actually participated in a strike as defined in the Act. Then follows a provision which in my opinion is shocking, namely to compel employees of the Railways and members of trade unions, on pain of criminal sanctions, to be disloyal towards their fellow workers, to be what is known in trade union terminology as “scabs”. Unless they are willing to be “scabs” they are guilty of an offence because the clause provides that where there is such joint action not only must an employee refuse to take part in it, not only must he refuse to follow the idea of working according to the manual, but he must go further. He must be openly opposed to it and while it is in progress he must publicly express himself as being opposed to it. If he fails to do so he may be found guilty of the crime of participating in a strike in an essential transport service, the S.A. Railways, according to the Act we passed in 1963. The hon. the Minister will remember that we as an Opposition in 1963 were quite sympathetic towards his standpoint in regard to that legislation, but he is really going too far here. What is not yet quite clear to us as an Opposition is why the sound machinery created by the Minister with our approval in Act No. 7 of 1963 (Section 15), in terms of which the Advisory Council in regard to Conditions of Service may be called in to prevent such circumstances as prevailed at Jan Smuts Airport last year, was not put into operation. What went wrong? As we see the matter, the only thing that went wrong was simply the unsympathetic attitude of the Administration. If ever there was a case of—I cannot call it a go-slow strike, but slow action—then it came from the Administration in regard to the attitude they adopted towards those artisans in the S.A. Airways. The artisans publicly complained that they had made representations in May and that by September they were still struggling to get a reply from the Administration. Now is that good administration? Is that courteous behaviour towards one’s faithful employees? And when the representations were refused, that was done slightingly. Are these people who are skilled and trained people, people who do technical work, to be compared with bedding attendants on the passenger trains by high officials of the Railways? I take it that was done with the approval of the Minister. Is that the way to build up healthy relations with one’s employees? Is that the way to obtain their cooperation? Is that the way in which they apply that sound Section 15 of Act 7 of 1963? The Minister is not without blame.

Your facts are wrong.

No, Sir. If my facts are wrong, then there are many people who tell untruths.

Probably.

But the Minister can state his side of the case. That is why I am giving him this opportunity before we come to the Committee Stage where this clause will have to be discussed in detail.

The Minister might as well in his reply explain something else to us, namely this: How is he going to punish his employees if they work according to regulations and handbooks which are prescribed to them by his own Administration? In what position have we landed now? it may be necessary, as happened in the case of the artisans in the Airways, to deviate to some extent from that handbook in the interest of the Administration’s services. I am told by people who do this work that owing to the shortage of trained people in the Airways they have already for a considerable time not been able to do everything to an aircraft which has to be done according to the regulations when that aircraft is regularly serviced, and that certain of the processes prescribed by regulation are performed only at every other servicing, because experience has shown that this can be done without running any undue risk, and without creating a lack of safety for the public using the aircraft. But strictly speaking, it is illegal; it is not according to the regulations. If these people now decide that they cannot assume responsibility for not obeying the regulations, and they work according to the regulations, then they are guilty of an offence! How can the Minister expect people not to work according to the law and according to the handbook and the instructions evolved by the Administration itself? There is something wrong, and the Minister owes the House and the public a much better explanation than the one he gave in his second-reading speech. We hope that he will devote a little time to this and go into the matter thoroughly. It is of course possible to work according to the handbook or according to the regulations in a way which deliberately goes too far. to do it too literally, to do it too slowly. I take it that is what happened to some extent in the case of this strike. But what we should like to know is how this clause will be applied if people actually confine themselves to the handbook or the regulations, after there having been for some period a deviation, a deviation which is unavoidable in order to allow the work of the Railways to continue?

If you had read Section 7 of the 1963 Act, you would not have asked that question.

I have read it, but the Minister will have an opportunity to explain it. I want to mention the specific case of where people necessarily had to deviate from the regulations because there were not enough hands in order to obey those regulations. And then, whatever their motive is, jointly as an organized body, they decide to obey the law and to obey the instructions of the administration. How can the Minister then tell them that they are committing an offence? Mr. Speaker, Clause 57 of the Bill is in our opinion utterly unsatisfactory. We cannot understand how the Minister can come along with this tremendous restriction and create this uncertainty in regard to the duties of his employees without at the same time taking steps to amend e.g. Section 15 of the 1963 Act in order to place obligations on himself and on his administration also to be more efficient and more conciliatory and to take more speedy action when representations are made to them. Because there was also delay on his side; there was also blame on his side. He may deny it, but the impression of the public is definitely that blame also existed on the part of the administration, and that the machinery created in the 1963 Act in order to make strikes unnecessary and to allow justice to be done to the employees failed in this case. I want to suggest that it failed due to the unsympathetic and high-handed attitude of certain senior officials in the Railway Administration. There may have been unreasonableness on the part of the employees—I do not wish to deny that. But the fact remains that the machinery created in 1963 could not withstand this test. Why is the Minister now coming along with negative measures only? There is absolutely nothing positive to prevent a repetition of the unfortunate happenings of last year. Unless the hon. the Minister, in his reply to this debate, can convince us that this criticism of ours is not justified, we shall be compelled, although we will support the second reading of this Bill, to oppose this clause in the Committee Stage.

I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) in expressing our appreciation to the Minister and his staff for this lucid explanatory memorandum. I also want to express my gratitude for this legislation which once again gives pensioners and officials who were admitted as members of the new Railways and Harbours Superannuation Fund before 1 January 1949, the right to exercise an option. I think the hon. member for Yeoville is wrong if he believes that these officials did not have the opportunity previously to exercise an option. I say that they are now being given the opportunity once again to exercise the option and to contribute for the period of their noncontributory service and thus ensure that their pensions will be considerably higher. I feel that the opportunity which they are being given here is one for which they will be grateful towards the administration and the Minister.

I am also pleased about Clause 75 of the Bill which gives the administration the power to defray the full costs of the elimination of level crossings, or a greater portion of such costs than the usual 75 per cent, out of the Fund for the Elimination of Level Crossings. The balance in the fund as at 31 March of last year was R3,200,000 and one welcomes the fact that provision is being made in this Bill to expedite the elimination of level crossings. We are all aware of the dangers of level crossings, of the large number of accidents that they cause, and in view of the fact that the view has been expressed on various occasions in this House that this work should be accelerated and expedited, I think this is an amendment which will be generally welcomed.

That brings me to the proposal which the Opposition has decided to oppose and which is linked up with Clause 57. The hon. member for Yeoville, to my mind, made a very peculiar statement here. He first accused the Minister of being unsympathetic, of having neglected his duty. He flung that accusation at the Minister’s head without enlarging upon it. He was not satisfied with the Minister and he also talked about the “hooghartigheid van senior amptenare” (the haughtiness of senior officials). He really built up his whole argument on this assumption that the Minister was unsympathetic, that the Minister had neglected his duty, that there were senior officials who were behaving in a cavalier fashion, and he then said that possibly the employees were also being unreasonable. I think the hon. member for Yeoville, as a very responsible member of this House, ought to make sure that his facts are correct before he starts making all sorts of accusations here. The hon. member for Yeoville wants to know from the Minister what happened. But, Sir, the hon. the Minister made a perfectly clear statement with regard to this matter. I am convinced that the hon. member for Yeoville must be aware of the statement issued by the Minister. According to the Press of 8 October—I think this statement appeared in most newspapers in the country—the Minister said—

Further on in his statement the Minister stated the position even more clearly, and I am convinced that the hon. member for Yeoville must have seen this statement. The Minister said—

If the hon. member for Yeoville did not see this statement, then surely he must have become aware of this statement in some other way while he was studying the facts. However, without paying any attention to this perfectly clear statement made by the hon. the Minister of Transport, the hon. member for Yeoville makes the accusation that the hon. the Minister acted unsympathetically and neglected his duty.

One can well understand the Opposition’s attitude to oppose Clause 57. After the statement made with regard to this matter by the Secretary of the Artisans“ Staff Association, as reported in this morning”s Cape Times, the United Party really had no choice in this matter; they had to oppose this clause. But one expected a greater sense of responsibility from the Opposition. One expects the official Opposition to hold their own views; one does not expect them to allow others to think for them; one expects them to form their own opinion and then to adhere to it. But in this matter the Opposition have proved once again that they are unable to formulate their own attitude and that they are prepared to become the football of anybody who cares to kick that football.

You are talking nonsense.

Just wait a moment before you accuse me of talking nonsense. I am going to prove what I say.

You are entirely wide of the mark.

Mr. Speaker, in 1963 this House accepted the principle of a prohibition on strikes by the staff of the S.A. Railways and Harbours. It was unanimously accepted by all members, including the members of the United Party, and we unanimously voted for it. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Yeoville admitted that. The hon. member for Yeoville did not say that this afternoon but it is true that they also wanted to know from the Minister on that occasion what the staff had to say about it. They had certain misgivings with regard to this strike clause. They wanted to know what the attitude of the staff organizations was in that connection. When the Minister gave them the assurance that the staff organizations accepted the principle of a prohibition on strikes by the staff of the S.A. Railways, they accepted it. They were quite satisfied; they were just as staunch advocates of a prohibition upon strikes as the Minister could ever hope to be.

The former member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) summed up the Opposition’s attitude in the following very clear terms in the Committee Stage, after all the members of the Opposition had voted for the second reading—

Sir, I ask the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) who said a moment ago in a gruff voice that I was talking nonsense: Was I or was I not talking nonsense?

Yes, you were.

Here we have on record the words used by the former member for Wynberg on behalf of the Opposition; he said that the attitude of the Opposition depended on the attitude adopted by the staff organizations with regard to this matter. He could not have stated their attitude more clearly than he did, Mr. Speaker.

Where is he to-day?

The hon. member talked nonsense on behalf of the Opposition. Why then did the hon. member for Durban (Point) and the hon. member for Yeoville, who were here, not repudiate the hon. member for Wynberg at the time?

We will give you our reply.

Mr. Speaker, the position is that even on that occasion the staff associations dictated to the Opposition what attitude they should adopt. It is as clear as a pikestaff that the United Party, whether the staff organizations dictated that course to them or not, committed themselves to the principle that strikes on the part of staff employed by the S.A. Railways and Harbours must be prohibited. They irrevocably committed themselves to that principle. But to-day the United Party come along and adopt the attitude that go-slow strikes must be tolerated on the South African Railways, that they should still be allowed to take place.

