I rise in the first instance to reply to the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp), who tried to frighten us when he spoke last Thursday by pointing out that large sections of South Africa were supposedly going to be given away as presents to the Bantu protectorates. As he put it: That traditionally Bantu areas were going to be given to them as a present. I wish to reply to that, because the areas he included were areas which are White at the moment and which will remain White permanently. He included the entire area of Vryburg, Mafeking, Rustenburg, Marico, the so-called old Stellaland and Goosen; he included the conquered area of the Orange Free State and various other areas. This scare-story was, of course, deliberately sent into the world, and that is why I wish to repudiate it immediately and put the facts historically right.

How does a nation acquire its territory? There are three ways in which a nation can acquire territory, Firstly, there is the right of occupation. The United States of America acquired its territory by virtue of the right of occupation; in that way Australia also acquired its territory; in that way the Republic of South Africa also acquired large portions of its territory, namely, the entire western Cape, the north-western areas, and it acquired various other parts by virtue of the right of occupation. That method of acquiring territory is generally recognized internationally. The second way of acquiring territory is by way of negotiation or agreement. History shows that Poland was divided on a few occasions as a result of negotiation or agreement. Alsace-Lorraine was for a long time in German hands and then again in French hands in terms of an agreement. Nizza and Savoy became French territory by agreement. Similarly sections of South Africa became White homelands by way of agreement. I refer in particular to sections of the Orange Free State which became White homelands by way of agreement with the Native Chief Marokko of the Barolongs; I think of Natal, the treaty between Retief and Dingaan; I think of Stellaland and Goosen. In respect of them there was an agreement between certain Boer generals and the Tswanas of those days. That is the right of agreement. Those, therefore, are White areas, and internationally recognized White areas. The third method I wish to mention is the right to conquer and annex. The Roman Empire came into being on the basis of the right to conquer. Britain fell into the hands of the Anglo-Saxons because it was conquered by them. The kingdoms of Naples and Sicily and numerous other states in the world fell into the hands of their new masters because they were conquered by them. On this basis of conquering which is internationally recognized the Transvaal, Orange Free State and Natal were conquered in the battles of Vegkop, Kapaïn, Blood River and the White Umfolozi and subsequently annexed as White territory. The right to conquer which is internationally recognized therefore also applies in the case of these areas. It is the territory of the White man, therefore, and not traditionally that of the Black man as alleged by the hon. member. That is a method which is internationally recognized. Thus South Africa acquired a White territory. But certain areas of South Africa have been Bantu areas by virtue of the right of occupation and have remained such. The right of occupation also applied in those cases and in that way certain areas remained traditionally Bantu areas. I am referring to the Bantu reserves, the Bantu homelands. As far as the arguments of the hon. member are concerned, I think he misunderstands the whole position. When referring to the protectorates the hon. the Prime Minister never meant or insinuated that traditionally White areas would be handed over to the protectorates, but what he had in mind was that national ethnic units could be established there in that the Tswana area in Bechuanaland and the Tswana area in the Republic could form a Tswana homeland, but that no territory outside the existing Bantu areas would be handed over to them. That was the underlying idea, and the hon. member must not try to misrepresent the position and to bring people under a misconception.

I want to say a few words about the motion of no confidence. When an Opposition moves a motion of no confidence in the Government it is logical to expect it to submit an alternative policy against which the policy of the Government can be tested, thereby giving the public an opportunity to choose which of the two parties it wanted to support. We therefore expect an alternative government, which the Opposition alleges it is, to come forward with an alternative policy. What exactly have we had from the Opposition in the form of a positive statement of policy during the past debate? The only positive statement of policy we have had throughout the entire debate is in the form of a short extract from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition which I have here and which I want to study a little further, i.e. a short summary of his statement of policy. He made three points: (1) White leadership over the whole of South Africa and not only over a portion of it; (2) a vigorous integration policy. I do not want to discuss that to-day because time does not permit me to do so. Furthermore, we are achieving such success with our immigration policy, greater success than the United Party ever achieved during their regime, that it is not necessary for me to enlarge on it at this stage; the third point made by the Leader of the Opposition was that a defined share in the Government should be granted to the non-Whites.

The first portion of this statement of policy is closely linked with the policy of Bantu homelands, and I think it is essential for me to say a few words in this regard. When Bantu homelands and Bantu authorities were established in 1959, serious doubts were expressed in this House by members of the Opposition. The whole idea was described as diabolic. According to them we had come to the crossroads and we were supposed to be leading South Africa over the precipice. The Opposition would fight that idea to the bitter end. What is the position to-day—a mere five or six years after that announcement? The Opposition must admit that more and more people and organizations are accepting the policy of Bantu homelands as a practical solution of the problems facing the Republic of South Africa. The National Party has not yet departed an inch from that policy. It has not yet lost a single voter because of it, except the present member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson), who objected to it in principle. He is the only member the National Party has lost because of this policy. But the United Party has lost many because of this policy, such as the Odells and the Groenewalds. They were not fugitives but the forerunners of a vast mass of people who were moving towards the National Party because of the Bantu homelands policy. It is a fact to-day that over 80 per cent—I am putting it conservatively—of the so-called supporters of the United Party accept the policy of Bantu homelands of the Government’s as a solution. I want to go further. Even the English-language Press accepts it. I have cuttings from the Sunday Times, but hon. members have all read it. The Sunday Times says: All joking apart, let us admit that the Government’s Bantu homelands policy is right, that it is being a success, and the United Party must accept it. Even that faithful mouthpiece of the United Party adopts that attitude. I go further and say that even overseas the Bantu homelands policy of South Africa is being understood better and better; they are more and more inclined to give us a chance; they are prepared to listen to our case as far as our Bantu homelands policy is concerned. But even the United Party itself accepts the policy of Bantu homelands. During the past week the hon. Senator Pilkington Jordan said—I do not agree with him at all—that there was such similarity between us and them at this stage in respect of policy that we should really do what was done in 1936 and make a joint effort. I want to say this, and I shall prove it, that contrary to what the hon. Senator has said, our policy is the direct opposite of their policy and will remain to be the direct opposite as long as they are so unwise as to persist in following the direction they are following to-day. But I say the United Party have indeed accepted the Bantu homelands policy in the sense that they regard those areas as traditional Bantu areas and wish to create homelands there. During the present debate the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has once again confirmed that. I want to go a little deeper into the matter. Both the major parties in this Parliament accept that there should be a homeland for the Bantu, a permanent homeland which will be the Bantu’s very own.

Where does the difference lie? The first fundamental difference is this: The United Party guarantees a permanent homeland to the Bantu but it does not guarantee a homeland to the White man in South Africa. That is the first fundament as difference. It guarantees a homeland to the Black man but not to the White man. As against that the National Party adopts the attitude that the Bantu must have a homeland but that a permanent homeland should also be guaranteed to the White man for all time. I want to point to a second difference. The National Party adopts the attitude that the Bantu homelands can develop to full independence and autonomy in time to come. We are not afraid of the consequences. We state from every platform that we are prepared to allow them to develop to the fullest extent.

Since when have you been saying that?

That is a natural consequence that flows automatically from our policy of developing a Bantu homeland. It is not a new idea. In that way we want to give the Bantu an opportunity of giving free rein to his aspirations and national feelings without a ceiling above his head. In this way they can satisfy their aspirations as a nation and as a people. That is the first result that will be achieved. The second is that in this way you will give the Bantu an opportunity of exercising a say over himself, of governing himself and, like the Bantu in the states to our north, of conducting his own affairs, and of developing his own national pride. In that way we shall satisfy the Black man, we shall satisfy the world opinion, and we shall be doing our Christian duty as guardians over people who are attaining their freedom under our guidance. But the next step follows on that. That being the position we deny the Bantu any say in White South Africa because he has his own area in which to make a living and it is not necessary for him, therefore, to be in our area. We have every moral right to say that. The United Party, however, want to give the Bantu homelands a kind of local government which they will recognize, a local government of provincial council standard. But that will never give satisfaction; the Bantu will always be hitting his head against a ceiling because there will always be a superior authority. That will not satisfy him in any respect. It will only lead to greater insistence on more rights and more privileges and a greater say in our own affairs. That will not solve anything and will not give any satisfaction. At the same time there is no danger inherent in the policy of the United Party, and it is this: when those Bantu homelands have developed into a kind of provincial administration they will be given representation in this White Parliament. I am not talking of the urban Bantu but of the homelands. I wish to quote from the famous De Aar speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as reported in the Cape Times of 7 May 1962—

He will be represented here although not on the same basis as the urban Bantu. I again ask hon. members opposite whether Black people will not sit here under their regime? Will the Bantu homelands which have developed to provincial status, the homelands which have M.E.C.’s or whatever they may be, be satisfied to be represented by Whites in this Parliament or will their logical demand be to be represented by their own people? Over and above the eight who will represent the urban Bantu, therefore, we shall have more representatives of the Bantu under their policy.

I want to deal with another standpoint of the United Party. They maintain that under our policy the Bantu homelands will develop into states hostile to us, that they will become communistic and hostile. We, on the other hand, believe that because we have so many common interests, due to the fact that for many, many years to come they will, economically, still be completely dependent on South Africa which is the economic colossus not only in southern Africa but in the entire Continent of Africa. We believe that for those and other reasons they will be well-disposed towards us, not because they are particularly so fond of us but in order to ensure their continued existence. Surely that is very clear. We find that even Zambia and other hostile black states in Africa have openly admitted that they cannot boycott South Africa because if they did they would be ruining themselves. Just as little will these people be able to afford to be hostile towards us. But let us accept for a moment that these Black states on our borders will develop into hostile communist states. Let us take the extreme case for a moment. I then ask myself whether that is a new problem. At the moment we have three protectorates on our borders over which we have no control and which may in the near future develop into hostile communist Black states internally. We are therefore not creating a new problem because they are surrounded by the territory of the Republic of South Africa. Surely we have no say over the protectorates. Secondly, I ask myself what the alternative is. What is the alternative to the suggestion that they may develop into Black hostile states? The alternative is that under United Party policy the Black man may come under the same communist influences and will want to exercise his political rights in this Parliament. In that case they will introduce communist ideas into this House and the entire Republic of South Africa will eventually be converted into a big Black communist state with the Whites in the minority. Surely the position is very clear. Sir, if I had to choose between a fierce black bull on the other side of the fence or a black adder in my bosom, I would much rather choose the black bull than the black adder.

The United Party say they stand for White leadership over the entire South Africa and not only over a section of it. But that must be qualified. I must point out that the word “temporary” must immediately be added and that it should be “temporary” White leadership over the entire South Africa and not only over a section of it. I challenge them to say that they are prepared to state that they will add the words “permanent” or “eternal” and say “permanent White leadership over the entire South Africa”. I challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to get up this afternoon and say that their attitude is one of permanent White leadership over the entire South Africa. They will never add that word to their battle cry.

Very long.

The hon. member says they will have leadership for a very long time. But what happens then? After that the White leadership, or temporary White leadership of the Opposition, will become Black supremacy over the entire South Africa and not only over a portion of it.

As against that the homelands policy of the National Party stands firmly and strongly and above all suspicion. If we were to borrow their words our slogan would be White leadership over the entire South Africa for a period much longer than under the United Party, but with eternal White supremacy over the entire White South Africa at the same time. I think those few words sum up the difference between that side and this side. I want to leave this point by saying that the world accepts our policy and that the United Party will accept it if they come to their senses.

I want to deal with the White area. Once again our policy is the direct opposite of the policy of the United Party as far as White South Africa is concerned. Based on the rights we are prepared to give the Bantu in their own homelands, the attitude of the National Party is that no political rights of any kind will be given to the Bantu in the White Parliament of the Republic of South Africa.

Will you remove them?

I am talking about Parliament. They are not here how can we remove them? But while the United Party does not want to give full rights to the Bantu in their own homelands they subscribe, at the same time, to another principle which I want to deal with and that is the granting to the non-Whites of a defined share in the government. The third leg of the argument of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is the granting to the non-Whites of a defined share in the Government. How do they want to give it? That takes us back to the famous race federation plan of the United Party. I have made a thorough study of it and I think the position is very clear: To start with there will be eight Whites who will represent the urban Bantu in this House. I am not talking about the Senate but the Bantu in the urban areas and their representation in this Parliament. Those eight Whites will represent the urban Bantu in this House.

A maximum of eight.

It makes no difference. There will be eight people in this House representing the Bantu. We have already heard that those eight may perhaps be Black or that the eight may be increased to more than eight if by way of a referendum the majority of the voters are in favour of it. I think I am stating the position correctly. My question is this: Who are the voters? We recently had the announcement that the Bantu of South Africa would be placed on a separate voters’ roll and that they would elect these eight persons. Are they voters or are they not?

Not for that purpose.

The only people who will vote in that referendum therefore will be the Whites and the Coloureds who are on the Common Voters’ Roll—it is the policy of the United Party to restore the Coloureds to the Common Voters’ Roll. In other words, the Whites and the Coloureds will vote. That brings me to my next question: What attitude are they going to adopt on the platforms of South Africa in that referendum? I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) when that referendum, in which the White and Coloured voters will vote, takes place what attitude will they adopt on the platforms of South Africa? Will they say to the voters: “Vote “yes”, vote for the Black man to have the right to be represented in this Parliament by his own people; vote “yes” this representation can be increased to more than eight.“ Or will they proclaim from the platforms: “Vote “no”, vote for the White man to continue to represent the Black man in Parliament; vote “no” the number should never exceed eight.” What are they going to say from the platforms? I challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to tell us what attitude he will adopt in that referendum. But let us again give them the benefit of the doubt and take it that in that referendum the voters vote it down and decide against the Blacks being given increased representation and they are represented here by Whites. Then my third question is this: Will the Black man be satisfied with this decision regarding his future? Will he accept it? Will he abide by it? We are not irresponsible children and we cannot play hide and seek. I am asking a question in all honesty and I expect a reply from the Leader of the Opposition. I want to be very conservative in laying down a time limit. Can the Leader of the Opposition give the guarantee to the electors of the country that if the Opposition come into power and if they carry out their race federation policy there will not be Black people in this House ten years later? Is the Leader of the Opposition personally prepared to say that as long as he is Leader of the Opposition no Black person will sit in this Parliament? That is the simple question and the voters would like a reply. No, what happened in the rest of Africa will happen in their case. I again want to read their battle cry and apply it: “the granting to the non-Whites of a defined share in the Government.” The granting to the non-Whites of a defined share in the Government was precisely the policy followed in Kenya—14 Blacks to represent 6,000,000 Blacks, seven Asiatics to represent the Asiatics and 46 Whites to represent the 70,000 Whites—a defined share in the government was given to the Black man. What was the result of that defined share? Black supremacy. Take Tanganyika. Ten Blacks to represent 9,000,000 Blacks, ten Asiatics to represent 75,000 Asiatics and ten Whites to represent 20,000 Whites; a defined share in the government was given to the non-Whites and what was the result? Black supremacy. What is the policy of the United Party? Eight Blacks to represent 13,000,000 Blacks. There is no clarity as far as the Indians are concerned and there will be 160 Whites to represent the 4,500,000 Whites and Coloureds together. Where will that end? In Black supremacy and nothing else. The granting to non-Whites of a defined share in the government must lead to the non-Whites taking over the Government completely and we are not the only people who say that. Dr. Nkrumah, the leader in Africa, according to his own standards, said—

Mr. Lawrence Gandar, the editor of the Rand Daily Mail, has adopted a very clear attitude. He said this—

Here we once again have a person who tells us very clearly what it will lead to. But I want to quote General Smuts. In 1926 there was an attempt on the part of General Hertzog to have the Natives represented by seven Whites in this Parliament. General Smuts took exception to it and said the following—

That was what General Smuts said. [Interjections]. Another clear difference between our policies is that the United Party regards South Africa as an entity, as one country with one nation, with one aim and one aspiration, like so many other countries in the world who are entities, such as France or Holland. But that is not correct. The Nationalist Party sees South Africa as it is, as a Western Europe, occupied by various nations with different languages and divergent aspirations and ideals, but nonetheless with a common interest.