But this is not a go-slow strike.

What is it then? What is “work according to the manual” other than a go-slow strike? The hon. member must not reveal his ignorance by making that sort of interjection. It is simply a different name for a go-slow strike.

Is the manual entirely wrong then?

The hon. member knows the whole history of the manual. He should not reveal his ignorance here. To work according to the manual means that even where a man wants to fasten a nut he first goes to consult the manual.

We now find that the Opposition are renouncing the entire principle which they accepted in this House in 1963. They are prepared to renounce that principle just because—and I give you my assurance, Mr. Speaker, that I am perfectly convinced that that is so—Mr. Liebenberg issued this statement this morning on behalf of Artisans’ Staff Association. They simply cannot get away from it; they have proved that that is so. In 1963 they first wanted to know what the attitude of the staff associations was before they revealed their own attitude in this House. Here they see an opportunity—because there is a Provincial Council election in the offing, as you know, Sir—to prey on dissatisfaction in the hope of gaining a few votes. The United Party could well be called the vulture party rather than the United Party because they are much more skilled in the art of vulture politics than they are in revealing a united front in matters of this kind.

Mr. Speaker, what does the hon. the Minister contemplate doing with Clause 57? What he contemplates doing is nothing more or less than purely and simply to remedy a defect which was discovered in the 1963 Act. The Minister simply wants to close the loophole which crept into the 1963 Act so that effect can be given to the principle of prohibiting strikes on the part of servants of the Railways and Harbours. Without Clause 57, in which this defect is remedied, the anti-strike provision which to-day stands on the Statue Book, would be a ridiculous, farcical provision because then it would be impossible to implement it.

The Opposition tell us in season and out of season that they are jealous of the rights and powers of Parliament. Sir, this is a principle which was unanimously accepted by this Parliament in 1963; it is a principle which Parliament has affirmed and which is contained in the Statute Book of this country. A defect has now been discovered in that legislation, a defect which amounts to this that this antistrike principle which was unanimously accepted by this House cannot be put into effect. Now that this defect has been discovered and the Minister comes along with an amending measure to remedy it, the Opposition say, “No, you cannot do it; you cannot do it because the Artisans’ Staff Association has told us to tell you that you may not do it.” In saying that the Opposition are suggesting that they want to run away from the principle to which they subscribed in 1963. But they want to go further. They also want to run away from the attitude which they formerly adopted with regard to the rights and the Dowers of this Parliament, rights and powers of which they professed to be very jealous.

I want to say clearly and unequivocally that the United Party has no moral right to adopt the attitude which they adopted here this afternoon. Similarly—and I say this with a full sense of responsibility—the Artisans’ Staff Association has just as little moral right to express themselves against this clause. It may be true that they were not consulted about the relevant amendment, but why did the Minister have to consult them? After all, in 1963, after the Minister had discussed the ’ matter with them, they unanimously accepted the principle of a prohibition upon strikes by railway servants. Why was it necessary for the Minister to consult them again on this occasion with regard to the same principle! After all, nobody could have anticipated that they would change their attitude within the short space of two years. After all, they are not the United Party which so frequently changes its attitude. I notice that Mr. Liebenberg says in his statement that the Railways must be regarded as an essential service. I want to remind Mr. Liebenberg that Section 46 of the Industrial Reconciliation Act provides that—

are regarded as performing essential services and prohibited under that Act from going on strike.

That has been the position for years.

Yes, that has been the position for years; that has been the position over the last 40 years and the trade unions have always supported this principle. Why does Mr. Liebenberg now want to reserve the right for railway staff to go on a go-slow strike, to work according to the manual? If the transport services of local transport undertakings, or of a local authority, are regarded as essential services, surely it is logical and self-evident that the services supplied by the largest transport undertaking in this country are even more essential. Why should the right be granted to them to go on a go-slow strike under certain circumstances? There is no necessity at all for a strike or a go-slow strike on the Railways because the members of the railway staff have excellent opportunities to submit their demands to the Minister and to the Management. Every year there are periodic discussions between the various staff associations and the Minister and his Management. Talking about that reminds me of the fact—and surely the hon. member for Yeoville must have known this too before he took part in this discussion; he cannot say that he was not aware of it—that the Airways technicians concerned also had such an opportunity; they had this opportunity on 13 August 1964 but they did not make use of it because on 17 September, a little more than a month later, they addressed a threatening letter to the Minister and the General Manager. I want to read out to the hon. member for Yeoville what was said by the secretary of the Association of Salaried Railway Employees, the relevant staff organization under which the Airways technicians fall at the moment; he said—

They had the opportunity but they did not make use of it. That is why the Minister was able to say, as I have read out here, that he received no representations in connection with wages and working conditions from this staff group. I want to put this to the hon. member for Yeoville: Was this attitude on the part of the Airways technicians fair towards the Minister? After all, he is the member who had a great deal to say about the unsympathetic attitude of the Minister and about the cavalier attitude adopted by senior officials. Does the hon. member for Yeoville believe that this was a reasonable attitude for them to adopt towards the Minister and the Management? They had the opportunity to do so, but they did not make use of it.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30 (2) and debate adjourned.

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

I move—

That this House emphasizes the importance, strategic and otherwise, of the Republic of South Africa to the Western World with a view to averting the increasing communistic threat in Africa, and reiterates that—

1. (1) in future, as in the past, the Republic will in its international relations endeavour to achieve, inter alia, the preservation and promotion of world peace, the expansion of world trade, and good neighbourliness with and the rendering of aid to friendly states; and
2. (2) the Republic will continue to pursue these objects on the clear understanding that in the conducting of international affairs the community of states will, as is being done scrupulously by the Republic, respect one another’s sovereignty and refrain from interfering in one another’s domestic affairs.

Sir, I regard it as a special privilege to move this motion. I do so because I am definitely and firmly convinced that in her international actions and in her international relations South Africa has a clean and a positive record, that we have nothing to be ashamed of, but that, on the contrary, we justifiably have much to be proud about and that we can look our friends and enemies in the international family of the world in the eyes.

I just want to say at the outset of my speech that I shall not deal with the first part of my motion. Another speaker on this side who will follow me will deal with it.

The question may well be asked why this motion is being introduced to-day or this year. In the first place because the manner in which a country behaves itself internationally is always relevant; secondly, because it is always useful in order to enlighten our own country and its people more; furthermore because it gives greater clarity to those states who, together with us, belong to the family of states so that they will know what they can expect of us and what we expect of them; thirdly, because it is surely not unreasonable to expect that South Africa will once again, as in the past, be asked to conduct further important discussions with the world. That is why I think it is just as well that we tell the world from this House exactly what we have done hitherto and what place we as a Republic occupy in the queue of states.

When you look at the society of nations, Sir, there are two features which strike you. The one is its great diversity and the other is the inevitable 1001 points of contact which there have to be between the nations of the world. When you think of the great diversity you are struck by the difference in language, in colour, in development, in living standards (you can also say in the standards of living), in religion and in the way of worship, the way in which nations govern themselves (varying from dictatorships to one-party governments, to different forms of democracies or what passes for it). To mention another difference, the way in which they organize their economic life, the one according to the principles of Communism, the other according to the principles of Socialism, and others according to the principles of free economy, an economy based on free enterprise.

Another thing that strikes you, Sir, is that whether the nations of the world like it or not, they have of necessity to appear in one another’s Company, they have to get in touch with one another and conduct an international traffic with one another. The ships which sail the oceans and touch at the harbours of the world, the jet aircraft which cut through the air, the radio waves that traverse the ether, the international postal service which we maintain and all the other means of communication, all the facets of world trade, the monetary systems and monetary units of the world with their problem of one value against that of another and their interchangeability, all these things, and so many more you and I can think of, Sir, of necessity and inevitably compel nations to make contact with one another, to get in touch and communicate with one another.

As a result of this certain rules have, in the course of many years, come into existence as to how the civilized nations of the world have to behave towards one another in all these matters, in every specific sphere, rules which they have introduced whereby they can get along with one another and according to which they have to behave themselves. Where these rules have proved inadequate they have been augmented by agreements in regard to specific matters as necessity demanded from time to time. The terrain of international obligations is a wide field and I do not wish to enter upon it to-day. Nor is it really necessary for me to do so for the purposes of my motion. However, in that connection I should like to say that, flowing from that, one cardinal principle has developed in the international order, one real characteristic and that is the international goodwill which has developed between states. It is called “the comity of nations”. The French have a pretty word for it, “politesse” and I think in Afrikaans we can call it “international welwillendheid” (political goodwill). It is probably true that in the past this principle has often been pushed into the background and trampled underfoot, but in spite of that I maintain that in the old world, shall we say in the old civilized Western world, this has been one of the indispensable, one of the fundamental, and probably the most important characteristic of the international order, namely, the way in which nations and states have associated with one another, this international goodwill.

At a later stage I shall point out how South Africa in her actions and behaviour has complied with the demands of international goodwill, but because I am afraid my time may perhaps not permit me to do so towards the end of my speech I wish at this stage to talk about one of the most important characteristics of this international goodwill and it is this characteristic that the States have refrained from interfering in what one can call the internal affairs of other states. That was a fundamental, an indispensable ingredient and characteristic of the international goodwill which obtained in the order in the old world, a characteristic which developed between civilized nations in regard to all these 1001 points of contact to which I have referred. To-day the world has greater need for this fundamental characteristic of international goodwill than every before because the world has shrunk, because we live close together and because, figuratively speaking, one can say that the states are to-day looking into one another’s house. To-day there is greater need for this principle than ever before.