Dismembered and broken.

West Europe has already been dismembered like that for centuries and an attempt has never yet been made to turn Western Europe into one political unit with one central Parliament. Why should we do it here? In Western Europe we have civilized White nations whereas we are here, in many cases, dealing with people who are at a lower level of development. In not a single country in the world has a multi-racial government governed successfully.

What about Belgium and Switzerland?

In their case they all belong to the same white race I want to conclude. I think I have clearly indicated that as far as policy is concerned the two parties are directly opposed. The National Party is moving towards separation accompanied by permanent supremacy by White and Black each in his own area, a permanent homeland for the Black man but an equally permanent homeland for the White man. The United Party is moving towards temporary White leadership—a beautiful slogan—with ultimate Black supremacy. They want to give the entire Republic of South Africa to the Black man in a bloodless war because economically he has infiltrated into our area. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must give clear replies to these few questions to-day because the electorate want those replies before 24 March. I hope he will have the courage to reply, I know he will.

The hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) has made a most interesting contribution to this debate, interesting not because of the great heat with which he delivered it, but because of the manner in which he has denied the theme that has been running through all the speeches of hon. members opposite throughout this debate. Throughout this debate we have been told by Nationalist Party speakers, one after the other, that the thing most significant to them in my leader’s speech was that he did not deal with the United Party’s policy and that he did not refer to the policy of race federation at all. The hon. member for Randfontein said that quoting from my leader’s speech he could sum up the three cardinal principles of our policy, and he could then spend half an hour trying to demolish it. in direct contradiction to all the arguments used by the previous speakers in this debate. [Interjection.] I must say, Sir, that if we have more hon. members like the hon. member for Randfontein in this House it will become unnecessary for the United Party to defend its point of view, because they themselves will deny and refute one another and cancel one another out. [Interjections.]

But this debate has been valuable in another way. We have had greater clarity in this debate on the Government’s policy than we ever had before. Thanks to the action of the Leader of the Opposition and those supporting him, members opposite have been compelled to speak truthfully about their policy, and one thing that has become abundantly clear is that they can no longer dispute that they stand for sovereign independent Bantustans. I shall come back to that; but now I want to grouse at the contribution to this debate made by the first speaker on the Government side, whose speeches always interest me particularly, and that is from the hon. the Minister of Transport. He, Sir, did not help to bring clarity. He did not speak about his own subject much, but he spent much time dealing with what he called conflicting statements by speakers of the United Party on the question of job reservation; and then he gave his own definition of job reservation. Job reservation, which is a new invention of the Nationalist Party in Clause 77 of the new Industrial Conciliation Act, suddenly had to include all the traditional colour bars in South Africa and all previous legislation to demarcate spheres of employment between Whites and non-Whites. Sir, if he wishes to be so confused, it is not for me to help him. But he certainly did not succeed in bringing clarity either to the House or to the country in regard to the issues between us, and that is why it is necessary that we should help him.

The difference between us and the Government is that we accept that race relations and economic relations between the races of this country are dynamic. They do not stand still. They have to change from time to time as our country develops and as fundamental changes take place in the economy and the social structure of our people. But the difference between us and hon. members opposite is that we are honest about the consequences. [Interjection.] Secondly, we want to ensure that the changes as they take place will take place with the concurrence and the co-operation of the people directly affected, and not as the result of the whims of Ministers using executive powers in order to lay down decrees and laws not subject to the normal process of lawmaking in this House. These principles were made suspect by the hon. the Minister when he tried to indicate that there is confusion on our side. Our policy is very clear. We accept that there is a conventional colour bar in South Africa. We believe that that colour bar will have to change from time to time; it must be adapted. But we lay down as a firm and essential prerequisite to any change that it should take place as the result of the operation of industrial democracy, as the result of agreement between the employers and the employees concerned. That has been done away with by the Government in Section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act, with the “Job Reservation” clause with which I do not want to deal now. The Minister says that the clause affects only about 2% of the workers. We say it is wrong. It should go. But we never said that the conventional colour bar should go. except by agreement among the parties concerned. And what is so interesting is that while the hon. the Minister is imputing to us a policy which is not our policy, he is himself applying, against all the emotional propaganda of the Nationalist Party, the policy of the United Party on the South African Railways; because recently he had to relax the colour bar in the case of some Indians in Natal in order to allow them to do work that was traditionally done by White workers. I can remember that in 1955 the justification for Section 77 was that employers were doing away with the conventional colour bar and, most terrible of all sins, they were allowing non-Whites to do work traditionally done by Whites. Now the Minister does it himself, and I congratulate him from my heart. He does it in strict accordance with United Party principles. As the employer he gets the consent of the trade unions concerned, and it is done peacefully and calmly and in the interests of South Africa and of the Railways. I am surprised that the hon. the Minister who can so effectively apply United Party policy should pretend he does not know what United Party policy is. [Laughter.]

Then the Minister tried to sow some confusion about the principle of the rate for the job. an amazing state of affairs, seeing that he is probably the greatest and the only expert on labour matters on the Government side. The Minister knows that the rate for the job is not something peculiar to South Africa because we have different races at different levels of existence. The rate for the job exists and is applied by trade unions wherever free trade unions exist in the world to prevent unfair competition from people who are willing to take work at a lower standard of pay because they need the work. In Britain, a few years ago, and probably to-day, if the trade unions were allowed from the depressed areas to go to South-East Britain, to work in the industries there at lower wages, which they would do because they are unemployed, the standard of living of the workers already in South-East Britain would be undermined. So the trade unions there apply the rate for the job. The rate for the job has been devised by Western organized labour to prevent unfair competition between worker and worker, and the United Party says that in South Africa we shall apply the rate for the job to prevent unfair competition between worker and worker. That is basic, and I think the hon. the Minister should know it. That is why we are fully entitled to say, as we have done in certain instances to which the Minister referred, where no competition exists. For example, where White.workers drive buses conveying White passengers only, and non-White drivers drive buses conveying non-White passengers only, and there can be no competition for one another’s jobs, the rate for the job need not apply, provided the change is made voluntarily with the agreement of the trade unions and is in the interest of the workers concerned and of the community. That is common sense and the Minister applies it on the Railways, but when we state it it is a sin; then it is confusion. But when he practises it, he tries to disguise the fact that he is doing what the United Party stands for by attacking our policy. That is not the way for us to reach understanding of these difficult questions. I do hope the Minister of Transport will pull himself together.

Then there is another matter I should deal with. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration quoted from a television interview which I gave in Cape Town but which was broadcast in Britain last year. He quoted me quite correctly. The main question he put to me was whether I used these words; and the answer is yes, I did. He quoted me as saying that on our advent to power, the Bantu would be represented in Parliament by Whites, and then in reply to a specific question I said that I accepted that in time Parliament would allow Bantu to represent Bantu in Parliament. That is the gist of it. Sir, I said that, and I believe that that will happen. I believe that if we have a policy in South Africa under which White leadership is guaranteed, the White people in control of this country will be willing to make just concessions to non-Whites, because they will know that White leadership and White standards of civilization are safe in South Africa. But the point I want to make is this, and that is where the Minister did me a grave injustice. I do not think he did it intentionally; he was just excited. He was carried away by the exuberance of his speech. He said that I had said that on our accession to power this would happen. [Interjections.] I did not say “on our election”. I said distinctly, and the Minister has it before him, that on our election they would be represented by eight White people, but subsequently Parliament may decide to put Blacks in Parliament.

I did not say that. You may read my speech. You will not find it there.

Have I the Deputy Minister’s permission to read his Hansard out? It is a long quotation, but I will send it over to the Minister and he can look through it. The Minister said: “He says ‘on our election’.” In other words, it is not a parliament which will elect these people, but “on their election”. But the point I want to make is this, that if such a change were to come about under the United Party, it will come about as a result of the express wish and the decision of the White voters of South Africa. That is the guarantee that we of the United Party give to South Africa, and which the Government cannot and does not give. We have said again and again that such a change would happen as a result of a specific instruction from the voters at a referendum or at a general election, and by that we mean the existing voters. [Interjection.] I am amazed that there should be this pretended misunderstanding. The object of this protection that we offer the people is to protect the existing voters against … [Interjections.] The final question the Deputy Minister put to me was: If there were to be such a referendum, what would our advice to the people be? Sir, if there were to be such a referendum to-day or to-morrow in the circumstances obtaining in South Africa, our advice would be to the voters not to vote for Bantu members … [Interjection.] Another answer is that if circumstances are so changed in South Africa that, thanks to the implementation of our policy, the civilized White leadership of our people is secured in South Africa, then we might consider it, but not before; and that is the essential difference between the Nationalist Party and us.

But I must go on because my time is short. It was quite obvious what the hon. the Deputy Minister was up to, and what the hon. member for Randfontein was up to, who to a large extent merely repeated the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister. They were trying to draw a smokescreen across the true problem before South Africa, and that is not what the United Party may do one day, but what this Government is doing to South Africa to-day. That is the issue. It is all a smokescreen. There was another smokescreen with which I should pause to deal for a moment, a smokescreen for which the Deputy Minister was responsible and for which the Minister of Indian Affairs was responsible, and that was to repeat the canard, the untruth—I do not think they believed it was untrue; they believed it genuinely, but I must remind them that it was untrue—that the idea of independent Bantustans is the traditional policy of the South African people. The Deputy Minister went so far as to suggest that General Hertzog also stood for that policy. And he now says “yes”. But whom must I believe, the Deputy Minister or the Prime Minister? Who speaks the truth, because, as I shall show, they cannot both speak the truth. On 27 January 1959, two or three months before he announced the Bantustan policy, the Prime Minister spoke in this House and summarized General Hertzog’s Policy like this—

Sir, you must please listen carefully. This is the hon. the Prime Minister talking—

A Solomon must judge, but I am no Solomon. But a second expert, to whose authority the Deputy Minister should bow, is the Minister of Bantu Administration himself, the dear old gentleman of whom we are all so fond. This great horse-breeder, on 14 May 1956, three years before we heard about the Bantustan policy for the first time, spoke in Parliament and, in col. 5640, he first reproached us for misrepresenting the policy of the Nationalist Party as something which might lead to independent Bantustans, and then he said this—

(Hear. Hear!) I think I have now shown that this is a smokescreen, but I must take it a bit further. One of the hon. members opposite went so far as to call the policy of independent Bantustans Voortrekker policy. I had to consult a witness, and the finest witness I could find was the great Voortrekker President, Paul Kruger, whom hon. members opposite adulate. When after the First War of Independence he was asked to be nominated as President of the Transvaal, he accepted that request in a “reply to the requisition”, which is the equivalent to what we would call a manifesto today. He published this manifesto as his confession of faith and policy. He first said that the man who could find a solution to this problem would be a genius, and then he went on to say—

The Minister of Bantu Education should now tell us whether President Kruger, with his prophetic vision, was referring to hon. gentlemen opposite as enemies of the State or as aliens in South Africa, because that is what he thought, Sir, of this policy which is now wrongly, and I suggest mischievously, attributed to our forefathers in South Africa.

One argument used by my very good friend, the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder), with which I want to agree was that the Bantustan concept is an integral and inseparable part of the apartheid philosophy. That is true. The Nationalist Party could not continue to exist as an organization of honourable men and women if they did not in to-day’s circumstances have the Bantustan concept. The hon. member for Randfontein proved that most eloquently when he stood up here and told us with a great gesture of devotion that the Bantustan concept was necessary because there, in the Bantustans, the Natives would enjoy the opportunities to develop themselves to the utmost of their capacity, but then he added, “those Natives in the White parts of South Africa must not expect any political rights whatsoever”.

Quite correct.

Sir, the moral need of my hon. friends opposite is to justify their unforgivable policy towards the non-Whites who are not in the Native reserves—the majority of the Blacks who create the wealth of South Africa as workers. In order to justify their wrong and bad policy towards those people, they must have a sop for their consciences and that sop is, “Oh, he has no family life here to speak of; he has no rights here; he cannot own a piece of land; he is shuffled around; he is, as the Prime Minister once said, an inter-changeable labour unit; he is all that, but my conscience is clear, because although he suffers those disadvantages here to-day, all he has to do is to go to Umtata or Libasa and there he can have all the rights in the world”.

That is right.

Sir, I am most encouraged by this phenomenon. My hon. friends opposite are decent gentlemen; they know that they have to sleep with their consciences at night and they want to sleep peacefully and that is why they have to create this sop to their consciences. But the indisputable truth of the matter is that as long as we live and our children live and our grandchildren live and our great-grandchildren live, the majority of the Natives and their descendants who are to-day outside the reserves will not find their way back to the reserves. That is true, Sir. If that is a sop to the conscience, what sop is there to the conscience of my hon. friends opposite in respect of the Cape Coloured people and the Indians? The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development became most eloquent about the fact that we have in South Africa not races—he does not like the word “races” he wants us to speak about different nations in South Africa.

Peoples.

He said “nasies” (nations).

Peoples.

Very well, “peoples” but not in the sense of individual human beings but in the sense of organized political entities …

Cultural entities.

… I do not want to quote him but he suggested in the course of his speech that they are separate nations who should have their own land, their own territories. That is why they are given separate citizenship; that is why they have a separate flag and that is why they have a separate national anthem. Is that only cultural? Sir, let us accept the facts; do not let us argue about things which already exist before our very eyes. He spoke about different nations and he pointed out how important it was that they should have their own territorial areas where they could develop. He was asked again and again across the floor of this House, “Where will the homelands be of the Indians and the Cape Coloured people?” and he ignored the question. How can you claim any moral justification for your native policy on the ground that they will enjoy full rights in their own homelands eventually and then deny to the Cape Coloured people and the Indian people homelands of their own in order to justify your policy towards them? Because in the negative aspects the policy of the Nationalist Party towards the Cape Coloured people and the Indian people is indistinguishable from the policy that they practise towards the urban Bantu. The only difference is that in relationships with the Coloured people and the Indian people the Prime Minister has accepted one, but only one, of the concepts of a race federation. That is the only solution he can find. He has given them separate national councils, which was taken directly from the United Party policy of a race federation. The hon. the Prime Minister had never thought of it until we came up with it. Sir, if there are still people who think that race federation cannot be applied in this sense of creating communal councils without necessarily creating a geographic area in which they must govern, I refer them to the legislation passed by this Government for the Indian people and the Coloured people. It was bad: it did not go the full length. It does not give the Indians representation in this Parliament, to which they should be entitled under such a policy, but it does establish the principle of creating a council to govern people in their own interests irrespective of the fact that they do not have a separate homeland—a confession that our thinking is sound—and yet hon. members opposite come along with pious statements that they cannot conceive of a race federation as self-government for people, while they practise it themselves. Sir, if only we could get the very happy moment in this House when hon. gentlemen opposite will get up and admit that when they are in real trouble they borrow the principles of United Party policy, then there is some hope for South Africa. But as long as we have a Government in power in South Africa that practises injustice against the majority of the non-White people, create Bantustans for a minority of them to salve their conscience and do nothing but negative things for many others—as long as that is the position there is very little hope that we shall ever find a solution for our race problems in South Africa or that we shall ever create a better image of South Africa in the great world outside.

When the then Prime Minister of Britain, Mr. Macmillan, was in South Africa some years ago he tried to explain to me on a particular occasion what his political philosophy was: I want to tell the House what he said because it is very appropriate to the situation in which the Opposition finds itself to-day. He said that one imagined in vain when one was in power that one can influence the destiny of one’s nation or of nations or the trend of history; that no government can do so. All it can do is to ensure that it remains in power; it can then govern the country and it will find that what would have happened in the ordinary course of events will happen in any event. A government is like a boat which is in the middle of a river; it is carried along in midstream by the stream of public opinion and there is very little that the government can do about it. All it can do is to see to it that it remains in power and in order to be able to do that it has to see to it that it does not strand on either the left bank or the right bank. When it sees therefore that in the broad stream of public opinion opposition ideas are gaining so much ground that they threaten to force the boat on to one of the banks, it must see to it that it remains in midstream even if in order to do so it has to adopt some part of its opponents’ policy in order to get to the middle of the stream of public opinion again. Mr. Macmillan said this to me because he know that I was advocating the establishment of a Republic and that I believed in a fixed colour policy and he wanted to bring it home to me that I would not be able to achieve these aims because I was heading upstream and that history would take its course. Well, my reply to him was that if the boat was simply kept in the middle of the stream by an opportunistic government just so as to be able to remain in power, such a government might well succeed in steering clear of the banks, but that it overlooks the fact that there may be a waterfall ahead and that it may be overtaken by a greater disaster than would have been the case if it had merely stranded on one of the banks. I said that I preferred to row up-stream; that I preferred to set a course for myself rather than be carried along willy-nilly by the stream; that I believed that in that way I would be able to exercise some influence over the course of history and that I would then be in a position to ensure the fulfilment of the desire of that section of the nation whose support I enjoyed. I mentioned by way of example the establishment of the Republic. We left it at that.

What do we find now in the case of the United Party? We find that it is trying, by taking over the policy of the Government, to climb into the boat which is in the middle of the stream in an attempt to win over public opinion. I want to say here that I am sorry for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I am sorry for him because he has fallen into the hands of shrewd tacticians who are his advisers and after listening to the speech which preceded mine I have little doubt as to the identity of one of these shrewd tacticians. The reason why I am sorry for the Leader of the Opposition is that I do not think either his own stand or that of his party has ever been so assailable on moral grounds. He has exposed himself and he has exposed his party to very serious suspicion, not only in our minds but in the minds of the Bantu in Africa (and indeed in the minds of all the non-Whites in South Africa), in the eyes of Britain, in whose good books he is anxious to be, and suspicion in the minds of all the Western nations—indeed in the eyes of the whole world—that they have never been genuine in setting out their policy. All the abuse and all the attacks directed against us in the past must therefore be viewed as just a trick to get in the middle of the stream with the boat. They have never meant it genuinely because they now pretend to be more anti-Black and more anti-White than the Government is supposed to be. That is the impression which they have created in our minds, and that is the impression that they will continue to create in the outside world, namely that they are stripped of all morality and all principles, that they are lying completely stripped in bed, with all the blankets and sheets lying on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I said that the speech which preceded mine came from one of these shrewd advisers, and I want to refer to a few of the points made by him in the course of his speech to show what impression one gets of him and of his method of reasoning.

The hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder), in a purely objective speech, assumed that the United Party’s policy was still that of race federation because that policy has not yet been rejected. It may still be rejected. For all I know it may even be rejected to-day but at this moment that is still their policy. The hon. member then posed certain pertinent questions which flow from the consequences of the United Party’s race federation policy. But do hon. members think that the hon. member for Yeoville gave one single reply to these straightforward questions? He is the man who said that it was so desirable to have clarity. But did he give a single reply which clarified the position? No, he evaded the whole test by ridiculing the hon. member and by saying, “You were the people who said that we did not discuss the question of race federation, but look at the amount of time you devoted to it.” Is that the way to try to get clarity, to bring home the truth to the public of South Africa, or is it a laughable attempt to evade an answer which will really reveal the truth?

The hon. member also stated that there was greater clarity now and that he was glad that we had at last come out with the truth. He knows perfectly well—because he is well-acquainted with what we have said on this side from time to time; he knows it better than most of his supporters—he knows perfectly well what I and others have said from time to time in regard to the question of sovereignty and the question of Bantustans. But he nevertheless pretends that our attitude has been uncertain and that this debate has now brought clarity for the first time, in spite of the fact that in this debate hon. members merely quoted what some of us had said earlier in order to prove that we had long ago made our stand clear as far as that issue is concerned.

Yes, against independence.

No. In a recent issue of the Cape Times there was an article by the hon. member in which he quoted passages which had been quoted by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education, passages which proved that even at that time I was already talking about the independence of the Bantu areas.

Four years ago.

Yes, as far back as four years ago, but a moment ago he spoke as though this had come out for the first time in this debate. He now says that it came out four years ago. Just imagine, the hon. member comes here and tries to create this wrong impression! In this same article to which I referred a moment ago the hon. member also failed to respect the truth. He said this, for example—

When did we say that that was our philosophy? In point of fact we said that our philosophy was that you can only ensure peace by allowing the various nations to live side by side as independent neighbours, and not by trying to integrate them and by forcing them into one community. Sir, he is the man who says that our discussions must bring out the truth and then he makes these allegations amongst others.

The hon. member also said that the United Party was being honest about the consequences of this policy and he said that in spite of the fact that he is the man who refused to reply to the hon. member for Randfontein. In addition to that he says that any changes which may take place later on will have to take place “in accordance with the wishes of the people concerned”. Any change which takes place in respect of the representation of the Bantu in this Parliament will therefore also take place in accordance with the wishes of the people concerned. I wrote down his words while he was speaking. The question I want to put to him is this: How does he guarantee the leadership of the White man over the whole of South Africa if the people concerned, who also include the Bantu, just as well as the Whites, and the Coloureds and the Indians, are going to be treated according to their demands? Must we assume that he contends that the Bantu and the Coloureds and the Indians will always accept and continue to accept the sole leadership of the White man in South Africa, in contrast with the trend of history in the rest of the world? Surely that is an illusion! Talk about smokescreens! What they are doing here is to put up smokescreens to bring the public of South Africa under an erroneous impression. The hon. member went on to say that Parliament may later take a different decision in connection with the eight Whites who represent the Bantu here. He said that if a change came about under the United Party, then the Whites would be able to decide differently. But hon. members will recall that I leaned forward and tried to extract from him whether in using the term “Whites” he also meant the Coloureds. He then used the term “the electorate” and said that the electorate would decide. He did not have the courage to say, “I mean the White and the Coloured voters who will then be on the common voters” roll in terms of United Party policy—.

I did not hear the question. I now say, “Yes, that is so.”

Very well, in that case I say that it is misleading the public to say that the Whites will decide when the decision will be taken by at least the Whites and the Coloureds. Let there be no doubt in that regard. I will come back to this matter a little later; at this stage I just wanted to expose the reasoning of the hon. member for Yeoville.

Then I also want to refer to another method that he resorted in order to put up smokescreens here. He quoted Paul Kruger. It is obvious that Paul Kruger was talking about the Bantu within the boundaries of his own country and that he adopted the attitude which we on this side of the House adopt towards the Bantu in the White areas, and that is that they will remain subservient to our Government. The Government will decide what is to happen. He was not referring in that speech to the Bantu of, say, Swaziland or Bechuanaland or any Bantu territory. He was dealing with the Bantu directly under his jurisdiction. But the President’s attitude was not like that of the United Party which tries to create the impression that they are following the Paul Kruger policy. President Kruger did not say, “I will give them representation in the House of Assembly of the Republic.” In the passage quoted by him the hon. member found no basis at all for associating Paul Kruger with the policy of the United Party. In quoting that passage he did nothing at all to refute the attitude that was adopted by Piet Retief as Voortrekker leader in the initial stages of his trek into the hinterland, when he said, “We do not want to take their territory away from the Bantu; we want to establish our own State and we will respect their State and their rights; we will live together as good neighbours but if they attack us then I will assuredly wreak vengeance.” This statement by Piet Retief is a well-known one; that is the Voortrekker policy to which the hon. the Minister referred and which was attacked here by quoting a passage which was by no means appropriate. That is the sort of smoke-screen of which the hon. member makes use here with much ado in order to advance a completely worthless argument.

I want to point out that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made his speech here under a shadow, not only under the shadow of his advisers but under the shadow of the trek of many United Party members to the home of National Party policy. He spoke under the shadow of the realization that many of those who come from other African territories, territories such as Kenya and elsewhere, are telling the public of South Africa what happened there and that in their view the policy of the National Party is the correct one. These people are the most staunch supporters and advocates of our policy that we could wish to have amongst the English-speaking section in South Africa. It is under the shadow of that knowledge that he spoke here. Those are the people whom he wants to silence. He also wants to try to retain the support of his own people. He believes that he can only do that by trying to offer them what they already know is the policy of the National Party. Indeed, he tries to outbid the National Party by apparently offering to give them something more—White supremacy or leadership in the whole of South Africa under the other concept—than the National Party, according to him, is prepared to offer. The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) exposed the tactics of his party when he hinted that they were suffering because of the fact that people regarded them as negrophilists and how jealous they were of the fact that people realize that we are the party who are looking after the interests of the Whites. The Opposition would like to change that image, if they can; they would like to create a new image for themselves, they would like to represent themselves as the persons who do not take the part of the Native but the part of the White man. But that image that they want to create for themselves they will not succeed in creating, because the public of South Africa would be more shocked by the immorality of this so-called change of front on their part than by the image which they are now suddenly trying to create for themselves. Let me add that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can only act in this way because at the present moment he has in his midst liberals who have no qualms of conscience. They sit with him, in his party, here and outside, and they are prepared at the present moment to tolerate this, just as in connection with the application recently made by a Coloured person to be admitted to an Anglican church school, the Archbishop is prepared to remain silent and to refrain from expressing his moral conviction but simply says that this is not a matter over which he has any moral authority. The Archbishop of the Anglican church and others have no authority over this Government, but did that seal their mouths and their consciences? No, on that occasion they were excessively talkative; they were forced by an irresistible urge to say what they thought of the policy of the National Party, no matter what the cost may be! But when it comes to a decision on apartheid taken by one body of their own church with regard to one Coloured child who wishes to be admitted to a church school, now suddenly they can express no opinion because they have no authority in the matter! I say that similarly the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has only been able to adopt this attitude of his because of the fact that the liberals in his midst have no qualms of conscience.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition based his motion of no-confidence in the Government on two grounds, one being the accusation of incompetence and the other the charges in connection with our colour policy, charges which were accompanied by his effort to create the impression that they (the Opposition) are really the people who can best look after the interests of the Whites.

Let me first dispose of the first ground, the charge of incompetence. It is strange that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should have dared to come here with an attack of this kind because if there is anything that is shameless then it is the attitude of the United Party, with its history of incompetence, both as a Government and as an Opposition, in making accusations against others. I suppose he thinks and his supporters probably think that 16 years is a long period and that the public of South Africa have forgotten the absolute mess which the United Party regime made of things in South Africa prior to 1948 and which caused the electorate to reject the United Party Government. The record of the United Party Government is one of such far-reaching incompetence that the United Party Opposition are the last people who can accuse others of incompetence. But they were not only incompetent to govern, they are so incompetent in opposition that the past 16 years has been a period of continual retrogression for the United Party. I am not going to waste my time proving that proposition. They have lost more and more ground at election after election. I just want to remind them—if I may rub a little salt into their wounds—that at this present moment, after 16 years of National Party rule, and in spite of all the suspicion which they have tried to sow against every step taken by the Government, against the establishment of the Republic, against our withdrawal from the Commonwealth, against the Government’s colour policy, against its actions in the outside world, against its attitude in respect of the English-speaking section, they must realize today that this party is gaining more and more support, particularly from our English-speaking friends in South Africa at the present time, on an unprecedented scale in the history of South Africa. In other words, the record of the Government is one of progress as against the Opposition’s record of retrogression. And then they accuse this Government of incompetence! Sir, I think that accusation is the height of shamelessness.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made his attack upon the Government from four different angles. In the first place he took a few isolated incidents and on the strength of his interpretation of those incidents, an interpretation which was torn to shreds by hon. members on this side, he tried to create the impression of a Government in power which is unable to govern properly. He referred to such matters as the Plotz story and the Parity incident, and on the basis of these isolated examples he tried to prove that this Government was incompetent. He obviously did not succeed in doing so. In the second place he tried to create the impression, by means of a series of generalizations, that the Government was incompetent. He said, for example, that the Government was in no way responsible for our prosperity; that the Government was managing the country’s prosperity badly; that many people, including certain Bantu, had derived no benefit from our prosperity, that the Government had not properly handled the manpower problem, and that inadequate educational measures or rather incorrect methods had been applied.