But not only was it customary for one state to behave in that way towards another state, but the nations also incorporated this rule in the two world organizations they established, the old League of Nations and the United Nations Organization. I shall only discuss the latter. In dealing with UNO we find that the following provision is incorporated in article 2 (7)—

It is a fact that there is a short addendum to article 2 (7) which I shall call the domestic jurisdiction section later in my speech, and it reads as follows—

This Chapter 7 (B), of the San Francisco Charter—the charter of UNO was finally signed at San Francisco—was already contained in the preliminary charter which the nations discussed at Dumbarton Oaks and this domestic jurisdiction section did not appear in that charter at the beginning of the main principles of the United Nations, but it appeared under Chapter 8 all the provisions of which were identical to the present Chapter 7 in the present charter. There it appeared at the end and it read as follows—

That was at Dumbarton Oaks. There it appeared at the end of the clauses dealing with the action the Security Council could take. When they got to San Francisco they removed it from where it had been and added it to the main principles of the organization to give greater emphasis to its importance. And where it says “this principle shall not prejudice the application of Chapter 7” it means that Chapter 7 can still be applied but it cannot be applied where it will nullify Article 2 (7). Article 2 (7) still supersedes Chapter 7, but Chapter 7 can be applied as long as it does not affect the domestic jurisdiction of states but can be applied where disputes between nations are concerned That was why I felt I wanted to raise this matter here. I looked for further evidence and I went to the minutes of Committee I, the committee which had to draft this portion of the Charter in its final form at San Francisco for submission to the conference. The delegates to that First Committee discussed this matter and I want to quote what some of the delegates said there. The delegate from Uruguay said the following—

Dr. Evatt, a statesman from Australia and a great authority on international law and constitutional law said the following at that conference—

And Mr. John Forster Dulles said the following—

I just want to say that these nations attached so much value to this and attach so much value to this principle of domestic jurisdiction to-day that France, for example, issued the following statement when the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice was accepted—

And the United States accepted the jurisdiction of the International Court as follows—

I mention these things, Sir, to show you what value was attached to the idea of reserving the domestic affairs of any state for that state alone and allowing it itself to be the judge of what happened within its borders.

I should like to point out further that we have the so-called “veto” right in Article 27 of the United Nations Charter and according to that veto right there are five states which can absolutely and finally prevent UNO from ever taking any action against them as far as their domestic affairs are concerned. If it is denied that other states can rely on Article 2 (7) there is inequality, unreasonable and unjustified inequality between the members of the United Nations Organization. I admit there is indeed inequality between the members of UNO. The Charter contains an inequality which is reasonable and which must quite rightly be there, but that is the inequality under Article 27—it is an inequality which only concerns active action by the United Nations; in that case certain states have a greater say than others, they can exercise the veto right. They enjoy that right in terms of the Charter and we have no fault to find with that. However, it was not intended that the inequality between the member States of UNO should go beyond that and in no other sphere does it apply. It applies least of all in respect of the domestic jurisdiction of member states over their own affairs. If those five states have it in any case and it is denied to the small states under Article 2 (7) there is inequality. I maintain to-day that Article 2 (7) constitutes the veto right of the small nations in respect of one thing, namely, intervention in their own domestic affairs. I think it is just as well that we emphasize this to-day and that we again say it to the world. It is just as well that we tell the world that there would never have been a United Nations Organization without this article nor would South Africa have been a member of that organization without this section and South Africa will throughout relentlessly insist on this article.

I want to deal briefly with South Africa and her contribution to the rest of the national society and what we have achieved in the world. I just want to say that we have never done anything to interfere with this principle of goodwill between nations and as a state we have always behaved ourselves as a Christian like, civilized state according to the norm that has been set for us. We have inherited a rich tradition as to what is internationally correct. We have inherited that from the old Boer republics, that has been our heritage from the political apprenticeship we passed so brilliantly and which we served with Great Britain and the old British Commonwealth. Over the past 30 years we, as an independent state, have in many ways lived up to that tenor in the world. We have always made our contribution to world peace. Our statesmen have played an illustrious role in the establishment of organizations which, it was hoped, would maintain international peace. South Africa has joined in that, we have honourably fulfilled our obligations as a member. Never yet have we in South Africa threatened anybody or any state. We can look the world in the eyes. On the contrary we have been threatened in recent years. Since the start of the cold war we have had many so-called “hot spots” in the world such as Laos, Korea, Vietnam and to-day Malaya. South Africa has never been one of them.

As far as our contribution to world trade is concerned, I just want to say that as far as our imports and exports together are concerned (in our case I am leaving gold out), South Africa is to-day making a greater contribution to world trade than, for example, Argentine, Brazil, Mexico, New Zealand, Yugoslavia, Spain, Turkey, Portugal, Norway, Greece, Finland, Austria, Israel, and many other countries, and we compare very favourably with Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, Australia and India and we are only doubly and trebly surpassed by France, Holland, Italy and Belgium-Luxembourg. We produce 75 per cent of the world’s gold. South Africa has sided with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. We are one of the best members of the International Monetary Fund and by that I mean that we are one of the best contributors and one of those who make the smallest withdrawals, and our hon. Minister of Finance has once again been nominated Governor for five years.

To-day we talk about isolation! I looked at last year’s Budget this morning. In last year’s Budget we contributed to 65 bodies and organizations in the world, and in Africa as well. I mention only one in Africa in which we are interested, namely the organization to combat the red locust. We have made our contribution culturally, economically and in many other fields.

I now come to the political front. It is said that we are standing alone but I maintain that we are not. We are in hot water; we are the only people of whom they really take notice; we are practically indispensable to the world. Because if they did not have us as a unifying factor what would keep them together? But, to put it positively, I want to say that we are not as out of step with the world as alleged. Like the world we too are busy emancipating nations, with this difference, that here that process of emancipation must take place within the same geographical area whereas the world is carrying out an emancipation process in an area which is 1,000 miles and 6,000 distant and in principle, in essence, and in its practical execution, that surely makes a very big difference. We are trying to start at the bottom and to lay the foundation first before we construct the roof of political independence. We are trying to bring about economic development and maturity, while the world, perhaps from sheer necessity, has nevertheless chosen a short-cut to the granting of political independence. However, they will find, as we shall, that in spite of their short-cut it is going to be a long road in any case.

The point I want to emphasize is that we are not as out of step with the world as they would have us believe.

That is why I say South Africa submits its record with a clear conscience to the world. We are having a discussion which undoubtedly demands time. We cannot do justice to it but South Africa is submitting its record with a clear conscience and with outstretched hands, hands of friendship and assistance to every state in the world who wants to take it in friendship, also here in Africa, as is evident from out past record. If every state in the world would only treat and develop the small area of the globe over which it has jurisdiction as we have treated and developed ours—because poor states cannot, for example, trade with one another—if they would only try to raise the standard of living, of education and of health of their own people the way we are trying to do, if they would only contribute towards world trade and to the development of the world in many spheres, as we are doing, and if every state in the world would only keep its nose out of the affairs of other states as South Africa has done, then the world would indeed be a much happier place.

I am sure we all listened with interest to the very thoughtful and sincere speech made by the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Loots) in speaking to the resolution before the House. He has briefly sketched the kind of world we would like to see. and he has dealt shortly with the past and he has dealt for almost half his speech with one paragraph of his resolution. I think that it is perhaps a pity that in view of the fact that this is necessarily a short debate, he did not find it possible to deal a bit more fully with the whole of his resolution. Because, Sir, he has raised a very important question indeed. He has raised the question of the Dart which we would like to play in world affairs, and he has done so in the form of what I may call a pious resolution—I do not say that in a derogatory way—and in general terms he has stated what has been, I think, common cause in this House for many years. We all want these things. We all want peace. We all want world trade to expand. We all want good neighbourliness and we all want to see no interference in our domestic affairs, about which the hon. member had a good deal to say. So that on all these matters there is no difference of opinion between us on other sides of the House, or I think in the country as a whole.

This resolution really is what I believe is now called a declaration of intent; it is a statement of good intentions, and as such we can take no exception to it. But, Mr. Speaker, this question is so important that if the discussion is to be at all useful, it seems to me it is necessary to be quite frank in considering the whole question. Because intentions are one thing and giving effect to those intentions quite another, and unless we are quite frank in discussing the difficulties of putting these good intentions into effect, well, it does not seem to me that such a discussion will be very helpful. Good intentions are not enough. I am sure, Sir, that when you were a boy, just as when I was a boy, you were told quite often that the way to hell is paved with good intentions, and one asks oneself whether with the best will in the world this resolution is simply another paving-stone along that path, or whether it is going to lead to something more. I would like to ask (the hon. member for Queenstown did not deal with it in the course of his speech) whether perhaps some subsequent speaker will tell us what is his Government doing to make these good intentions, which we all share, a reality, and I would ask him whether he really thinks that his resolution that we are discussing this afternoon will make any difference to the state of affairs which exists to-day. Because, Sir, there are reasons why I fear that it will not. My first reason of course is the large obstacle created by the Government itself by its race policies.

What about your “baasskap”?

I do not want to discuss “baasskap” or race policies this afternoon.

If you talk like an Afrikaner, we will listen to you.

The race policies of the Government are like an octopus and its tentacles stretch into every corner of our life, and one cannot discuss any subject for very long without touching one of those tentacles. The plain fact is that, whether we like it or not, “apartheid” (or any other name you like to use) as practiced by this Government is anathema to the rest of the world.

You are an octopus.

The hon. member for Cradock has had his eyes shut to realities so long that I know it is quite useless to talk to him. But perhaps he will be kind enough to let me put my views to other members on both sides of the House who are thinking seriously about the matter. Whether that disapproval ever leads to active interference in our affairs or not, it certainly creates a climate which is most unfavourable to those cordial relations which are implicit both in the speech of the hon. member for Queenstown and in the resolution he moved this afternoon. The climate was too much for the previous Minister of Foreign Affairs who, as we all saw, really gave up in despair at the time he retired from his office. Whether the present Minister will weather that climate remains to be seen. I am sure we all wish him well, but we have yet to see how he will succeed where Mr. Louw, for reasons I can well understand, was not successful. But the fact remains that the race policies of the present Government are a tremendous obstacle to the state of affairs which the hon. member for Queenstown would like to see in terms of his resolution. Moreover, Government policy, I think, threatens to raise two further obstacles to which attention has perhaps not sufficiently been directed. This resolution talks about the importance of the Republic to the Western world with a view to averting the increasing communistic threat in Africa. I agree with that, and I think that to-day it is quite true to say that south of the Limpopo Communism has no foothold. I do not think it is dead, but it has no foothold and it is not making any progress. But at present we can say that this end of Africa is anti-communist, and so long as the Government of the Republic, whichever Government it is, retains control of this end of Africa, we shall be able to continue to say that. But will that be so with one or more sovereign independent Black states …

Are you thinking of Basutoland?