The Government is also being blamed for the labour shortage; it is even being accused of allowing a bottleneck to develop in the transport position. Let me just say this in regard to all this: Any opponent can very easily hurl a number of generalities at one’s head. In other words, it is easy to criticize. But it is quite a different matter to review weaknesses by means of generalities in such a way as to satisfy the public. Speakers on this side have already discussed these generalities. For example, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Labour has discussed the problem of the manpower shortage and the training problem. He proved, by means of the most significant figures, how nonsensical these generalities are, and how untrue they are. At a later stage I shall say a few words in regard to the transport position.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, thirdly, tried to exploit what he considered to be grievances and difficulties. For example, he referred to agriculture because he knows, as we all do, that due to the drought there are parts of our country where the farmers have suffered severely. He knows as well as we do what was done in this regard. He knows that everybody in South Africa has sympathy for those people. He also knows that nobody is responsible for those vagaries of nature—certainly not the Government—but still he wants to fish in those troubled waters to see whether he cannot capture votes. The same applies to the Post Office employees and other salaried employees who would like to have increased salaries, and who try to obtain this along the usual channels if possible.

Allow me to say a few words in regard to these general financial or wage problems facing the Government. There are those whose limited income creates problems for them at the present time, and who would like to have wage increases. Now it is a fact that anyone, particularly a Government which has sympathy for its people, and particularly for the working classes, always likes to grant wage increases where necessary and when it can afford to do so, and when it is for their good and for that of the country. I myself do not come from a well-to-do family. I myself in my time had to rear a large family. I have therefore had personal experience of what it means to skimp. As in the case of most of us on the Government side, and possibly in the ease of most of us sitting in this Parliament, we are not the children of rich men. We are not rich men ourselves. We have also experienced in our lives what it means to count every penny. The result is that one’s natural sympathy is obviously with those who find things difficult, the wage-earners. But when we as a Government, and as a responsible Government, and not as agitators who try to catch votes, have to think of what is best for the country and for the people and for the maintenance, for as long as possible, of the wave of prosperity which we need, and have to think of how to keep the purchasing power of everybody’s wages as high as possible and for as long as possible, and to preserve the continued existence of the opportunities for employment, then we cannot simply agree to wage demands as and when they are made. Surely everybody realizes the danger of that. The Government also realizes that if it starts granting increased wages, that will not lead to people being kept in the Railway Service or in the Public Service or in the Postal Service longer than we now keep them. A Government always has to deal with salary increases for large groups of people. Private enterprise on the other hand, has to deal with individuals, and if therefore a private business needs somebody it can, by offering a person a particular salary in order to attract him, pay almost any salary which will attract that person. Even if the State were to try by means of wage increases to stop that process, it would not succeed in doing so. The private sector would, because of its need, simply pay more and ensure that it obtained the few people it wanted, but at a higher salary level. If this process were to be set in motion, it would mean that South Africa would face inflation which could destroy its prosperity. South Africa would land in a position where its capacity to compete, the scope of production in the country, and the purchasing power of its population for the goods produced, might be harmed, with the further result that we might again have unemployment. Of what benefit would it be to the workers if, by giving them more money for the moment, they, as well as the country, landed in misery? It should not be forgotten either that the country’s safety, its security emanate from the prosperity we have and which the world knows we have. South Africa’s purchasing power on the world markets forms part of its protection. Anybody, even though he earns somewhat less than he would like to, even though he earns somewhat less than he requires to maintain the present high standard of living, will find it better that his country remains economically sound in this present international situation than that he seemingly and temporarily gets a higher purchasing power through increased wages. Therefore we should all approach this problem with a great sense of responsibility.

I also want to remind hon. members of the fact that many changes have taken place under our regime. In fact, the whole standard of living has risen. It is not merely a question of our having to deal with increased prices. In fact increased prices in regard to food actually exist only at the present moment due to the force of circumstances with which we are all acquainted. There were also wage increases in the past. We live at a very high level in South Africa, and it is in order to maintain that standard of living that the desire for further wage increases has arisen. But not only were there increases in wages; we must also remember that, as the result of the development in South Africa, and more higher posts were created in every sphere of the Public Service, including the Railway Service and the Post Office. The opportunities for a person to rise from one wage level to another through promotion have infinitely increased in recent years as a result of the policy of this Government. The result is that people are not worse off; they desire more. In reality, people in general are not worse off; they are better off.

It is said that groups, such as e.g. the farmers, do not share in the prosperity of the country. Surely that is obviously nonsense. There are certain farmers who are in difficulties due to the drought. But the general prosperity in this country resulted in an expansion of their markets, and the progress which has taken place here, together with the higher purchasing power of many sections of the population, including the Bantu population who live on a higher level than the Bantu throughout the whole of Africa, has resulted in the fact that they must also necessarily share in this prosperity. Where the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now tried to exploit the grievances he thought he could find, he is prepared to endanger the prosperity of the country for the sake of gaining political advantage for his party. I despise that attempt he made.

The fourth way in which the Leader of the Opposition tried to accuse the Government of inefficiency was by attempting to blot out their own tracks. I want to give the example of the accusation in regard to the escape of certain accused persons and saboteurs and potential witnesses in certain trials. Of course it is true that such persons escaped; we regret it very much. But those hon. members were the people who begrudged us every means we adopted in order to convict those persons. Also, every time somebody was arrested, Opposition speakers and their Press tried to erect what was virtually a protective barrier around those people—until they were found guilty in court. Then the Opposition was suddenly equally indignant at the crimes committed by those people. They tried to hamper our attempts in every possible way; they hurled accusations and reproaches at us. The Opposition are the last people who can erase those tracks, those marks of continuous obstruction and opposition in regard to our attempts to maintain peace and order in South Africa by blaming the Government when, in a few instances, something happens which one would not have liked to see happening. They even blamed us because certain persons escaped prosecution by turning State witnesses. Of course we would also have liked to see those State witnesses dealt with. But if we wanted to succeed, through their evidence, in exposing and stopping what was going on here, then that price had to be paid—unless we were to have used methods in regard to which those hon. members would have been the first to complain. Therefore the Government and the Police also in this case deserve nothing but praise, instead of this back-handed slap being given by people with no justification for doing so.

What is the true test as to whether the Government is efficient or not? Who can deny that ever since 1948 until to-day economic development has taken place in South Africa which makes the South Africa of 1948 almost unrecognizable when compared with the South Africa of 1965? I can say that in regard to every sphere of development. Allow me to mention the case of the Railways, and in fact all our transport services—not only the Railways but also the South African Airways. Just compare their present size, their development and everything that has been done—not only the millions and tens of millions that were spent—with 1948, and note the results achieved. Then people who have done nothing to achieve this, people who have simply always criticized, still dare to accuse the Minister of Transport who is responsible for most of the success achieved by the South African Railways and the Airways. The Minister of Transport often had to take very important decisions under very difficult circumstances, particularly in regard to the Airways. Just see what a success he has made of it. It is the height of shamelessness to make an attack in that sphere when this tremendous growth and development are so evident. Not only is it shameless, but it is ridiculous because everybody in the country who sees this development says: Look at the wonderful achievement South Africa has reached. They need not say that it was done by this Government—I am not jealous of that—but that this is what South Africa has achieved. Of course it could only achieve it because it has had the Government it has, but let us leave that aside now.

Take the sphere of industry, commerce, agriculture, etc. In all those spheres there was colossal development. Again I say that one cannot recognize the South Africa of 1965 as the South Africa of 1948. That is the test of whether there was sound policy and planning. Our opponents said in 1948 that South Africa would come to a downfall because of the Government it got. Throughout the years it was said that South Africa would be doomed if this or that, whatever the policy of the Government was at the time, were to be implemented, but South Africa was not doomed; it flourished. It was said that South Africa would be doomed if it became a Republic and if it left the Commonwealth, and that we would be doomed if we opposed UN. South Africa was continually exposed to a lack of confidence which was fostered overseas and which could have harmed it. In spite of all this, the Government instilled confidence. The Government, as the result of its actions, helped to create the conditions in which the efforts of every type of undertaking and every type of business in this country were crowned with success. That is the test of whether a government is efficient or not, Sir. The test lies in what happened in the country.

I want to give another example in regard to residential facilities. Just look at the bad state of Bantu housing when we took over, and look at it to-day. I personally, as well as the Government, were vilified in regard to one method after the other which we adopted to solve the problem of Bantu housing. There was the clearing up of Sophiatown and Martindale, and the service levy scheme. All of these steps were described as oppressive measures. To-day the United Party city councils boast of it. The Bantu housing problem was solved in the short period of ten years. In the case of the Coloureds and the Whites, and even in the case of the Indians, the needs which still remain are being supplemented on a large scale to-day. I have no doubt that it will not take long before the new housing problem for Whites caused by the present stream of immigrants will also be solved. All these things are being tackled with initiative and energy. That constitutes a test as to whether the Government is efficient or not. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot apply the same sort of test to his policy—he can show nothing.

I take another example, viz. the growth of the population. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition had so much to say about immigration and our outlook in that regard. But our immigration policy is a great success. Not only was our immigration policy a success, but the manner in which we applied it was the correct one. There was a time when we said that only small numbers of skilled people could be brought in if they were necessary, but that there should not be large-scale immigration.

You said that ten years ago.

Yes, ten years or more ago I said so. I wrote it in the Transvaler even before I said it here. I adopted the attitude that the immigration policy of the United Party was not intended to build up South Africa but to swamp the Afrikaners. I said that at a time when there was no economic growth it would be foolish to have large-scale immigration because the available housing, food production and opportunities for employment did not allow of it. I said that, but I said it at the correct time when it had to be said. But I also said something further. I emphasized that it would be wrong for a country to allow immigrants to enter whilst there were sharp political clashes in the country between those who wanted to maintain imperialism and those, on the other hand, who wanted to bring about a Republic. The immigrants would then have joined the one group or the other and would have played their part in the struggle of the country to become independent. That would have been harmful to the country as well as to themselves. I therefore said at that time that the time for extensive immigration would come only when South Africa was a Republic, because then the immigrants could be absorbed into one nation with one allegiance and one fatherland only. I said that, and I was correct in saying so. When we became a Republic, and when we left the Commonwealth, so that the idea of being swamped could not be realized any longer, and when the wave of prosperity was approaching, so that we know there would no longer be unemployment but a need for workers, and when our food production in the meantime had caught up with the shortages because of our agricultural development, we said: Now is the time to accelerate the pace; now is the time when immigrants will be able to make a living and can be absorbed and become part of the nation. It was a consistent immigration policy which kept pace with changing circumstances. I am not ashamed of having said all this previously. It was at all times the correct application of this same policy of bringing skilled people into the country to contribute towards the increasing prosperity. No other test in regard to immigration is wise or sound in any country. I can therefore tell hon. members opposite that that is the yardstick by which we should be tested, viz. whether the Government at every stage know what was the right thing to do then in regard to that aspect of our population problem.

In regard to our protective services, the Police and the Defence Force, the same thing is noticeable. Both have made progress. Those two organizations are, not only as regards the numbers of persons employed but also as regards the extensiveness of their present functions and the diversity of their protective powers, unrecognizably different from what they were 16 years ago. What grounds for criticism in regard to the inefficiency of the Government are there in these spheres? Allow me to give another example. This Government has consistently and definitely ensured the maintenance of sound relations between White and non-White, in other words, the handling of the colour problem, under extremely difficult circumstances, in spite of attacks coming from both inside and outside the country. The fruits in the form of goodwill and order are to-day being reaped increasingly, even in the form of a better understanding of our problems overseas. In regard to foreign policy, certain countries would have liked to have South Africa under their thumbs. Great nations would have liked it. This Government has been utterly successful, in spite of the decency of its conduct and its controlled actions, in maintaining itself even when the whole world attacked it at times. It was not weakness which achieved this. It was not a lack of judgment and understanding which brought it about. It is only a Government which is worth its salt and which is efficient, which can maintain its country’s reputation and independence in this way.

Let me go further in respect of foreign relations and say that while there are doubts as to the continued existence of UN, even in the mind of the Foreign Minister of the Netherlands, according to recent reports, there is no doubt about the continued existence of South Africa. While the Governments of other countries, which criticized and attacked us, have fallen one after another, the Government in South Africa stands stronger than ever before.

I can go still further. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs pointed out the other day that the ratio between White and non-White in the world is about the same as the ratio between White and non-White in South Africa. What is happening in South Africa is in a certain sense a lesson to the world, but how the White man must maintain himself in the world also holds a lesson for us in a certain sense. Supposing that in this world of ours there is to be a demand for one world state, one political unit for the whole world, with equality for all people, also on the basis of individual political equality—one man, one vote. Who would then rule the world? What would happen to the Whites in that world? The masses of China or Asia would rule. Consequently no White nation, not even all the White nations together, want a single world Government. They would be foolish to do so. Under that one world Government the Whites would be absolutely doomed, with all they stand for. They would be dominated by Asia and by force of numbers. Nobody denies that it is wise of the White world to want to stand together to preserve itself, and not to be absorbed. Nobody denies that the White world has its own great contributions to make. The way in which the White nations can continue to exist is only by being separate. These nations remain in existence because the different groups remain separate. There are Whites on the one hand, Blacks on the other hand, and thirdly the Yellow races. Not even by way of integration does the position arise that the nations which are White become one nation, or that those which are Black become one nation, or that those which are Yellow become one nation. No, these separate states remain in existence, even with in these colour groups, and then they try through mutual friendship, through alliances, to strengthen themselves. That is all we are doing in South Africa also. We do not want to be absorbed by making a unit of what cannot be a unit. In order to maintain the Whites in South Africa, we do precisely what the other Whites in the world are doing to preserve themselves. In so far as the White man in the world has no clarity in regard to his own aims and safety, he can obtain clarity by seeking what is happening here in this smaller society. He must also realize what would have happened if we had acted differently here. Therefore also in this respect the Government has proved its efficiency, not only by preserving its own nation but by setting an example to others.

I want to allege further that the Government has proved its efficiency by creating sound relations vis-à-vis Africa. The fruits of this will still be reaped one day. Already in various parts of Africa there are people who are beginning to understand our outlook. Nevertheless, the time is not yet nigh when they will come to us to seek sound co-operation; the climate is still against it, but the under-current are noticeable. I predict that the time will arrive when the fruits of the attitude adopted by this Government, of its decisiveness and its clarity in regard to what it wants, will still be reaped.

This, then, was the one leg of the accusation, viz. that we are inefficient. The second leg of the accusation of the Leader of the Opposition stands in the sphere of the colour problem. Before coming to the crux of his attack I, however, first want to deal with a few of the accusations which have already been made for the umpteenth time. I shall not go into details because some of my friends on this side have already done so. I believe, however, that it is necessary for me once again to raise my voice authoritatively in respect of these points of policy which are continually misrepresented in the country. One complaint was that the urban Bantu problem has been left unsolved and that apartheid in the cities has failed. This misconception of the United Party flows from their idea that there are two Bantu policies, a Bantu policy for the reserves and one for the cities. But that is not so at all. There is only one Bantu policy. It should be regarded as one policy. When we removed the representation of the Bantu from this Parliament we did so in exchange for increasing rights in his own areas in such a way that they could develop to the highest level of sovereign independence. That was the arrangement. The representation in this Parliament of all of them was taken away in exchange for an opportunity to all of them, in the political sphere, in their homelands in a way which they did not have before. The positive went hand in hand with the negative for everybody—the Bantu in the cities, those in the rural areas and those in the reserves. Let me put it clearly once more: The reason why this misconception is supposed to exist in the minds of the United Party in regard to the handling of the urban Bantu question is that they do not want to realize what the crux and what the secondary effects of the policy of separation are. The crux of the policy of separation is political separation. The basic standpoint is that the Bantu and the Whites will have their political future apart from one another, and it is provided where every group of the Bantu will have theirs, and also where the White man will have his future. The Whites will be in this Parliament. Territorial separation is not the crux of the policy of separation. Territorial separation is important in the sense that the further one can develop it, the greater are the chances of having good relations and of avoiding conflict. Therefore it will have to be the task and the object gradually to bring about territorial separation also in the sense that there should be increasingly fewer Bantu workers remaining in the midst of the Whites. But that is not essential to make it possible to apply separation. While the territorial separation is not complete, while many Bantu are still in our midst and work here—we admit that this will be the position for a long time still—care should just be taken that the other forms of separation are maintained here. Those forms of separation are residential separation, educational separation and social separation in all spheres, including sport and amusement. The basic application of this policy is therefore clear. Consequently, whilst everything that is being said about the inflow of more Natives to our cities and about a change in the percentage of Black as against White manpower is not true, I do not want to argue that now. It is in fact relatively unimportant because, as long as a policy is being applied which ensures separation of the Bantu in the White area, even there all kinds of privileges for them can be provided without any danger, which will make their lives easier and happier. In fact that is what we are doing. So, for example we are succeeding in raising the standard of living of the Bantu in the cities also, in providing better housing for them and in increasing their opportunities for local self-government. In that way they can share increasingly in the amenities and privileges of a civilized life in their own residential area without political integration resulting from it. This policy is succeeding, and it is not failing as is alleged by the Opposition, even though it is true that initially, particularly in certain areas, an increase in numbers is being experienced.

Initially?

Yes, but surely, we have said that the time would arrive when there would be a change in this process. We have debated that ad nauseam.

The next allegation is that prosperity is the result of accelerated integration. That takes us back again to one of the old debating points to which we have not returned for years, viz. the old type of debate in which we always stated very clearly that there was a difference between the presence of people and the employment of workers on the one hand and the integration or incorporation with your nation and its life on the other. There is a very great difference between these two things. Integration in respect of the Bantu exists in the economic sphere only when, as the United Party wants to do, one accepts him everywhere as an equal in the economic sphere, e.g. as a entrepreneur with all the rights and opportunities of the White entrepreneurs. They would then be able to become skilled workers and rise to any level, equal to that of the Whites, and they would be able to compete on an equal basis with the Whites, and they would be able to have White apprentices under them if they were more highly skilled. If such a total absorption of the Bantu on a basis of equalism comes about in the industrial sphere, then integration takes place there. But the policy of the National Party does not allow of that. According to our policy there is in fact employment, and therefore the presence of the non-Whites, but then all the principles of separation in industry (as well as elsewhere) come into operation. Therefore it is essential to ensure that the argument about the urban Bantu and their increased numbers should not be carried on on a false basis.

The aforegoing two misconceptions or misrepresentations result in the United Party really rejoicing at the inflow of Bantu workers into urban areas, because they think that this proves that we are failing to implement our policy. I therefore want to state very clearly that whilst I am in favour of a reduction of the number of Bantu in our White area, I need not be concerned that their presence, or even the increase in their numbers, amounts to an actual violation of our policy. It would only become such if the United Party were to be in power and if they were then to start applying the way in which they want to deal with those people, viz. integration and partnership. Then the danger will arise. But in terms of our policy even increasing numbers still constitute no danger.

The third statement made is that the Government policy is the result of concessions to pressure from the outside world. Particularly the hon. member for Natal South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), who is not here now, had much to say in that regard. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said sneeringly that Moscow and Peking were now starting to exert pressure, and that the pressure was therefore increasing and that we would surely make even greater concessions! I should really have become angry with him about this, but the argument is so ridiculous that I cannot even become angry. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows as well as I do that Moscow and Peking can exert less pressure on us than the Western world, and we are withstanding that pressure. This reproach he makes in regard to our giving way is almost amusing. Do hon. members still recall all the stories about world opinion which had to be satisfied? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition almost pleaded on his knees with me that I should at least do something to improve the opinion the world has about us.

No.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition pleaded with me to such an extent that he actually became friendly in his pleas! He also said that we should “make friends with Africa”. He even said that we should rather make smaller concessions and see what we could do, because we could not continue living in this way in an inimical world. He spoke about isolation and urged us to make concessions to prevent isolation. And now? Now he suddenly reproaches us for giving way to world pressure in regards to our Bantu homeland policy. He even urges us to make no further concessions, either to Moscow or to Peking.

I should now like to explain what I in fact said in this regard, because the Opposition ties up this accusation with something I said, an argument I used. I advanced the argument that we were taking cognizance of the new spirit which had come into the world. We would rather have seen the old position maintained, but in the circumstances of the post-war world that was obviously not possible. I do not deny that I said so. On the contrary, I stand by what I said, because what does it mean? Simply this: Years ago the position prevailed where nobody doubted the White man’s supremacy. The old British colonial policy itself was one of White supremacy over other states, and particularly the Black states. We had this policy in South Africa under Generals Botha and Smuts, and even thereafter. The position was always that the White man ruled and expected the Bantu always to regard him as his guardian. For obvious reasons I said that we all wished that all these post-Second World War changes had not come about, because then surely the world would have been very comfortable for us. Then we would have had no trouble with Africa. Then we would have had no conflicts in UN. If supremacy was still the world’s spirit, things would have been much easier for us. Of course I said that we would still have liked to have had the old order of things. But, I said, in the light of the new spirit and the pressures exerted and the forces which arose after the Second World War it is clear that no country could continue as it did in past years. The old traditional policy of the White man as the ruler over the Bantu, who had no rights at all, could not continue. Consequently I said that we now had to choose. Our standpoint is that the White man must retain his position here, but justice must be done to the non-White so. that a defensible standpoint can be stated in the new world as it has developed and in the face of the new influences and forces prevailing in those states. Because, I said, we are not a large nation. If we had to stand up and fight for our continued existence we would do so willingly, but if we could avoid it by adopting a course according to which the White man did not abandon his heritage but allowed the Bantu to obtain more rights in regard to his own areas, which were always recognized as being his own, and more governmental powers, that would be a good thing; the fact that the Bantu should enjoy his political rights there and that we could even help them to develop those rights does not amount to the abandonment of what we claim for ourselves, and if by that means we can ensure the safety of the White man then I am prepared to follow such a policy. If anybody wants to call this making a concession he may do so, but it is not a concession by the White man in respect of his heritage. That is what I said and what I still say. But what the United Party said as against that was: “No, in that way you will not gain the support of the world. They will still remain opposed to you”. Our attitude to that was: “Then they must just remain opposed to us, because the existence of the White man and his rights may not be abandoned.” The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party wanted to do something else, something which would satisfy the Western world. And what would satisfy? Integration and one man, one vote. Just recently they have begun to be a little uncertain about this one man, one vote, but they still want partnership on a non-one-man-one-vote basis. I have said that the lessons of Africa teach us that we cannot follow that course. In other words, the accusations in regard to making concessions, of giving way to pressure, should not be addressed to us. because the extent to which we adapted ourselves was wise, without the abandonment of principles, and in order to safeguard the White man. But the degree of adaptation which the United Party and the world wanted to enforce on me, and which we opposed, would have led to the surrender of the South African nation and it would have led to the end of the continued existence of the Whites. Therefore this reproach is totally unfounded.

Another point of attack was that the policy of the National Party was like the British colonial policy in Africa. But that is not true. The British colonial policy in Africa in fact did not have just one form. It had at least three phases. The first phase of British colonial policy in Africa was domination, baasskap, and it was similar to what the position was in South Africa. The second phase it entered, immediately after the Second World War, was that of partnership and of integration, i.e., of Whites and non-Whites interwoven but with the White minority in the position of the senior partner. The hon. member for Randfontein described it quite correctly a moment ago with the aid of figures. The third phase was that of running away. When the partnership policy failed, as it did in Kenya and Tanganyika, when Britain could not maintain its White supremacy in the form of being the senior partner, it accepted the over-hasty granting of independence as its new policy. The British ruler practically ran out of Africa and left in the lurch those whom formerly it had called upon to assist in maintaining its White imperial policy and later the policy of partnership in Africa. That is the position. Now the fact is that the United Party has also got away from the first form of colonial policy. Firstly, they did not want domination, i.e., until now. I am no longer certain as to what their position is now. But, secondly, they took partnership and integration as their policy and included them in their federation policy also. In their Senate Plan and in all their other plans partnership and integration were consistent characteristics.

Always with White leadership.

Very well, senior partnership, but it was partnership and integration. That is why I say that they are following the second phase of the colonial policy.

As far as we are concerned, we were in fact in favour of freedom being granted to the Bantu areas and the Bantu nation, but not along the way of over-hasty withdrawal. We want to follow the course of steady, normal development, without leaving the Whites who remain there in the lurch, but gradually withdrawing them in such a way that they can again fit in and adapt themselves in White South Africa. In other words, there is a great difference between this process and what finally happened in Africa, also in regard to an attempted economic colonization which we do not want. There is therefore a great difference between our policy and the present British colonial policy. The whole process, everything which happened, was different. It is more correct to say that the United Party now acts in terms of the integration phase of the British colonial policy which proved to be a failure in the light of what happened in Kenya and Tanganyika. In the same way this policy would also fail in South Africa if the United Party were to receive an opportunity of applying its policy here.

The fifth point I should like to deal with is this: The Opposition has said that the Government should have incorporated the British High Commission Territories. And then they continue to say this: How can the Government welcome the coming freedom of the High Commission Territories? They also argue further that under British rule those territories have become refuges for communists and hiding places for saboteurs and launching pads for attacks; and how much more, therefore, will that be the case under the “uncivilized government of Blacks”?

I want to point out that the British Government will probably have quite a lot to say about this hostile criticism of the United Party in regard to British rule. I also think the Bantu will have quite a lot to say about this new-found criticism of the Leader of the Opposition that they are uncivilized and that the Basutoland Government will be an uncivilized Government. But, leaving that aside, my standpoint is clear: South Africa would not have improved or strengthened its own position by now incorporating the British High Commission Territories, except if those territories voluntarily wanted to join us in order, together with the related ethnic groups in our country, to be led to freedom in accordance with the process in which we believe and as we apply it in the Transkei. If they wanted to come of their own free will they would have been welcome and we could have led led them to independence, and it would have benefited both of us because it could only have strengthened our common economic bond. If they do not come in that way it would have been useless to incorporate a dissatisfied Swaziland and Basutoland and Bechuanaland, after they had already received Britain’s promise of freedom. To incorporate them under those circumstances would have been utterly foolish, and I think South Africa would have endangered her White people and herself unnecessarily, rather than safeguarding the Republic by getting even more Black people in this way.

But I also ask: Will it not be better for South Africa to deal with Bantu Governments in those three areas rather than with the British Government as the guardian over those areas? The reason is obvious. It is this: Now nothing protects us against the development of communist parties there. We have derived no benefit from the British control in respect of saboteurs who go to live there, or saboteurs who flee through these areas or other political offenders who flee to them. Britain has not assisted us. The situation therefore can be no worse than under a Bantu regime, but there is one difference which may result in an improvement of the situation. Britain does not adopt her present attitude out of malice towards us but because in her international policy it is in her interests—not in the interests of Basutoland or Swaziland—to retain friends in Africa. She might lose friends in Africa and in other parts, as well as the friendship of other Commonwealth countries or of the majority of the Commonwealth countries, if she did not go even so far as to force Bechuanaland to extend these facilities to political fugitives and others. Once Britain is out of these Protectorates, together with the British interests there, and these people’s own Governments are faced with the demands of survival, which they themselves then have to ensure under their own self-government, then they will judge their actions and their relationship with the Republic of South Africa in terms of their economic interests, the economic interests of the inhabitants of Basutoland, Bechuanaland or Swaziland. I believe that the one thing that really counts in international relationships is common economic interests. So far as the Governments of these Protectorates are concerned, political interests will be dominated by their economic interests. Starting on that basis both sides will be able to create a relationship which will be safer for everybody concerned than the relationship which exists at the moment. I do not think that is an unreasonable attitude to adopt.

I come now to the crux of the attack made here by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He said that the policy of the National Party endangered the survival of the White man and he went on to say that the United Party stood for White leadership over the whole of South Africa. I want to start with the term “White leadership”. I should like to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition what “White leadership” really means in his view because the word “leadership”is undoubtedly an ambiguous word. It is perfectly clear from the discussions in this House that there are some members who accept that it means “baasskap”, domination, supremacy, rule or paramountcy, whatever term one wants to use. My request to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is this: Let the two of us try to get clarity. What does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mean by “leadership”? I should like him to reply to this question across the floor of the House.

I will deal with the whole matter.