… carved out of the living body of South Africa? We have already heard Mr. Matanzima announce in public, and he has not been contradicted by any of the hon. members opposite, that the Transkei is no longer a part of the Republic. The hon. member opposite referred to Basutoland. Does not that convey any lesson to him? We are credibly informed that there are many people from Basutoland now being trained in Peking, and possibly also in Moscow. What will happen if the Transkei becomes independent? Who is going to guarantee that the same thing will not happen there? My leader the other day in the debate referred to these future Black states as “launching pads for Communism”. I thought that was a very apt phrase and one which should give food for thought to anyone who is seriously thinking about the state of affairs. From that I think there flows a further question.

This resolution talks about the strategic importance of the Republic to the Western world. The defence of the Cape route has always been regarded as one of the major contributions we could make to world peace, in the first place, and to the defence of the West if it became necessary. Personally, I think the importance of the Cape route has diminished in recent years. I think it is not without significance that the United Kingdom seemed to be able to shift a considerable expeditionary force all the way to Malaysia with all its equipment to maintain it without coming anywhere near the Cape. Still, let us not argue about that. The Cape route is still important, and the Cape is still strategically an important point. But the question is being asked, and I happen to know that it is being asked by serious students of military strategy in the West whether a reduced, dismembered and weakened South Africa, surrounded by Black States, some of them possibly hostile, with a potential fifth column, and a South Africa still dependent on a Black labour force in any war effort it might undertake, would still be able to be a reliable guardian of the Cape route. In other words, looking ahead a few years, our ability to stand as a bastion of the West is beginning to be questioned as the result of Government race policies, and you see, Sir, how the tentacles of which I spoke have spread and the effect they have in unexpected directions.

The other reason I have for wondering whether this resolution will serve any useful purpose is the lack of any active steps up to now by the Government to give effect to these intentions. We have had plenty of words, but we have had no deeds. The hon. member for Queenstown devoted a large part of his remarks to this question of non-interference. He talked about the clause in the charter which we all know about, and his resolution reads, after stating what we would like to see, that we will continue to pursue these objects on the clear understanding that there will be no interference in our domestic affairs. Now, what exactly does that mean? Because if physical interference were to take place or economic steps were taken, disrupting our economic life, obviously we would not be in a position to help anybody. But the verbal attacks and the suggestions and the resolutions agitating for interference, which are all we have had so far, will continue. There is no question about that, I am afraid. What does this resolution mean? Does it mean that whilst these verbal broadsides are being fired at us and these unseemly attacks are being made on us and on our representatives at UN we will sulk in our tents and do nothing? Surely not. Surely that is the worst form of defeatism. The more confident we are, as the hon. member is, the less justified we are in simply taking up a non postumus attitude and doing nothing. At the moment the world’s spotlight has shifted from us. There are indications that domestic affairs at UN have led to a complete deadlock for the last two months, and it looks as if it may continue for another two months. Externally UN has to face daily appeals to settle disputes between its member states all over the world, in the countries mentioned by the hon. member like Vietnam, Indonesia, Israel, etc., etc. In addition to that events in Africa on the one hand and our own expansion and well-being on the other hand have made an impression abroad, a good impression from our point of view, especially in financial and trade circles. Moreover, there is no doubt, I think, that certain African states are making clear efforts to tackle their domestic, economic and social problems and are really trying to get down to business. I would think that this was a very proper moment to make a move towards endeavouring to ease, or if possible to break, the deadlock between us and the African states and even certain Asian states. Psychologically this may very well be the moment and a well thought out approach may pay handsome dividends. The Prime Minister has made suggestions. He suggested last year that we might have some kind of short Cook’s tour for African leaders to come down here. He suggested more recently some kind of economic Southern African Commonwealth. I think that is an unfortunate phrase to use, but we know what he means.

But while these things are being suggested, we have had Zambia giving notice to discontinue our very long-standing trade relations, whilst from yesterday any unfortunate shopkeeper in Kenya who has South African goods in his shop is liable to go to prison. I want to know whether anything has been done along these lines? Have these ideas been pursued at all? Have any steps been taken to strengthen the Africa section of the Foreign Affairs Department, or has it simply been a case of ideas thrown out and dropped and forgotten? Because to everyone who thinks seriously about these things—and I know very well that there are people on that side of the House as well as on this side who do think seriously about them—it is clear that we do not seem to get any further than words and resolutions and criticisms of each other and of people abroad. We on this side would like to be able to support a resolution in this House congratulating the Government on the contribution we are making to world peace, and approving of the progress made in expanding world trade, especially our trade in Africa, and welcoming the activities of the Government in making contact with the states to the north of us, and congratulating it on its success in studying the problems of those states and getting them to come down and getting to understand our problems in this country. The hon. member for Queenstown never spoke a truer word than when he said that it was absolutely essential that we all have to learn to understand each other and to live together, and to do that some kind of contact has to be made. May I suggest that there will never be a better opportunity than the present. Alas, we are doing none of these things at present. We are making no contribution to world peace. In fact, we have been declared to be a threat to world peace, quite wrongly, in some quarters. We are making no move in Africa as far as I know—I shall be glad to be corrected on that point—we are pursuing a policy at home which is clearly calculated to weaken our ability to combat Communism in the future. Therefore, whilst we do not oppose this motion, which is a declaration of good intentions, which we share, in the absence of any sign that the Government, which is the only body which can move in the matter, in the absence of any sign that the Government will do anything to give effect to this resolution, we cannot see that it serves any useful or practical purpose.

Mr. Speaker, at the start of his speech, the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) expressed what was tantamount to praise for the motion of the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Loots). When he did so, I really thought that I would to-day be able to congratulate the United Party on the attitude it was adopting. I think that there should be agreement in a country in respect of foreign affairs at least, no matter how much dissension there may be as far as the internal affairs of that country are concerned. But once the hon. member got into his stride, I realized that his hand was on the shoulder of the hon. member for Queenstown merely in order to enable him to find a spot in which to plunge the dagger, and that was in effect what the hon. member for Constantia did. Once he began to discuss the so-called “race policies” of the Nationalist Government, I know that we could expect nothing good of the hon. member. I just want to remind the hon. member that in December 1946 the first resolution taken at UNO just after its inception was a resolution against South Africa in regard to her policy of segregation, her apartheid policy. The Indian representative repeatedly attacked our representative, General Smuts, and the hon. member for Constantia was there. General Smuts’s defence was not that we were going to abolish apartheid. He said: “Leave our apartheid policy alone; that is our domestic affair.”

But the hon. member also said that the so-called Black states hold certain dangers for us. When he said this I saw him not only in his proverbial role as a prophet of doom in this House, but also as a comedian, because I did not think that he could be in earnest in regard to this matter. I thought of Shakespeare; I also thought that this kind of speech was simply a matter of necessity because even Shakespeare sometimes relieved the tension of a drama by means of the antics of a clown. But I do not want to waste my time on the hon. member for Constantia.

I want to discuss the first part of the motion, viz. that this House emphasizes the importance, strategic and otherwise, of the Republic of South Africa to the Western world with a view to averting the increasing communistic threat in Africa. I want to say immediately that when one discusses Communism, one is sometimes inclined to be skeptical because it has happened recently that many hon. members have discussed this matter outside this House, many hon. members who are well-informed in this regard but also many hon. members who know virtually nothing about the matter. That is why the public are rather sceptical in regard to the dangers of Communism about which they are continually hearing. I want to say immediately that I am not one of those who expects to see Communism behind every bush. Neither am I one of those who sees a communist hiding in every shadow. But if we want to adopt the attitude that Communism constitutes no threat whatsoever to South Africa, we will simply be bluffing ourselves. It is interesting to note that the Second World War concluded an era in world politics which we will probably never again experience. Before that time, world politics were always fashioned on the last of the retention of the balance of power. When nations attacked one another and wars began the smaller nations always ranged themselves on the weaker side and in this way restored the balance of power. But after the Second World War that balance of power disappeared and a new danger, a new Frankenstein, came into being. That monster was Communism, and we cannot reason away the dangers which this Communism holds for South Africa. When one analyzes the developments in the world political arena to-day, one sees that world events are all taking place against the background of the struggle of the Western world with the Communist world. When one takes UNO as an example, one sees that there has been string-pulling at UNO right from the start. At Dumbarton Oaks where the Charter was laid down, Russia demanded certain powers. Even at Yalta Stalin made certain demands of the Western world. One of those demands was that all the Russian republics should have direct representation at UNO. For this reason the Ukraine and White Russia, which form only two of 15 republics, were given special representation at UNO. These were of course concessions made by the Western world but strings have continued to be pulled since that time. One need only think of the events which took place after the death of the late Dag Hammarskjoeld. The Western world wanted a Secretary-General, but Russia came forward with the idea of a troika a triumvirate, that is to say, one Secretary-General to represent the communist countries, one to represent the West and one to represent the so-called neutral states. America was opposed to this but what eventually happened? The end result was that U Thant who was appointed as Secretary-General, appointed a Deputy-Secretary, a sort of cabinet consisting of eight persons, including a Frenchman, a Russian, a Nigerian, an American and various others. But the most important posts in or on that body are held by the representatives of communist countries. The head of that group is an Indian and a Russian is head of the section dealing with rocket research’ the most important posts at UNO.

Is the Indian a communist?

If the hon. member will give me the assurance that he is not one, I shall accept his word. I am speaking about the communist countries and the Asiatic groups who form a bloc at UNO. When one considers the development at UNO since that time, their so-called crisis in regard to finances, one finds that it is no financial crisis but a political crisis. Those members do not refuse to pay their membership fees because they cannot afford to pay them; they do not want to pay that money because it is all bound up with the dispute between the West and the communist countries. It is not a financial crisis but a political crisis.