No, it is a simple question. The only way to get clarity in this regard is for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to tell me whether White leadership means White supremacy.

I will deal with the whole issue.

I think that is extremely unreasonable. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that he wants clarity in this country. He accused us. I am trying now to get clarity and I am putting a simple question to him and that is whether “leadership” means “supremacy”.

Are you against White leadership?

Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not going to give me his reply?

I will deal with it.

Sir, one can talk in circles … [Laughter.] Hon. members know perfectly well that I am man enough to state my attitude candidly. It is clear to me, however, that even in the interests of the country the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to say outright whether leadership means supremacy as far as he is concerned. I am forced therefore to argue both on the basis that it does mean supremacy as well as on the basis that it does not mean supremacy.

However, before I come to that there is another question that I should like to put to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. If leadership means supremacy, will he promise the people of South Africa that he will maintain it even by force, if necessary?

That has been replied to already.

For my part I am prepared to reply at once and my answer is this: I believe in the supremacy of the White man over his own people in his own territory and I am prepared to maintain it by force.

But I want to go further than that and say that if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not mean “supremacy” when he talks about White leadership, if his cry now is not “White leadership over the whole of South Africa,” and he goes on using the word “leadership” in this way, then he is deliberately trying to mislead the country by creating the impression that he is promising to maintain White supremacy when in actual fact he does not do so. I am sorry that I have to say this, I did not want to do so. I wanted to know what he meant, and if he had been prepared to say that it means “supremacy” we would have known where we stood. But let me say unambiguously for the second time now that if he does not mean supremacy when he uses the word “leadership”, then he has come here with a trick in an attempt to mislead the country by bringing the country under the impression that he is going to see to it by using force and violence that the White man will always continue to rule over the whole of South Africa when in actual fact he does not mean that at all.

If, however, it does mean White leadership as far as he is concerned, then I want to ask him how one reconciles it with integration? How could the White man continue to rule if the Opposition applied economic and political integration in South Africa? We all know what it will mean if integration is applied in all these spheres. How does he reconcile White supremacy with integration? I am not going to ask further questions because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition refuses to reply. I take it therefore that the Coloureds will immediately be placed on the common voters’ roll by the United Party. Because they have said so. [Interjections.] If they doubt that then I want to ask hon. members opposite whether that is not their intention.

Where is the territory for the Coloureds?

No, evasion will not help. According to the United Party, Coloureds will be placed on the common voters“ roll and they can come and sit here in Parliament together with the Whites. They will be able to stand as candidates in any constituency, and bearing in mind their numbers, there are many constituencies in the Cape Province which they will be able to conquer. I say: How dare the hon. the Leader of the Opposition talk about White leadership either in the form of supremacy or in the form of voluntary acceptance of the White man“s leadership if his Parliament is going to be a White-Coloured Parliament? And if he also includes the Indians and gives them representation in this Parliament—after all, it is Parliament that has to ensure White leadership—and particularly if in due course the Indians, in terms of the example of the Coloureds, are also placed on the common voters“ roll and conquer Natal seats, just as the Coloureds are going to conquer Boland (Western Province) seats, how dare he make promises in connection with White leadership in any form whatsoever? If the Whites here in South Africa, according to his policy, must either rule or lead, then this further question arises: Will that be possible in practice under his policy? Can it be done effectively under his policy Sir, let us examine a few features of his policy. I have already referred to the points in connection with the participation of the Coloureds and the Indians in the country’s politics, but there is still the position of the Bantu. I have already pointed out that he has a great deal to say here about eight Whites representing the Bantu in this Parliament, but he has always said that in respect of the Bantu in the White area. As far as the Bantu homelands are concerned, he has always accepted that they must be incorporated as separate territories in his race federation. He even went so far as to say that he wants to bring the Protectorates into his race federation. In other words, in the parliament of the race federation, apart from the eight White representatives of the Bantu in the White area, the various territories outside of the Republic will have to be represented. They are not going to accept White representatives. Basutoland and Swaziland and Bechuanaland are not going to accept White representatives. But I say that the Transkei and the other Bantu territories will not send Whites here either as their representatives. They will nominate Blacks. Is the Leader of the Opposition going to sacrifice his race federation policy if they refuse to send Whites or is he going to persevere with his race federation policy and accept Black representatives and carry out his promises to the Whites with regard to White leadership or White domination in some other form? What is he going to do?

Let me also add this: The rest of his policy, quite apart from his political policy, will thwart White leadership. He wants to sell land to the Bantu in South Africa, and he does not want to apply our separation laws, which he says lead to “little apartheid”. He wants to admit both White and Black to our universities. How is he going to keep the non-Whites out of the White Government schools if that is his policy and once he has integrated the races politically in the way that he proposes? I do not see how he can. I therefore ask myself: How can he give this guarantee to the Whites if he does not sacrifice his whole policy? Take our marriage legislation. What is he going to do in connection with the reference book system, the admission of Bantu into the urban areas, if, in order to build up the country’s manpower, he is going to admit them everywhere and in all occupations? How is he going to give the Whites the guarantee to which he refers? What is going to happen in due course if in the field of entertainment and in the field of sport he is prepared in advance to accept integration and if he says, as he has done, that we are going too far with our residential segregation and that we should not make it compulsory, that it should be purely on a voluntary basis? That is why I do not believe for a single moment that he will succeed in ensuring White leadership, whether he meant White guidance or White domination. In other words, his promise is worthless to the country.

The Leader of the Opposition went on to say that it was dangerous to create Bantu homelands; that these homelands may become launching pads for communist infiltration, etc. I want to analyze that too. Let me first repeat what I said earlier on. I believe that in the Bantu homelands, because of common economic interests, we will be able to forge bonds of friendship because they will then have no built-in grievances. I have already replied to the challenge that I would not dare to say that those territories will be able to develop into sovereign independent territories as and when they become fit to exercise independence. I say it now for the umpteenth time. We are not going to follow the over-hasty process of the Congo, but we place no limits upon their development. It will take time, however, and if they develop along these lines then the chances are very good that the Republic will have friendly neighbours and that there will be no communist infiltration there because the Bantu elsewhere in Africa have already proved that they are afraid of Communism. The responsible Bantu of our own country have also proved that. But, as I have said before, it is possible that clashes may occur. Demands will certainly be made by Mantanzima or others that will be rejected by us. Many of the things which have appeared in the Press as to statements allegedly made by him, are untrue, but demands of that kind may well be put forward. Difficulties may arise. I do not dispute that. The point that I want to emphasize again is that I believe that it is better to face a danger outside the boundaries of one’s country rather than within one’s state. If we accept one mixed fatherland here with one mixed nation and with one integrated parliament, even if precedence is given to the White minority by means of a written constitution, then surely the Bantu and the Coloureds and the Indians will have to be taken into the Public Service and the Defence Force and the Police Force. Their services will have to be used to a much greater extent, not in the service of their own people then but in the service of one nation and a common fatherland, a service in which they will have to be treated on an equal footing. In that case I say that the danger of communist infiltration, the danger of dissatisfaction—if non-Whites are oppressed in that the minority governs the majority—is much greater than any danger that could threaten our White fatherland from beyond our borders. Surely that is obvious and perfectly clear.

There are a few other points that I still wanted to deal with, but I shall leave them. What I want to do, however, is to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he is not going to take into account the second part of his instructions. He received two instructions. He not only received an instruction from the Press to accept the Bantu homelands and to try to convince us to accept the rest of his policy, but he also received instructions to throw race federation overboard and to come forward with a new policy, a compromise policy. I should like to know whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not want to avail himself of this opportunity today to come forward with his new policy. If he is going to be good enough to come forward again with a new policy, in terms of the second part of the instructions that he received from outside, if he is going to be so obedient, will he not at the same time do me a personal favour? I have lost count of the number of policies he has. I know he had a “sixpenny” policy; I know he had a three-or-five-point policy and I think I also recall a nine-point policy. I definitely recall a Senate policy and I also remember the race federation policy. He has about five or six Coloured policies but I am not quite sure whether that is the whole lot. It may also be seven or ten. If he comes forward with a new policy, will he please tell me “because surely he has kept a little list of his policies” whether the new policy is No. 10 or some other number? He must not be ashamed to tell me because his party has changed front so often that we have become accustomed to it. We have become like the crayfish which is supposed to have become used to being boiled in hot water. We would just like to know what the number of his next policy is going to be.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by moving an amendment to his motion, and I move—

I want to draw special attention to the fact that I am not asking the House to condemn the naked opportunism of the Opposition. I do not think it is worth while. I think it is so naked that it does not merit more than noting.

Finally, I want to put this to the Leader of the Opposition. I want to set out our attitude as against his cry which is clearly intended to mislead the public. Our motto is to maintain White supremacy for all time to come over our own people and our country, by force if necessary, and to give White friendship, guidance and support to all those who need it and who are prepared to accept it. We are not going to force those who do not want it to accept our leadership. We will give aid and leadership to all those who are prepared to accept it—to the whole of Africa if necessary. Our policy therefore is to maintain White leadership for all time to come over our own people and our own country but not to act immorally and to take away from others what is not ours but what belongs to them; to retain what is our own. That, Sir, is moral, and, moreover, it is also moral to be prepared to give your White leadership, your White support and friendship to those of all races who need it and who want it.

The hon. the Prime Minister ended with a war-cry to the country to maintain White supremacy over our own people and our own land. I take it that by our own people he means White South Africa and by our own land he means the White portion of South Africa. I take it that in that White portion of South Africa the Coloureds and the Indians are going to be allowed to live. What is his relationship going to be to them? Must I accept now from the hon. gentleman that what he wants is supremacy over the Coloureds and Indians for all time, or is he accepting them as our own people? He has been accusing me of advancing a policy without morality because of what I said about the Bantu people. I want to ask where is the morality of his party when applied to the Coloureds and the Indians?

That is in the second portion of my proposal.

The second portion of the Prime Minister’s proposal is that he will live in friendly relations with all other races. I take it that includes the Coloureds and the Indians. I am prepared to live in friendship with all races as well, but where is the moral justification for the Prime Minister’s statement? You know, Sir, people in glass houses should not throw stones. The Prime Minister has been reading us a lesson in morality all afternoon, but there is no moral basis whatever for this war-cry that he has given us. One of the difficulties I have in dealing with the hon. the Prime Minister is that words mean different things to him on different occasions. That is why I find it so difficult to argue with him across the floor of the House. You see, Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister has been telling us this afternoon that we are quite wrong in saying that prosperity is due to integration. He says there is no economic integration; there is just taking into service. But last year in this very House his Minister of Bantu Administration told us there was economic integration, but not multiracialism. Now where do I go from here?

Let us take another matter. I have been saying for some time that one of the difficulties I have with the Bantustan policy is the fact that a people, promised independence, take charge of the time-table, if history in regard to what has happened in Africa is to be believed. I have heard from one speaker after the other on that side of the House, and also from the Prime Minister this afternoon, that freedom will not be granted on the same basis as was done by the colonial powers in Africa, but on a different basis. But in this very House not so long ago the Prime Minister said this—

In other words, they will take charge of the time-table, which is being denied from that side of the House by almost every speaker on Bantu affairs since I introduced this debate.

The hon. gentleman was interesting in opening his address this afternoon by reference to a conversation with Mr. Macmillan when he visited South Africa, and he told us a rather touching little story of how the British Prime Minister had told him that politics was like being in a boat in the middle of a stream, and when you went a little too much towards the one bank or the other, you just took over the policies of those people in order to ensure that you would stay in power. Sir, I think the hon. the Prime Minister listened a great deal more carefully to Mr. Macmillan than he is inclined to let us think. Has he not taken over the immigration policy of the United Party? Have we not got our Minister of Transport talking about job reservation, but applying United Party policy when it comes to opening jobs in the Railway Service to non-Whites, work which has traditionally been done by Whites? How many times has this Government not taken over our suggestions?

Just as in the case of Iscor. You have done everything.

The Prime Minister will admit that there was the Orange River Scheme which we proposed. Even though the Prime Minister says it is not integration but employment, surely our prosperity to-day is due to the fact that we are taking more non-Whites into service than before, in accordance with the policies of the United Party. It has been interesting to listen to the Prime Minister. What is so interesting about it is that the points on which I attacked he failed to reply, and on the points on which I did not attack he tried to make out a case for his Government. My case against this Government was one of incompetence, for which I brought a good deal of evidence. I brought a good number of individual examples which I felt were so important that they were worthy of the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister. I think he has ignored every single one of those, and he has left me with the most unsatisfactory replies from his Ministers in almost every single case.

Let us come back to these individual examples of incompetence, because I am a long way from being satisfied with the replies I have had to-day. When we dealt with those individual examples, let us also deal with what the Prime Minister calls “die kern van die saak”, and let us deal with the colour policies of these two parties, and let me challenge the Prime Minister in respect of certain of the statements he has made this afternoon.

One of the matters I raised was the question of the suggested lack of co-operation between the Department of Defence and the Security Police in respect of the African Resistance Movement. What did we get? We had a statement from the hon. the Minister of Defence, but what did he say? He said that he agreed that a man called Plotz had contacted certain South African officials in Europe. He agreed that this man was met in France by a colonel of Military Intelligence who, it seems to me, may have flown over for that very interview, if the address on the letter is correct, because it is addressed from Pretoria, and that they there discussed a certain course of action. It seems that as the result of that Plotz was persuaded to fly to South Africa at Government expense and he was met here by high officials of Military Intelligence, and was sent to Cape Town at Government expense, on a certain task. The Minister says that thereafter Plotz did not get into touch with the Department, but according to the Sunday Times—and I have seen a copy of the telegram—a telegram was received by this individual in answer to a communication from him dated 7 May from the Legation in London. It seems to me that some of the information given by the Minister is not entirely accurate. Contact seems to have broken down, apparently because no one got into touch with him, and this man got no more financial aid and therefore he left, and touch was lost with him. It seems an odd business. You fly a man out from France to South Africa, you send him to Cape Town and pay his expenses, and you have him interviewed by a colonel of Military Intelligence, and you give him a job, but all of a sudden you lose contact with him. I want to say at once that if the information which Plotz could give was so useless, why did Military Intelligence attach so much importance to him? Why was he sent to South Africa, and why did he have the attention of these military officials, and why were his expenses paid in Cape Town, if he was somebody who was completely unimportant?

But the Minister called him a clown.

Yes. If the information was more important than the Minister led us to believe, why were the Security Police not informed that he was coming out and that he was going to operate in Cape Town, and why was provision not made for him to have a contact in Cape Town, and why was no arrangement made for him to get help? And the information he gave, including the name of Watson, who turned out subsequently to be one of the main characters in the A.R.M., was that information ever passed on to the Security Police, so that they could have made investigations? All this seems most unsatisfactory to the ordinary citizen, and I must say that I find the explanation of the Minister most unconvincing. I feel the hon. the Minister was not fully informed. But then we are in this position. Not only does this seem to point to a waste of public money, but if the Sunday Times is to be believed, subsequent to this matter Plotz was interrogated by the Security Police for some hours. Plotz was found after the story was published and he was interrogated for some hours by the Security Police, and what happened? After the interrogation Brigadier van den Bergh of the Security Police said that if the police had known about the activities of the A.R.M. two years ago, sabotage would have been prevented and the A.R.M. would have been wiped out much sooner. Sir, can you imagine him saying that if he got no information from this man at all? We are left with a most unsatisfactory position. I do not believe we have had a satisfactory investigation of this matter. I want to tell the Minister of Defence that my advice to him is to have a closer look at both Military Intelligence and this matter, otherwise he will find himself embarrassed in this House again, and he is going to embarrass the Prime Minister, because if ever there was an example of incompetence it appears to be the handling of this affair.

But then I dealt with other matters in which I felt there was incompetence, and one was the handling of the Post Office situation and our telephone system at the present time. I indicated our disappointment at the achievements of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. I indicated the shortages that were developing, the breakdowns in the postal service, and the extremely difficult situation that is arising in respect of our telephone service, but we got no reply from the hon. the Minister or from the Prime Minister this afternoon. He seemed to think that this was a matter of no importance at all. I said before that one of the hallmarks of a civilization is the state of its communications. Here we find ours deteriorating, but there is no reply from the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs or from the Prime Minister himself. Am I not entitled to say that there is incompetence here, and that the public should be told about it?

Then-we come to the transport situation. The Prime Minister says we have done well. He says some difficult decisions had to be taken, notably about the Airways, but there was much success and we have a lot to be proud of. I agree that we have a lot to be proud of in regard to our Airways. I think it is an extremely fine business, but that does not detract in any way from my criticism of the hon. the Minister of Transport.

You will get a full reply from me in the Budget debate, and you may be surprised, too.

I have no doubt that the Minister of Transport is going to sit with a wet towel around his head until that debate comes on. I think he will probably concentrate on that to the detriment of the other duties he has to perform. But I want to suggest to him that there are a few things he might answer when he gives us this full reply. He has told us that his planning was completely adequate and his only difficulty is the manpower shortage, which he apparently did not foresee and which apparently he is unable to cope with and in regard to which he has very few plans. I gave the hon. the Minister a chance. He spoke after me. Why did he not tell us?

I will speak at the appropriate time.

The Minister gave every indication of an incompetent handling of his portfolio. I asked for a commission to investigate this very matter last year, but there was dead silence from the Minister. There was a lot of talk from his officials that the complaints were exaggerated, but the position has not improved; it is getting worse. I said I thought there was a lack of foresight in the attitude of the Minister in respect of the pipelines. He hid behind the commission. Well, both he and the commission have been proved wrong.

No, we have not. You are just showing your ignorance. [Interjections.]

He is not a jump ahead of the economy, as any decent transport system should be. Transport experts will tell the Minister that the function, the obligation of a transport system is twofold—to convey the traffic which is offered from point to point, speedily and efficiently and always to be abreast, and usually to be slightly ahead of the transport needs of the community it serves.

That is elementary.

If that is the criterion then I must say unequivocally that this hon. Minister has failed in his function as Minister of Transport. He has failed completely because he has not been able to plan for the future. He has not placed himself in a position where he can cope with the growth that is taking place in our economy.

What evidence have you for that statement?

Do not let us argue over what is obvious to everybody.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) is not addressing the House. He keeps on interrupting every speaker.

The hon. Minister can interject as much as he likes; I have no objection, but I tell him that unless he puts up a very much better show than this when he comes to his Railway Budget, he is going to lose what little confidence the public still has in him and his transport system. Remember, Sir, this is the Minister who staked his reputation upon making a success of the S.A. Railways.

So he has.

Ask organized commerce and industry what they have to say about it.

But then we come to another facet which I raised and raised very particularly because there is not one Minister in this House to deal with that facet; there are three—two full Ministers and a deputy. I refer to the agricultural position in South Africa. And what did I get, Sir? All I got was a reply from the hon. the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister says that I drew attention to this matter because some farmers I know were in difficulties because of drought conditions and that I was trying to exploit their grievances. Sir, is the hon. gentleman really so ill-informed that he believes that the president of the S.A. Agricultural Union would make a speech accusing this Government of not ensuring that the farming community got its fair share of the prosperity we are enjoying at the present time, because of drought conditions in certain areas? Does the hon. gentleman really believe that the president of the S.A. Agricultural Union would have made an address and drawn attention to the fact that over the years this Government has held the reins too tight when it came to price fixing in respect of certain products? When that address was criticized by the Deputy Minister at the conference, the conference thereafter passed a unanimous resolution supporting the statement by the president of the S.A. Agricultural Union. Does the hon. the Prime Minister think that it is normal that 28,000 farmers should have left the land in the past 12 or 14 years and that, according to his own Economic Advisory Council, they are going to continue to leave the land at the rate of about 2,600 a year? Does he think it is normal that those who put in income-tax returns, at a loss, have risen from 17 per cent to 23 per cent? Does he think that the arrears to the Land Bank are normal? There are certain specific matters which the president of the S.A. Agricultural Union brought to the attention of the Government. He said that in many countries developing industrially there has been a tendency to neglect the interests of the agricultural community, to neglect their interests in a manner which has resulted in difficulties arising and that very often too late the Government has had to come to the assistance of the farming community. Sir, I know that hon. Ministers take the line that there are certain things for which they are not responsible. But a number of instances were given of things for which they were responsible and for which the Government is responsible. What happened when the cotton producers asked for a measure of protection? It was refused, very largely at the behest of the textile industry which is already getting protection to the tune of between 20 per cent and 40 per cent in a few instances.

Sir, I go further. What happened when the manufacturers of tractor spare parts refused to supply a central buying co-operative at wholesale prices? Oh, there was an investigation; we were told that it was a monopolistic practice. But after 2½ years it is still going on. I can give many other instances, Sir. There will be an opportunity to give those instances later on in other debates in this House. But are we not entitled to a reply from the hon. the Prime Minister as to what the policy of his Government is in respect of the farming community? I said that they had four solutions and one of the solutions was fewer farmers. That is the one in which they have been most successful. Sir. not a word from any of the three Ministers and not a word from the hon. the Prime Minister. Is that competence or incompetence? [Interjection.] Sir, I am very interested to see this Minister here. I understand that he is in for quite a surprise. One of his own Nationalist Party branches is demanding his resignation. They are approaching the Prime Minister on the subject. Sir, the hon. the Minister had his opportunity to reply. Why did he not reply? I accused them of departing from the principles of the Marketing Act. I accused them of price manipulation. I told them that they were trying to apply farm planning at a. time when they did not have enough agricultural economists to plan the farms within the next 25 years. Sir, what did we have? Was that not an example of incompetence? Am I not entitled to say that as far as this matter is concerned there was no answer?

There is another matter that I raised with the hon. the Prime Minister and his Ministers. I raised the matter of the Parity Insurance Company and all the other public finance companies which have failed over the past two years and I asked for an explanation. What did I get from the hon. the Minister of Finance? A most unsatisfactory explanation. A commission is now going to be appointed, two years too late. The stable door has been closed after the horse has gone. Four hundred and fifty thousand insurers are having to pay extra premiums because the company has failed, and the hon. the Minister tells us that he is appointing a commission of enquiry. We still do not know the terms of reference of that commission. We know that there are amendments now to the Act but, Sir, that does not save the position of those people who have got into difficulties. When I raised the matter the hon. the Minister of Transport told me that he had no powers.

Under the old Act, not now.

No, you said you had no powers.

The hon. the Minister said across the floor of the House that he had no power. In fairness to him I will say that the new Act was promulgated on 24 September; that is perfectly true, but whose fault is it that is was promulgated so late?

Nobody’s fault.

It was your fault.

It is funny. Sir, this Government gets Acts promulgated very quickly when they are in a hurry. It is quite clear that there was no hurry as far as they were concerned. They followed a policy of non-intervention, a policy of just letting things go on.

Nonsense.

But let us go a bit further. When Parity was placed under ’curatorship in November the hon. the Minister allowed a full month to elapse before he stopped them taking money. Why was there that delay?

There were good reasons for that. I had to wait for the final court order.

The hon. the Minister had the power to do it before. I think he did have the power, and the last time I was right when I said that he had the necessary power.

Sir, I come back to this company. The hon. the Minister has tried to justify his action by saying that he supervised this company almost throughout its existence. As long ago as 1961 there were articles in financial newspapers questioning the position of Parity and the soundness of the policy it was following. In 1962 the hon. the Minister said there was an inspection and that certain controls of limitations were placed upon the alienation of its assets. The Minister has been asked to-day where that report is which came in in 1962. We have been told that it is a departmental report and that it is not in the public interests that its contents should be revealed. But, Sir, there was enough talk. …

I did not say that it was not in the public interest. I said that it was not customary.

Is the hon. the Minister prepared to make it public?

I am going to give it to the commission.

Is the Minister in a position yet to tell us what the terms of reference of the commission will be.

Yes, you will know the terms of reference in due course.

I still do not know. Four hundred and fifty thousand people have had to pay additional fees for insurance, and I have had nothing from the hon. the Minister yet that even approaches a satisfactory reply. He has tried to gloss over the whole matter; he has introduced amendments to the Insurance Act, but the repercussions, the echoes, of this matter are going to go on and be heard in South Africa for a long time. They are going to be heard because this is not an isolated case. It is one of 13 cases and the judges have already mentioned in at least one of those cases that the powers were there; why have they not been used? Sir, I have had nothing to lead me to believe that this hon. Minister has done his job properly in respect of this matter. I have had no explanation which satisfies me. I do not believe that enough attention was given to this matter by the Minister himself.

What about your statement that an inspector was only appointed in 1964?

I made that statement because I found no report from that inspector in the papers placed before the Court Why was it not there?

Why should it be put before the Court?

It is a very relevant document.

Do you base your sole argument on that?

No, I do not base my sole argument on that; I base my argument on the fact that the Minister and his Department were supposed to be supervising this company and 12 others. Thirteen of them are in liquidation or have gone insolvent, and the public has lost its money. When we asked for a commission of inquiry last year the Minister would not give it to us. He thought it was unnecessary. Now you have this further incident and now we are getting a commission and amending legislation, but the public has been allowed to suffer or at least a further section of the public has been allowed to suffer. The hon. the Minister tells us that he had his hand on it all the time, that the position was being watched by him and his officials. I can only say that if it was being watched by him and his officials it is time we got a new Minister …

Why are you so afraid to await the commission’s report?

Because I am afraid the commission is not going to investigate the Minister. I am not interested in any officials. The man who is answerable to this House is the Minister and the Minister has not given an explanation which I regard as satisfactory. He has a responsibility here as well. I cannot believe that if this Minister gave his known ability and attention to a case of this kind, he would allow it to go on and get into the mess in which it found itself. That is why I say that here has been incompetence.

Wait until you have the facts.

Sir, is the commission going to investigate the Minister’s actions? Have I an assurance from the Minister that the commission will investigate the Minister’s actions as well?

Yes, the whole Parity affair will be investigated …

Now we are making progress.

The commission will investigate all the incidents that gave rise to the Parity incident, including the question as to whether there has been any dereliction of duty by the Department of Transport and the Department of Finance.

Sir, there are other companies as well. Is there going to be any inquiry as far as those companies are concerned, or is it limited to Parity?

The investigation will relate to Parity. That was your case.

What is your case?

What about Dundee Coal Company?

I can only say that I brought to the attention of the Prime Minister the fact that 13 companies had gone insolvent; that in certain cases there had been grave irregularities which were referred to by the Court. I brought to his attention the fact that when Parity was investigated it was found that there was a large number of long standing irregularities. Sir, I do not believe that this is a satisfactory situation and I am not happy at its being left entirely in this position, but I must say that all the evidence I have to date, is evidence of incompetence in handling this whole situation.

Then, Sir, I dealt with prosperity and I indicated that while we were enjoying a measure of prosperity there was no doubt whatsoever that certain stresses and strains were already beginning to reveal themselves in the economy, and I indicated that those stresses and strains were due to a variety of reasons but that one of them was manpower shortage which was affecting at least three out of the four stresses and strains with which we were faced. When I dealt with the question of manpower I indicated that I believed that a shortage had arisen owing to the fact that there had been a neglect of immigration, owing to the fact that there had been a neglect of education and owing to the fact that the Government has been overemphasizing things like job reservation, economic apartheid, and owing to the Government’s failure to train both Whites and non-Whites for jobs which will have to be filled in due course. Sir, this is not a matter that I was raising for the first time. I raised it last year in this House and I wanted to know what the Prime Minister was doing about the coming manpower shortage. When I raised that matter the Prime Minister said—

Sir, this bogey has turned out to be a reality; it has come to roost. It is roosting in the Department of Transport and in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, and it is roosting in many of our industrial and commercial undertakings in South Africa. It is not only beginning to cause a bottle-neck in our economy, but it is recognized by the Government also that it may well lead to inflationary tendencies developing. There can be no doubt that the Government is responsible for the fact that this situation has developed. It is not just the Prime Minister who did not see the situation straight last year; the hon. the Minister of Transport has rushed in and he has agreed that the Government is to blame for the shortage of manpower. He tries to excuse the Government on the following basis: He says—

I think he added that anyone with common sense could see that. I can only say that I think the overwhelming majority of economists in the country must have no common-sense then according to the Minister’s criterion. The policy of the Government to train manpower only as fast as economic expansion takes place appears to be a most strange economic philosophy. I would have thought that the more generally accepted concept by most economists was that naturally the economy can only expand as fast as the technical knowledge and the skill of the population developed. We know that there are fluctuations in the economy from time to time. Sir, I deduce from the statement of the hon. the Minister of Transport that it is the policy of the Government to train its manpower only as fast as economic expansion takes place.

I dealt with that.

The biggest shortage, as the hon. the Minister knows is skilled manpower.

No, it is not.

Oh, yes, it is, by a long way.

No, it is in the bread-and-butter grades. I think your figures are wrong.