When one goes further and one considers what is happening on the political front in Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, Zanzibar, Algeria and the Congo, one sees that all these events are bound up with the struggle between the West and the communist countries. This is the only political problem which exists in the world today. That is why I say that we must not underestimate Communism and its threat to Africa. I have three points to make. I want to make the point that all these political events are taking place against the background of the struggle between the West and the communist world. Secondly, I say that in its striving for world domination, Communism regards the conquest of Africa as a necessity and accordingly we have this increasing pressure on Africa. Thirdly, I want to make the point that South Africa will play a key-role in averting the Red attack upon Africa. I say this in view of her strategic position, her advantage in the military sphere, her leadership in the technological sphere, her rich mineral resources, her fabulous industrial development, her stable progress in government and various other factors. Why is Africa of so much importance to the communist world? I am not speaking specifically of South Africa now. Africa today is in a strategic position. We have the various Continents such as America and Eurasia. We have here in Africa an area of 11,250,0 square miles which has ostensibly at this stage not yet chosen either the side of the Western world or that of Communism—I say, ostensibly. But this Continent of Africa will play a major role in future world politics. I want to say that the future of Europe will not be decided in Europe but in Africa. Stalin put it this way in 1948. He said (translation)—

As early as 1922 Lenin said that the road to Paris and London went through Peking and Africa, and it is already in Peking. At a meeting extraordinary of the Communist Party in Moscow in March 1953, Mao Tse-tung submitted a programme through the medium of Chou En-lai setting out the conquest of the world in its various phrases. This they divided up as follows. Firstly, South-East Asia and India and Japan. Secondly, the Middle-East and North-Africa; thirdly, Africa south of the Sahara; fourthly, Europe and Australia—this explains why there is so much trouble at the moment between Malaya and Indonesia—and fifthly, the Western hemisphere, the Americas. That was to be the last phase. We see therefore that Communism regards Africa as a strategic point in its conquest of the world. But the communist world does not consider Africa from this point of view alone; they also consider it from the point of view of its resources. Mao Tse-tung described the position as follows at the particular communist meeting to which I referred just now. He said that once Africa and Asia were cut off from the capitalistic countries of Europe, the Continent of Europe would collapse completely. The crisis in Europe would be followed by complete economic bankruptcy and economic disaster.

In other words, he said, in the first place the impoverishment of the Western countries if they were to lose their possessions in Africa, as indeed has happened during the past few years. But they also realized that as a result of that economic impoverishment, the scene would be set for a take-over by the communist world. For example, Stalin had this to say (translation)—

Seen from this point of view, Africa is therefore not only of strategic importance but also of economic importance. The result is that the communist programme is concentrated largely on Africa to-day. This is being done by various means which I do not want to discuss in detail now because the matter does not fall within the scope of this motion. Various methods are being employed. In recent times particularly we have had the method of visits by various political missions from communist countries to Africa and vice versa. This year there have been political missions from Ghana, Mali, Somalia, Tunisia, the Sudan, Congo-Brazzaville, Libya, Egypt and Nigeria, to mention only a few. All these countries sent missions to Moscow to make the necessary contacts there for the future conquest of Africa. There are, for example, thousands of students—the figure is put to-day at more than 3,000 Black students—from Africa receiving their training in communist countries and there are also the Red teachers who are sent specifically to those countries in order to do the preparatory work here in Africa. I think that our own universities should take a closer look at themselves in regard to this matter, but in any case, I do not want to discuss this matter at this stage. The impetus which Communism has received in Africa has been mainly as a result of the programme which Professor Potekhin, who is to-day the Director of the Africa Institute in Moscow, laid down in 1960 in respect of the conquest of Africa. In his master plan published in 1960 he had. inter alia, this to say (translation)—

This was the first part of his programme. Of course, a so-called liberation movement has arisen in Africa. Uhuru did not come from Africa; it was born in Russia. They used the word “Uhuru” in order to give the nations of Africa the idea that communist domination meant liberation. Of course they pose now as the liberators of the Black states in Africa. I do not want to elaborate in this regard either because I see that my time is moving on; I want to make this point—that even the Western world, and particularly America, is not fully aware of the fact to-day that Communism is increasing in Africa. In 1962 the American Senate appointed a sub-committee to make a political survey of the position in Africa, and in that political survey I find this interesting conclusion—

The Americans have also realized their mistake. They have begun to realize that their programme in Africa is the wrong one. That same commission criticized their programme and their methods of operation in a most ironical way. It said—

Even Soapy Williams, a person who was rather sceptical in regard to the infiltration of Communism into Africa, has admitted that the scene in Africa has become a positive scene in which America must take action.

Mr. Speaker, South Africa plays a key role in this situation, in this particular situation which we have on the world political front Here we have Africa which is regarded by the communist world as a strategic point for the conquest of the world by Communism. I say that if Africa is of importance to the communist world, then it is definitely of greater importance to the Western world. There is no doubt in this regard. But why does South Africa play this particular role in the combating of Communism in Africa? My submission is that she is playing a leading and major role in the combating of Communism, in the first place because of her strategic position. Sir, in years gone by we were always hearing about the particularly strategic position of, for example, the Suez Canal and Gibraltar and similar places in time of war. But those places have completely lost their value and strategic importance. In the ’fifties America spent more than R400,000,000 in Morocco in building certain air bases there. They were compelled systematically to vacate those air bases before 1963. And what is the irony of the position? With the permission of Morocco, Russia is building a submarine base at Alhucemas, only 20 miles from Gibraltar. They are building a ship-yard at Tangier, only a stone’s throw from the American base of Rota and the British base of Gibraltar. This shows us that the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean Sea have completely lost their strategic importance.

But what has the southern point of Africa become? The southern point of Africa occupies a strategic position to-day in the event of a future world conflict, particularly when one considers Antarctica which lies to the south of us, a strategic position which can play a major role if there is a conflict between the West and the communist world. But, Sir, what else can be said about South Africa’s position? In the technological sphere South Africa is streets ahead of the other states in Africa and because of this she is of great importance to the Western world. I have made a note of a few statistics and I should like to mention some of them. Take for example the question of agricultural development. I should just like to give the House a few interesting facts in this connection. As far as tractors are concerned, there were 184,093 tractors in Africa in 1960 and almost half of these, 90,000, were in South Africa. A country like Ghana, for example, had only 161 tractors in 1957. Mr. Speaker, you probably read recently in The Farmer’s Weekly of a Free State farmer who has 94 tractors. Do you know that this is almost the equivalent of the 99 of Sierra Leone, that it is almost three times the 34 of Gambia, that it is almost 9 times the 10 of Ruanda-Urundi, to say nothing of Zanzibar and many other Africa states? This serves to indicate the stage of development still existing in those countries. Sir, I think that a good yardstick for measuring the development of a country is the expansion of its railway system. In the Republic of South Africa there are 14.4 kilometers of railway for every 10,000 inhabitants. The position in South-West Africa is even better; there the figure is 46.9. But compare these figures with the 1.9 of Ghana; compare them with Egypt’s 1.7 or Nigeria’s.8 or Liberia’s.5 or Ethiopia’s.4, to mention only a few countries which are to-day in the forefront of the campaign against South Africa. Let us take, for example, development in the sphere of health. In South Africa there is one doctor for every 1,800 people; in Gambia, which is quite well off in this regard, there is 1 for every 8,000. But you will be shocked, Sir, to know that in Tanzania there is only 1 for every 18,500! In Ghana there is one for every 25,000, in Nigeria, 1 for every 40,000, in Liberia 1 for every 40,000 and in Senegal 1 for every 50,000! Let us look now at the per capita income of the population, a factor which I consider to be a good yardstick by means of which to determine the progress and economic development of a nation. The per capita income of the population of the Republic of South Africa is R427, in Zambia, it is R161, in Ghana, R150, not to mention Nigeria, Liberia and Ethiopia where the per capita income of the population is R95, R97 and R92 respectively. There are persons in Ethiopia who do not earn R2 per annum! One can say that they earn too much to die on and too little to live on!

Mr. Speaker, these facts prove the tremendous technological advantage which South Africa has to-day over other states in Africa. But South Africa is also one of the richest countries of the world to-day and with this fact in mind it is of great importance to the Western world that this rich country should remain a member of the Western alliance. In 1963 the world gold production amounted to 1,153,0 kilograms, of which South Africa’s contribution was 792,891 kilograms—almost 70 per cent of the world’s gold production.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to weary you with any more figures; I just want to make this point that in the technological sphere today South Africa is so far ahead of the other Africa states that there can be no comparison whatsoever. The development programme which is being set in motion in the Western world to-day can be tackled far more cheaply by South Africa. It will be to the advantage of a country like America, for example, to see to it that that development takes place through South African channels because not only has South Africa had the necessary race experience but she is also on the scene and can implement this development programme so much more cheaply.

We are in complete agreement with you.

I want to mention one further aspect. South Africa has great resources of gold and diamonds today; she has a large income and she is a rich country but her greatest asset is her purposeful people and her firm government. A country may be as rich as possible but when it has a purposeful people, as South Africa has to-day, then that country is strong. I say that the Republic of South Africa stands out strongly to-day as one of the great powers in the combating of Communism throughout the world. That is why I say that the Western world ought to consider all these things. They have a certain moral obligation towards South Africa because South Africa controls an important gate-way to Africa and because Africa, in her turn, maintains the balance in the struggle between the Western world and Communism.

The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Loots), in introducing his motion, stated that he would leave the responsibility for dealing with the first part of the motion as printed to another hon. member. May I say that after the very high level set in his speech by the hon. member for Queenstown in introducing his motion, it is perhaps a pity that he left it to the hon. member for Middelland (Mr. van der Merwe) to deal with the first part of his motion, which is an important part.

Sir, I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Middelland, and what did we have from him in the course of a 25-minute speech? We had a sort of political review or resume of communist infiltration in the rest of the African continent, a situation of which we are all aware and of which we read daily in the newspapers. Secondly, we had from him a long list of statistics to prove the backwardness of the so-called independent African states. The hon. member tried to draw a comparison between 161 tractors in Ghana and 94 tractors owned by one of the farmers in the Free State. What does the hon. member achieve in drawing that comparison. Sir, I ask the House to judge whether the hon. member made one single statement, in the light of all the facts about Communism in Africa, one single statement which is designed to achieve what the hon. member for Queenstown desires and that is to emphasize the importance, strategically and otherwise, of the Republic of South Africa, to the rest of the world with a view to averting the increasing threat of Communism in Africa. What constructive proposal did the hon. member put to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs with a view to averting this danger of which we are all aware? In dealing with a motion of this nature, where the interests of these countries are affected, the hon. member still finds it impossible to rise above the interests of his own party. The hon. gentleman started his speech with the old cry that the criticism which faces South Africa to-day at the United Nations and in the outside world is precisely the same sort of criticism that was levelled at South Africa in 1946 or 1947. The hon. members says that the United Party Government of those days was attacked because of its apartheid policy. Sir, let me tell hon. gentlemen the case that we then presented. We did not talk in terms of apartheid; we talked in terms of the objectives of our Governmentȉs policy to enable all our national groups to come together more and more and to consult one another on problems of mutual interest. The United Party Government tried to bring that about by establishing high-level consultative machinery. But we went further. When we presented our case at the United Nations we did so with full confidence in the ability of our Government to eliminate discrimination amongst the various racial groups in the country. We went even further; we considered that such a policy presented a practical and psychological basis for the rapid disappearance of discrimination in our country. Sir, does the hon. member follow such a policy? I ask him across the floor of the House whether his Government advocates such a policy before the world.

The Minister does.

What policy?

Sir, I have just enunciated it to the hon. gentleman. Does he not understand it? Would he condemn his Government for following such a policy at the United Nations? Does he condemn what I have just set out as the objectives of the policy of the United Party in 1946; does he condemn that policy as being entirely different from the policy which his Minister presented to the United Nations recently? Does the hon. member lack the courage of his convictions?

What was your policy in 1946?

He does not know; he was busy counting tractors.

The hon. member cannot stand it when I say that it was the objective of our policy in 1946 to rid South Africa of racial discrimination, not on the basis of apartheid, but on the basis of consultations between the various racial groups.

Is that what you told the United Nations at the time?

That is exactly what we told the United Nations in 1946. You see, Sir, here we have a statement that the hon. gentleman disagrees with his own Government’s policy because what I have read out here is what the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs said in the course of his speech at the United Nations. The hon. member apparently disagrees with him. Sir, I have done this on purpose because I think it best illustrates what South Africa has had to pay for in the years during which this Government has been in power. I object to none of these statements made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In the interests of South Africa I have no objection to what he said. But the hon. member for Middelland does object …

No. Why do you say that?

Mr. DURRANT: The hon. member has just said so. South Africa finds herself in her present position not because of the case presented at the United Nations by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but because of statements made from time to time over the years with regard to apartheid, with the result that the world has come to regard apartheid as a policy of racial domination and discrimination to the nthe degree.

Nonsense.

It is no good my hon. friend saying “nonsense” because that is the position. Sir, I agree with my colleague, the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) that the statements contained in the introductory portion and in the first paragraph of the motion are pious declarations of good intentions, but when it comes to the question of non-interference in our internal affairs, then perhaps the motion does serve this single purpose: We have stated over and over again from these benches, as has also been done from the Government benches, as every self-respecting South African must say and as the Minister of Foreign Affairs said at the United Nations, that no self-respecting country with any national pride can tolerate interference in its internal affairs, so if this motion serves any purpose at all. then it serves as a reminder to the outside world that although we may have political differences, although we may differ violently on political issues, there is one thing that no country must think, and that is that they can exploit our political differences to the detriment of our country because there we stand together. If therefore the motion serves any purpose, it serves as a declaration to the world of our determination under no circumstances to tolerate interference in our internal affairs. Sir, we agree with the attitude adopted by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the United Nations session which he attended, and that is that until the Charter of the United Nations is amended in the manner laid down in the Charter itself, member states must operate and conduct themselves according to the terms of the Charter as presently constituted. We on these benches fully agree with that statement made by the Minister at the last session of the United Nations because that is the attitude which has been adopted by all South African Governments.

Sir, I come back again to the first part of the motion. Apart from being a pious declaration of good intentions and apart from serving the purpose of indicating to the outside world that we will not tolerate interference in our internal affairs, the motion does perhaps serve another purpose. It enables us to review what we have done as a country to achieve the objects referred to in the first part of this motion. I agree with the hon. member for Middelland when he says that Communism views the domination of Africa as a strategic move in the struggle against the West; that the achievement of communist domination in Africa is but a move in the struggle between the East and the West. I agree with the hon. member that that is communist strategy in Africa, but surely the hon. member for Middelland must realize that the Western nations concerned with the development of Africa and the peoples of Africa, are as fully aware as we are of communist intentions in this regard. The question that arises is what we as a country on the African continent, we as White Africans, if you like, can do to thwart the aims of Communism on the African continent. Sir, one has to ask one’s self why it is necessary for people like our Minister of Foreign Affairs, to make strongly-worded statements in respect of the denial of arms to South Africa by countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom. It is obviously because those countries have not viewed our country as we would like them to view South Africa, that is to say, as a bulwark on the African continent against Communism. The Western nations have not thought of our country in that light because—and this is perhaps the tragedy of South Africa—the Government in the early days of its regime advocated the policy of apartheid in such a way that the outside world regarded it as a policy of domination of White interests over Black interests. That is why I say that I sympathize with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs …

You created that false image.

Sir, until the Prime Minister made that famous speech in this House about the development of national units within the boundaries of South Africa, there was no such concept in this country. I think it helps the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs very little to argue at the United Nations that the Government’s concept of self-development for the various national units was designed against African colonialism, because that is the picture that the hon. the Minister tries to present; that the development of national units is a concept which differs entirely from the old colonial attitude in Africa. The hon. the Minister intended to create the picture that we were really violently opposed to colonialism in order to get the sympathy of the non-White states in Africa.

Sir, however laudable the efforts of the present Minister of Foreign Affairs may be, I do not see how he will ever achieve anything at the United Nations unless we can convince the world that the Whites of this country have rejected the concept of apartheid and thus break down the animosity to this country which has been built up over a long period of time because of the Government’s race policies as those policies were presented to the outside world. Obviously there is only one way in which we can give the outside world another image of South Africa. The image which the outside world has of South Africa to-day is one of domination of Whites over non-Whites, and that is the image of South Africa in the rest of Africa. Obviously the rejection of this Government at the polls would indicate to the world that the Whites of South Africa have rejected the concept of apartheid and substituted another policy in its place, whatever that policy may be. Although I have every sympathy with the efforts which are being made by the hon. the Minister, it is a pity that the high-sounding phrases with regard to consultation with the non-Whites and ridding South Africa of racial discrimination, cannot be uttered in the context of an undivided country instead of in the context of a country split into independent national units. As I said a moment ago, Sir, this is also a motion of review, because if you look at the record of the last decade alone, can the hon. the Minister cite me a single example, in all the declarations of faith and co-operation, declarations that have come from respective Prime Ministers of the Government, of a positive indication of friendship, of co-operation, of a desire on the part of any of the new states of Africa to work with White South Africa? I am not referring to the states which belonged to the Federation because we know what has happened there and we know what our association is with Southern Rhodesia. If you look at the record, from the establishment of the Economic Commission for Africa to the C.C.T.A. of which we heard so much over the years, and to the I.L.O. or to any other international body co-operating in Africa, the Government must stand condemned that their policies have failed because in no single instance do we retain any membership or do we co-operate with any other states in Africa. I view it as a tragedy. Let me remind hon. members that the hon. Minister’s predecessor expressed the beautiful thought that White South Africa should be the link between emerging Black Africa and the Western world. But we have not become that link, Sir. We have lost our part in Africa. I believe we have lost that part because of the short-sightedness of the policies followed by this Government. The great point the Government miss is that we cannot legislate in isolation on the African continent. What we do internally in this emerging Africa is being watched by the rest of the millions of people in Africa. The Government forgets that. Had they taken note of what was happening in Africa during the past decade and formulated their policies accordingly, had they done that bearing in mind our responsibility as a strategic entity and the part we could play in combating communist aggression on the African continent, bearing in mind that we could only combat Communism by taking the hearts and minds of Black awaking Africa with us and making them aware of the fact that we have as much right to be on the continent of Africa as any Black man. Had a new attitude been adopted instead of an attitude of offering largesse, instead of uttering pious offers of help, none of which were ever accepted, I think we would have had another picture of South Africa to-day. If any tragedy can be written into the story of the position in which we find ourselves it is the fact that amongst all these nations of Africa, with one exception, there is no statesman or politician, at the risk of his political life, who can even make a gesture of friendship to White South Africa. That is the tragic history of this Government’s policy on the African continent. I say it is a tragedy for our country.

There is only one answer, Sir, if we ever hope to get anywhere and that is to change the image of White Africa in the minds of Black Africa. And there is only one way of doing that and that is to show the people of Black Africa that we, the Whites, reject a policy which, by implication, represents racial domination in the worst possible degree. That can only be done in one of two ways. It can only be done either by the Government openly rejecting the policies on which it was elected or the people of South Africa rejecting this Government at the polls and electing a Government which is prepared in all honesty to adopt another approach.

The speeches of the hon. the mover of this motion and of the hon. member for Middelland (Mr. van der Merwe) show evidence of study, insight and objective approach, and accordingly I wish to congratulate them on their speeches. This motion covers a particularly wide field. Most of the aspects mentioned in this motion have been fairly fully discussed to-day. It is not necessary for me to try to cover the whole field again. I shall try to fill in here and there and to show, particularly for the edification of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), how the present Government has succeeded in achieving the object set out in this motion. I shall also in the course of my speech deal with special points raised by some of the previous speakers.

I must say that I welcome the opportunity of exchanging thoughts in the comparatively calm atmosphere of a private members’ day on certain aspects of our international relations. The hon. members for Constantia and Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) unfortunately dragged the colour policy of the Government into this debate. It seems to me that hon. members opposite cannot discuss South Africa’s foreign relations without dragging its colour policy into such a debate. I should have liked to hear a more constructive criticism from the opposite side. I should have liked to listen to it and to learn everything I possibly could from it. I do not wish to debate with hon. members opposite either the merits or demerits of apartheid but I just want to put one question to them. I want to ask the hon. member for Constantia what he and his party offer in the place of the present Government’s policy of separate development. What can hon. members opposite offer in the place of apartheid which will satisfy the extremists—not all the African states in Africa—and the communists? We have already heard that the Government in 1946, which followed a policy which to some extent agreed with that of the present Opposition, could not succeed in satisfying the communists and the Afro-Asian states at UNO. I ask hon. members: What have they got to offer in its place? Why not give the Government’s policy of separate development a chance? Allow me to make just one general remark, Sir. The hon. member for Turffontein alleges that he agrees with what I said at UNO. I must point out to him that I said nothing at UNO which has not repeatedly been stated already by our Prime Minister in South Africa. I stated the facts as they were stated here by our Prime Minister. I stated the facts as they really are.

This motion deals in the first place with South Africa’s relations towards the West with a view to the increasing communistic threat in Africa. It is not necessary for me to expatiate further on the increasing communistic threat in Africa. We all know that the Red Chinese and the Russians are busy digging themselves in in Africa. We know what role they are already playing in many countries of Africa and how great the dangers are which that constitutes for us. In fact, already over a period of years we have been warning against it. We predicted it, but our warnings were ignored. I can tell hon. members that to-day the position has changed to some extent. The world is busy reaching a somewhat better insight in regard to this matter. During my visit to the U.S.A. towards the end of last year I spoke to various members of the U.S. Government. I spoke to various Ministers and I was impressed by the serious light in which members of the American Government viewed the communistic threat in Africa. As the hon. member for Middelland said, even Mr. Mennen Williams pointed out last week that there was a real threat of Communism in Africa and that it was dangerous. But, Sir, as contrasted with the U.S.A., I found in some other Western circles a tendency not to regard a communist infiltration in Africa so seriously, and to regard it as something of a passing nature. You will agree with me, Sir, that that is a very dangerous attitude, because experience has taught us that once Communism has got a hold on a people it is very difficult, it not impossible, to break that hold. I say this in spite of the fact that we all believe that Communism contains the germ of its own downfall and that in the long run it will not be able to survive. In this regard I may just tell the House that I have often encountered appreciation overseas for South Africa’s strong attitude and actions against communistic activities in our country. Nevertheless there are those who allege that the policy of the present Government is promoting Communism. That is being said even in this Parliament. Mr. Speaker, that accusation is totally unfounded. Not only have we restricted the actions of the communists in South Africa, not only do we fully control them, and our actions against them did not constitute an attempt to hamper the political opponents of the Government either, but we should remember that the Government also prevented the spread of Communism by maintaining law and order in South Africa and preventing disorder and chaos, which are the breeding-grounds of Communism. Overseas this accusation is the result of malicious propaganda against South Africa. It is the result of a complete misunderstanding of the policy of the Government and the spirit in which we try to implement that policy, and a misunderstanding of conditions in South Africa, a misconception which we are doing everything in our power to remedy.

In regard to the position of the Western world in general, I want to point out that the West to-day is going through a very difficult phase of its development. One can even talk about a crisis the West is going through. Since the German writer, Oswald Spengler, wrote his famous book nearly 50 years ago in which he predicted the downfall of the West, there has been quite a lot of speculation as to the future of the West. Particularly in recent times quite a lot has been written and spoken about the so-called downfall of the West, the abdication of the White man, etc. Books have also appeared on that subject in South Africa. If one analyzes the population of the world, one finds that approximately one out of every five persons is White. The ratio of White to non-Whites in the world as a whole is therefore approximately the same as it is here in South Africa.

It is therefore not only the White man here in South Africa who has to maintain himself as a minority, but the Whites throughout the world. I want to say here that I myself do not believe that the West is doomed. I think we have appreciable proof of the energy, the initiative and the enterprise of the Westerner and of the Western world which will enable the Westerners to play the leading role that they have played in past centuries. We remember, e.g., the phenomenal way in which Western Europe recovered after the Second World War. We think of the tremendous achievements in recent times of Westerners in the New World, the two Americas, Australia and New Zealand, of course, also here in South Africa. In order to maintain itself, the Western world will have to find a solution which makes the peaceful co-existence of Whites and non-Whites possible, because there are unfortunately dark clouds on the international horizon and there are indications that a colour clash on a world scale between Whites and non-Whites is not impossible. The disquieting Congo debate which took place in the Security Council of UNO last month proved how delicate and inflammable the position is and how easily the relations between Whites and non-Whites can be disturbed. The Western world was in fact deeply shocked at the outburst of racial hatred in the Security Council on the part of certain extremists from Africa, supported by the communists. I say, Sir, the West was shocked at the sharp language in which a humanitarian deed was condemned as an act of aggression which led to a so-called blood bath. As far as possible I emphasized in my discussions with delegates at UNO that this spirit revealed by the African states—not by all of them—was in no way typical of the relationship between Black and White in this country and that no attempt should be made to link South Africa with that outburst of racial hatred. A further indication, a further straw in the wind, is the attempt of Red China to exploit colour in their struggle against Russian Communism. In the light of these tendencies it will certainly not be an easy task for the West to avert the threat of a world conflict. I believe that it can be averted, but then the West must learn, as it is already learning, that international friendship can never be bought by gifts, by charity, by making concessions or by following the policy of making compromises only. In this respect the Western World can learn quite a lot from South Africa, and we can make an important contribution. We can do so by showing the world that the peaceful co-existence of White and non-White is in fact possible, but that it is only possible as long as the White nations demand their rights, particularly their right to existence, and if necessary, enforce it, of course with full recognition of all the rights of the non-Whites. We can do so as long as the White nations do it in such a way and so decisively as to gain the respect of the non-White nations.

Mr. Speaker, South Africa is in a particularly favourable position to make a contribution in this respect. South Africa is in the unique position that it is a state in Africa which has taken root here and has become an integral part of Africa, but that we are also a state which has its origins in the West, and with a Western civilization. Nor should we forget that we are a state which strives to achieve friendship with Africa and with the West. As the hon. member for Turffontein also indicated, we are, as the result of this, eminently suited to serve as a bridge between Africa and the West, between the non-Whites of Africa and the Whites in the West. We are already building that bridge. The trouble is that this is not yet being realized by the world or by all hon. members opposite. That appears, inter alia, from the fact that already we have racial peace in this country to such an extent that conditions in South Africa compare very favourably with those in all other countries of the world which have mixed populations and where various races have to live together.

There is also an increasing realization of the true meaning of the policy of this Government. There is an increasing interest overseas in the principles of the policy of this Government. There is also South Africa’s desire and its ability to co-operate with our immediate neighbouring states in Africa, with the advantages this holds both for us and for those states. I think, e.g., of the advantages of economic agreements, customs agreements, trade agreements, the development of common rivers, transport, etc. All these things must in the long run work like a leaven, and all these things must also in the long run beneficially influence our relations with the rest of Africa. But apart from that, South Africa is also in many other respects a valuable asset to the West, as the other hon. members have already indicated, and that is increasingly being realized. The hon. member for Constantia spoke about our strategic importance. He said that as the result of our colour policy South Africa’s strategic importance is decreasing. I want to remind the hon. member of the recent statements made by authoritative people like the former British Prime Minister, Sir Alec Douglas-Home. I want to remind him of the emphasis placed on South Africa’s strategic importance by Field-Marshall Montgomery. I must remind him of what was said recently by a prominent British admiral who is well known in South Africa and who is acquainted with South African conditions, and who knows what our colour policy is because he lives here, in regard to our strategic importance. I can also tell you, Sir, that we know that many other experts and many other strategists share the opinions of these few people I have just mentioned. It is encouraging that increasingly more voices are being heard to emphasize South Africa’s importance, strategically and otherwise. That is happening, not only in Britain but also in Western Europe and the United States and elsewhere. There are not very many of them yet, but they carry weight. What is more, they do not become fewer; their numbers are increasing.

I may perhaps in this regard refer to one aspect of our strategic importance which has not yet been mentioned, and that is, namely, that if South Africa were to become a communist sphere of influence, or even if South Africa’s Government were to follow a neutral, a so-called non-alignment policy, South Africa could very easily be used as a base for the communists to take action, even against the whole of South America. Sir, just think of the implications of that.

The second part of the motion deals, inter alia, with the promotion of world peace. How is world peace promoted? In the first place a state can only promote world peace if it is peaceful itself if it has internal peace. In this respect South Africa plays its role. We definitely play our role. We compare very favourably with all other countries of the world, and particularly with other Africa states. We shall continue to maintain law and order and peace because we have a policy which promotes peaceful co-existence. The most important threat to world peace is of course aggression or, to put it differently under present circumstances, when the cold war develops into a hot war, that sort of aggression can only be warded off when certain other states or groups of states ensure that they are stronger than the potential aggressors, and so frighten off the aggressors. It is no secret that South Africa follows a policy of non-aggression. But on the other hand South Africa does not neglect its Defence Forces either. The Government is building up its Defence Forces in order to intimidate potential aggressors and, if necessary, to ward them off. Now I want to say that it is really ironic and a tragedy that the West should try to complicate our task in this respect by trying to withhold weapons from us but supplying weapons to other states which threaten us with violence. I say it is a tragedy.

One of the most important requirements for world peace is international co-operation. Here South Africa has also done its duty. I simply wish to refer to the fact that we were a foundation member of the old League of Nations and of UNO and that we were active members of those organizations, and still are; that when the world was threatened by communist aggression in Korea we helped in combating it there; when it became necessary to do so we helped to maintain the Berlin airlift. Although co-operation in a few international organizations has at the moment become impossible for South Africa, it still plays its role in a great number of other fields. I do not want to pause to deal with that. Hon. members know what is actually being done, but I just want to refer to certain examples.

Last month, for example, an international conference in regard to standardization was held in India, where delegates from South Africa were present. At this conference the organization had to elect five councillors. More than 40 were nominated, but the director of the S.A. Bureau of Standards, Dr. A. W. Lategan, was one of the five elected—a great achievement! I also want to remind hon. members that Dr. Bok of the S.A. Wheat Board was elected a year or so ago as the chairman of the International Wheat Board. The Government has just decided to take another important step in this direction, by deciding to accept an invitation to join an international committee for satellite communication, and a delegate from South Africa will shortly go to the U.S.A. to sign that agreement and to take part in the discussions.

Has that not got something to do with television?

It refers to communications. Also in Africa we played a very important role in the past in organizations which aimed at achieving co-operation in the scientific and other spheres in Africa. We must admit that at the moment our actions in Africa have been limited to a large extent, not through our own fault, but I believe that this is of a temporary nature, and I can give the hon. member for Constantia the assurance that the Africa section of my Department, as well as I, are busy steadily devoting attention to African matters. In the meantime it remains our policy to cooperate with and to assist African states provided we have the assurance that this assistance will be welcomed, and provided the Government concerned asks us for that help. We offer our assistance and co-operation in a spirit of helpfulness and without any ulterior motives, and without in any way creating the impression that we want to interfere in the domestic affairs of the countries concerned.

My time has almost expired and I could unfortunately not touch on all the aspects I wanted to deal with, but I want to say this in conclusion: In spite of our importance and our value to the West and to Africa, and in spite of the success with which we in South Africa have combated Communism, in spite of the fact that there is law and order and racial peace and stability of government in South Africa, in spite of everything we have already done and are attempting to do, it would be foolish to believe that all our achievements and attempts will be duly appreciated; it would also be foolish to think that the attempts of others to interfere in our internal affairs will suddenly stop. Therefore it is so essential that all of us in this House and outside—and I am grateful for the approach revealed by hon. members opposite—should unanimously strive to achieve everything asked for in this motion, that we should unanimously subscribe to it and always bear it in mind, because that will definitely strengthen South Africa’s hands in our relations with the outside world and in our attempt to build a future for everybody here.

The motion before the House is in the nature of a statement. It declares to the world that we believe that we are strategically important to the West, that we are specially equipped to help to fight off communist imperialism in Africa, that we want to live in peace and friendship and in a spirit of co-operation with the rest of the world, and especially with our neighbours in Africa, and that our only demand is that others refrain from interfering in our domestic affairs. As a declaration it reflects the faith and the hope of the vast majority of South Africans, certainly of the White South Africans. But the question that faces us is: Does this motion solve anything? Does it say anything that has not been said over and over before, and do others see us the way that we see ourselves? I feel that if this motion is to be of any value to our country and this House, then we should try to see ourselves in proper perspective and try to understand the forces which dominate the world as it is to-day. We must have a good look at ourselves and try to find out why we fall down in the eyes of others and why motions of this kind are necessary at all.

Take the question of “interference” in our “domestic affairs”. Of course nobody likes interference in his private affairs, nobody welcomes a busy-body, and we certainly stand on the principle that there should not be interference in the internal affairs of South Africa or of any other country. But, now, for 16 years we have been pleading this point on every conceivable platform that has presented itself to us. What was the result? Not only have we had no success, but year after year the situation has deteriorated to the point where we are now: where we are pushed out in the air in Africa; where our allies of yesterday are refusing to deliver arms to our country; where our downfall is openly and methodically planned in high places; and where the Prime Minister himself can say in a speech that it is time for us to man the positions. I quote his words: “We are opposed by a massive number of states and they have the West on their side.” (Report in the Burger, 17 December 1964.)

The question is, why this has come to pass while we know that every country which accepted the Charter of UNO thereby pledged itself to uphold the principle of the sovereignty of nations and of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other countries? I think the simple fact is this, and I am not trying to justify anything. I only believe that a general will lead his army to destruction unless he is able to make a proper assessment of the terrain upon which he is called to fight, and of the nature of the forces he has to contend with. The simple fact is that the world has long ago ceased to regard the question of human relations as a domestic affair in any country, especially if race and colour are involved.

Do you agree?

I said it was not a matter of justification. I am giving the facts as they are. We are not the only country to have come in for attack and censure on the international front. Look at the hostility that America had to endure as a result of the disabilities certain of her citizens had to endure in the southern states of the Confederation. We are not the only case; and what is more, we are not the first case. This is by no means a new development in world politics. Take the case of Germany as long ago as 31 years. Let me say first that I am not trying to make a comparison between our internal position here and that of Germany 31 years ago; that is not my point. I am dealing only with the international aspect of the matter. The point is that when Hitler came to power 31 years ago in Germany there was a remarkable measure of sympathy for his efforts, as they were believed to be, to liberate Germany from the effects of the Treaty of Versailles. But what caused the major part of the world to rise up in wrath against him, and eventually to rise up in arms against him? It was his handling of human affairs in Germany; it was his humiliation of the Jews in Germany, and his miserable race laws. Strictly speaking, these were domestic issues, and Hitler pleaded that they were domestic issues, and he quarrelled with the League of Nations, and eventually he left the League of Nations because of their “interference” in his “domestic affairs”. He was progressively hounded out of international society, and eventually it was purely a matter of finding a suitable casus belli for the Allied Powers to declare war on him: and if the Allied Powers had not been so weak and unprepared at that time the war would have started a year earlier in 1938 over the question of Sudetenland. That was 26 years ago; and I say again, that whether we like it or not, and whether we believe it to be right or wrong, let us continue to stand on the principle that there should be no interference in a country’s domestic affairs. But let us not delude ourselves, and face the fact squarely, that the question of human rights and human relations, especially where colour and race are concerned, has ceased in the eyes of the world to fall within the definition of “domestic affairs”. Therefore, if we want to improve our international position we must stop longing for the old world whilst being forced to live in the new world; and instead of high-sounding words and motions we should like to see the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Loots), who has a certain influence in his party, getting down to business. He should exhort his party and Parliament to embark upon what we know will be a long and difficult road, but one which we will nevertheless have to follow, and that is slowly but surely to remove from the Statute Book of our country every race law which is of a negative nature and which humiliates people purely on the basis of colour. No words will avail if they are not backed by meaningful deeds. And if we delay too long—and I am afraid time is not on our side—the hostility will continue and it will mount and sooner or later the fatal casus belli will be found against us.

There is a second point in the motion. The motion pleads our desire to be friends with everyone who is prepared to return the compliment. Again the question comes up: Are we prepared to be friends in the internationally accepted sense of the term, or do we want to be friends only on our own particular terms? Take a case in point. Whether we have good reasons for it or bad is not the point, but the world hears that members of the Government are not prepared to attend high diplomatic functions where prominent South African non-Whites are present. The effect is disastrous. Our words of friendship are simply not believed because our deeds speak louder than our words. Take another case. Everywhere in the world a desire to co-operate takes the visible form of a friendly exchange of representatives on the diplomatic level. But every time we are challenged on this score the Government dodges the issue. Last year the Prime Minister put forward the idea of accepting a sort of shuttle service ambassador where neighbouring Black states are involved.

The Ambassador must be prepared to remain in orbit, as it were. What kind of reception can you expect to get for a suggestion like that? It was promptly rejected in principle by our neighbours. We all know that present circumstances are not such that a large-scale exchange of ambassadors with the African states is practical politics, but one thing is certain, and that is that if we want people to believe that we want to be friends, that we earnesly desire friendly relations, the Government will have to make it clear that it fully accepts the principle of the customary exchange of diplomatic representatives with African and Asian states. And if the Government really believes that its policies are misunderstood and that it is moving forward to some form of equality for all, then it is in duty bound, in the interests of South Africa, to get some of these people here, to look for a gap, to seek the earliest possible opportunity of establishing diplomatic relations with at least one suitable African state. Sir, only a deed like that, and nothing else, will help to prove our desire and our intention to have normal, friendly relations with the countries around us.

Just one last point: We want to press home the fact that we are better placed than anybody else to help the West to combat communist imperialism in Africa. There is no doubt that we are strongly anti-communist; there is no doubt that we are well-equipped to deal with communist infiltration in South Africa; but that is as far as it goes. Let us again be frank with ourselves. What practical help are we actually giving the Western powers, or able to give, in the fight against Communism on the whole vast continent of Africa? We have allowed ourselves to be manoeuvred into a position where we have no access to the rest of Africa, except Rhodesia and the Portuguese provinces. We have no representatives in the major countries of Africa, and as a result we have no contact with the vital parts of Africa. In addition to all that, our policies evoke such bitter feelings in Africa that it is questionable, as things are, whether even in time of war the West will consider it advisable to lean on us. As things are, the communists are using us as a scapegoat to make converts in Africa, especially China. The hon. the Minister also mentioned the fact that China was beginning to use colour as a weapon in the world fight. Our political attitudes of the past now boomerang against us, and against the West. Time and again—and it is no use the Minister’s deprecating it—we land back at the same point, our race laws, which are the root cause of our serious position internationally; and I say that this motion will be meaningless; that we will be powerless to play any significant part in the fight against Communism in Africa unless we start at home, unless we change our attitudes, and unless we change our laws. Once we have done that, once we have put our house in order, we can move forward to establish ourselves once again in Africa. We will have to open our doors again and bring leaders here for training. It is no good complaining that they are going to Prague and Peking and Moscow. What are we doing? We have closed our doors. We will have to open our doors again. Instead of allowing these people to go to Moscow, we will have to open our doors and help to train leaders for Africa. Sir, we are fellow-Africans. We are far better placed and equipped than any other nation to oust Communism from Africa. People do not turn naturally to Communism. Communism is against nature; it is against peoples’ nature to turn to Communism. That is why Communism has established itself nowhere but by revolution and force. It has to force its way in. And if the communists capture Africa or any large part of it, then our stupidity will be as much responsible for it as that of anybody else, and I think it is all very sad. We should never have allowed ourselves to sink to the level we have reached, where, to the great comfort of the communists, we are completely isolated, emasculated, as far as the fight in Africa is concerned, and we are left to pass motions of this kind without any teeth in them. But, Sir, I am hopeful; I am not a pessimist. I believe that a political change will come. South Africa can and will yet play a colossal part in Africa. I believe it is a matter of time and that our country will play a great, positive role in Africa. Sir, we have all the material in South Africa for greatness. Look at our people, look at our manpower. Among our Whites we have people of Dutch and French and German and British extraction. The heart of the West. Among our non-Whites we have brown people; we have Malays who are Moslems; we have the Indians, both Hindu and Moslem; and we have Black people—the heart of Africa—all together in South Africa.

And we have Japie Basson.

I know there are brilliant leaders among all these groups and I believe that if we put our house in order and change our petty attitudes and train these men for promotional and diplomatic services in Africa and elsewhere, then there is no end to the heights of co-operative leadership that we will reach in Africa, and then nobody will deny the fact of our immense strategic and political importance in Africa.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and motion lapsed.