That may be the position on the Railways but I can give the Minister the assurance that as far as the country is concerned, the biggest bottleneck—perhaps not the shortage of individuals—is the shortage of trained personnel. Sir, every modern economy realizes that its rate of development Is tied to the skill and the training of the people whom it has available. What the hon. the Minister is indicating by a statement of that kind is that where there are fluctuations in the economy, we are tying our whole training programme to temporary fluctuations instead of looking to a long-term development in the future. Sir, I believe that that is exactly what has happened in South Africa.

Your deduction is entirely wrong.

I do not believe that the so-called unprecedented expansion which the hon. the Minister talks about must be the expansion over the last two years when the growth of the national economy was between 6% and 8%. Sir, that is nothing unusual in certain other countries of the world. Japan has had a much higher average development over the last ten years, and so has Western Germany. Sir, when you consider that in the economic development programme the Prime Minister’s experts are planning for a 5½% growth in the economy over the next five years, then 6% to 8% is nothing exceptional at all. When the Minister talks about this unprecedented state of affairs he is talking about what the Government hopes will be normal in the future and what many other countries have found is normal. If you look at the index of employment issued by the Reserve Bank you will find that in the 6-year period from 1956 to 1962, which the Minister apparently regards as normal, the figure for private industry rose from 120 to 122, less than 2% in six years. In private construction industry it dropped from 150 to 108.

That is normal!

And now when we get a little expansion the Minister talks about this unprecedented expansion, a mere 6% to 8%. What is so unusual about that? The Government is planning for 5½% over the next five years, or is it not; or is this economic development programme all eye-wash?

you know that there are many, many aspects of this expansion.

Sir, the hon. the Minister owes me a speech on railway matters. I hope that when we come to Economic Affairs he will take over from the Minister and give me a speech on that as well; perhaps we will hear him on Labour too.

Do you not know that every ½% makes a tremendous difference?

Of course it makes a tremendous difference, but it is not the difference between unprecedented expansion and normal expansion.

The difference between 5½% and 8% is tremendous.

There is little difference between 5½% and 6%.

But we calculated 6%; we know exactly what we were doing.

And yet you did not make provision to satisfy the manpower needs of the country.

Within reason.

Sir, here the Government is now trying to talk itself out of a difficulty which has arisen because of its own neglect over the past ten or fifteen years.

Every expanding country has the same difficulty.

Every expanding country has the same difficulty and some expanding countries cope with it better than others. There is not the slightest doubt that all indications are that this country has coped with it very poorly indeed because of the neglect and incompetence of this Government. Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister himself admitted at a conference of his own Party in Bloemfontein not so long ago that because of their pre-occupation with ideological or constitutional matters they had given too little attention to the technical education of the country; it appeared in his own newspapers. I gave figures here the other day to show what is happening in respect of the teaching of technical subjects in our schools and what a tremendous shortage there was of teachers, The hon. the Minister did not query or challenge one of my figures. All he did was to try to choose one or two industries to show that although there had been a tremendous increase in the labour employed in those industries, the ratio between White and non-White had remained the same. But he did not query the figures which I gave him and which showed that the ratio had not remained the same in the over-all picture.

You suggested that we were doing nothing.

Sir, I never said for a moment that the Government was doing nothing. I advised them years ago to do something. Year after year I asked them what they were doing and year after year the Prime Minister told me that he had a manpower committee going into these matters; that he was going into the manpower requirements of the country. I am not suggesting that he did nothing, but what I am suggesting is that he did not do enough, and the fact that he did not do enough is evidence of the incompetence of this Government and of its failure to meet the situation which was developing. Then, Sir, we had nothing but criticism from this hon. Minister as to the proposals which I had made in the past. What do we find? Some of their own experts have been recommending exactly the same things that I have been recommending. What is this cry that private enterprise will always outbid us. therefore it is no good trying to do anything? Sir, that means that when we have prosperity and private enterprise is outbidding us, we will train fewer people when we have prosperity than we will do in depression periods when private enterprise is not competing. That is the logical result of this Minister’s argument. If ever there was a situation which was allowed to develop, which is evidence of incompetence on the part of the Government, then it is the situation which has been developing in respect of our manpower.

Now we have the Government sitting back, having taken over the United Party immigration policy, in part, and saying how well they are doing.

You have no policy.

of course you have taken it over.

Sir, the point to which I want to draw attention is that in respect of the year 1963 no less than 53% of our immigrants were Whites flocking out of other African territories. In 1961 the figure was 57%; in 1964 it was a little better, it was 44%.

Very happy results for South Africa.

I agree, very happy results for South Africa, particularly as so many of them are coming here and teaching our people that the Bantustan policy applied by this Government is the exact replica of what the British Government applied in Central Africa. They are beginning to see exactly what this policy means.

Then why are they coming here?

That is something that I can deal with later. The fact to which I want to draw the attention of the Government is that that source of immigrants, unfortunately, may dry up fairly soon and unless steps are taken to open new sources of immigrants from European countries we are not going to be able to maintain the flow that we have at the present time. [Interjections.) Sir, I can understand the hon. gentleman’s anxiety for Chinese immigrants. I believe it was people like him who wanted Chinese labourers in South Africa in the past when there was a shortage of labour. We may be reduced to the same situation under this Government, but heaven forbid. You will not have Chinese immigrants coming into this country while you have the United Party in this House.

Sir, what evidence is there to support all this talk of competence on the part of the Government? What did we have when the hon. Prime Minister spoke and he dealt with the demands for higher wages and the difficulties of certain sections of the community which had fixed wages. He told us that he and many of the people on his side of the House had had hard times too and he know how difficult the situation was but in the national interest it would seem that wages would have to be frozen, that wages would have to be maintained at their present level so as to avoid the danger of inflation so as to enable South Africa to go on competing in the outside world. Sir, I want to know whether this policy is to be limited to wage earners and to the salaried classes? Is this going to be another case of freezing wages and salaries of those in the poorer income groups in order to combat inflation? Because what this Government has been doing up to now and what it did in its last Budget, was to use the poor man to combat inflation in South Africa.

“The friends of the poor”,—that side of the House!

We now come to this question of whether or not he is following a policy which is in the interests of South Africa. When one goes into that, one comes back to the accusations which levelled in opening this debate when I said I believed the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister in moving in the direction and promising independence for Bantustans was creating very real dangers for the security of White civilization in this country. I pointed particularly to what was happening on the Continent of Africa, to the infiltration of communist influence in those emerging states, and I asked the question rather pointedly that if that sort of thing happened there, why should it not happen here? Sir, I have had no reply to that. I have had various attempts at replies. The hon. deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development told me that this Government would not give freedom in the way the other metropolitan powers had done. I quoted him the hon. the Prime Minister who has told us that if they were going to develop in that direction neither he nor I could stop it, a clear indication that once you have promised independence the time-table is taken over by the people concerned. I have had attempts by hon. gentlemen on that side of the House to cast doubt upon the alternatives that we are offering and attempts to justify their own policy. We have been told that apartheid has not failed in the urban areas, that apartheid is succeeding in the urban areas, because although there are more and more Bantu in the urban areas they enjoy better housing and higher living standards. Now, Sir, if I understood the policy of apartheid at all then the objective laid down by the hon. the Prime Minister in this House in 1955, when we discussed the Tomlinson Commission’s report, was to the effect that he hoped by the end of the century to have got so many more Bantu settled in the reserves that the number of Whites and non-Whites in the so-called White areas would be approximately the same. There is no indication of a movement in that direction at the present time.

The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has proved it.

When the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development got away from the horse that can neither kick nor bite he had to admit there was 3,500,000 Bantu in the urban areas and 4,000,000 in the rural areas. He has admitted on another occasion that the number in the rural areas has increased by 1,300,000 while the number of Whites increased by 50,000. His Department has also admitted that the number of Bantu in the urban areas, over the past 10 or 11 year period—I am never sure which it is—has increased by over a million. The Minister of Labour said on another occasion that the expected additional jobs for Bantu over the next five years was at the rate of approximately 120,000 a year. He does not deny that figure. Where is there a criterion by which we can judge whether this so-called apartheid in the urban areas is succeeding or failing? You see, Sir, there is no doubt that the numbers are increasing. They may be living under better conditions but numbers are increasing. And I think I am correct in saying, too, that the number who are permanently settled are also increasing. I think I am also correct in saying that the number of Bantu in our urban areas is increasing faster than the number of Whites. So how can you talk about apartheid succeeding in the urban areas?

The hon. the Prime Minister told us something else. He dealt with the question of pressure upon South Africa. He admitted quite frankly that his policy in respect of independence for the Bantustans had been one embarked upon as an adaptation because of the pressure on the part of the outside world upon South Africa. But, Sir, he accused this side of the House of not being prepared to make adaptations of this kind but of being prepared to make adaptations which were dangerous to the future of South Africa. He painted the harrowing picture of my pleading with him to concede to the demands of the West. I would be very happy to see him refer to that in Hansard at any time. I would be very happy if he were to point that out to me because the attitude which I have always taken up was that South Africa’s policy must be decided inside South Africa and with regard to the situation in South Africa but that there was no doubt whatever that certain policies were much more likely to get the approval of countries of the Western World, people who had been our traditional friends, than other policies. And the policy which has failed to get the friendship of the outside world is the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister. Not only is it a menace to the future of Western civilization and its security here in South Africa but it is also a menace in international affairs where it has made us far more enemies than it has made us friends.

The Prime Minister asked what alternative I could offer. He has sought very hard to try to focus attention on alternative rather than to defend the policies which he himself has advanced. When I introduced this debate I said I believed there were three important characteristics which had to be preserved. The one was White leadership over the whole of South Africa, not just part of it; the second was a vigorous White immigration policy and the third was a defined share of government for the non-Europeans coupled with a readiness to limit it in the interests of civilized government with all the means at our disposal.

That is all very vague.

No, Sir, I am a little different from the hon. gentleman. Words to me have only one meaning; I do not change them from day to day. “All the means at our disposal” means all the means at our disposal; it does not mean anything else and the Prime Minister knows it. The Prime Minister wants to know what is leadership. It is quite easy to explain that to him. Leadership is White political control.

How do you get it?

The answer is: We have White political control.

By force, if necessary.

We have it at the moment.

You are trying to dodge my question.

I am not trying to dodge. We have White political control and we shall retain it unless the hon. the Prime Minister throws it away. He is already prepared to throw it away over sections of South Africa.

Is it supremacy?

It is White political control; it is as simple as that, The Prime Minister can spend as long a time as he likes scratching his head to fit that into one of the compartments he has in his mind but I want to tell him that leadership is White political control. That is what it means.

I know you would dodge the issue.

I am not dodging anything. You are trying to get me classified in the population register of the Minister of the Interior as either A or B or C. I am none of those; I am D.

Is that an honest enunciation of policy?

It is an honest enunciation of policy. The trouble is that it does not suit the Prime Minister and therefore he does not accept it.

How is that White political control to be maintained? Firstly, we recognize the weaknesses in the Bantustan scheme. I do not think it is necessary for me to recapitulate them but I think I can say that those weaknesses lie in the willingness to give sovereign independence to those areas; they lie in the inadequacy of the Government’s handling of the problem of the urban Bantu which is growing and growing and can lead to a very dangerous situation and a very unhappy situation not only for the Bantu but also for the Whites in this country. They are not solving the Bantu problem. We need vigour unless there is going to be a ruthless, rightless, voiceless mass which is going to be representative of the views of a foreign state. I know that hon. gentlemen opposite are inclined to compare this situation with what is happening in European countries. They say if they employ foreign labour without endangering the situation why shouldn’t we? Sir, I believe Western Germany is one of the countries with the highest percentage of foreign labour, it is between 7 per cent and 8 per cent of the entire labour force. In South Africa, under the policy of this Government, it is going to be over 80 per cent. That is a slight difference. But I go further.

Under your policy it will be 100 per cent.

They will not be foreigners.

There is a third weakness, Sir, and that is that this policy of separate development is not only going to slow up the economic development of the country because of the hon. Prime Minister’s infatuation with border industries, but large areas of the country are going to remain undeveloped in the Bantustans because of lack of capital and the refusal of this Prime Minister and this Government to allow those areas to be developed with private White capital and private initiative. The result is that you are going to have a slowing up in the entire economic development of the country. Economically we may place ourselves in the position …

Economic colonialism only in the sense you want it.

Mr. Speaker, I never know what that hon. gentleman means when he talks about the high falutin things he thinks of at times. I am not talking of economic colonialism. I am talking of developing the reserves to carry the maximum Bantu population possible, and I say you will never achieve it without allowing White capital, White private capital, and White initiative. While you fail to do that you place in issue the whole morality of the policy of apartheid as applied by this Government.

Why are you in favour of that and against border industries?

I am not against border industries where they are an ordinary process of decentralization but I am against border industries where they are established uneconomically for ideological reasons. I unfortunately seem to have lost the quotation from Professor Coetzee’s paper in which he deals with this problem of the refusal to develop the reserves. He says we cannot go on denying the Bantu economic development without White skill or capital.…

There will be White skill and capital.

What I want to get across to the hon. the Prime Minister is that there are members of the clergy in the “Hervormde” church who are complaining that the whole morality of his policy is in issue because you are denying the Bantu economic opportunities for economic development in the so-called White areas on the excuse that you are giving him opportunities in the Bantu areas which you know do not exist. That is the position. That is where the whole morality is in issue.

As I have said the whole policy of Bantu areas is dangerous and therefore put aside by us. But we believe that the policy we should adopt is a policy which is based on fact. The basic fundamental fact is that the Bantu outnumber us by four to one in this country at the present time. Secondly, it is based on a philosophy, and the philosophy underlying the United Party approach is that White political leadership and control—for the Prime Minister’s edification—must be maintained in the interests of all our people as far as we can see into the future while at the same time all sections of our community must share the fruits of Western civilization which has been built up here in South Africa. We believe that can be carried out by means of a three-pronged policy, a political policy, a demographic policy and an economic policy. The political policy would be to retain political control of the whole country.…

What is it in Afrikaans—”heerskappy”?

Must I give the Prime Minister a language lesson?

How would you translate it—”beheer” or “heerskappy”?

“Beheer” and “heerskappy” are not the same. The political policy would be to retain political control of the whole country and all its population in a Parliament of whom the majority would be representatives of the White, nevertheless a defined share of the representation must be given to the non-White people and that share will not be increased except with the consent of the electorate and which, after having been accepted as equitable and fair, would be defended by the United Party with all the weapons at our disposal.

Is it still race federation?

It is still race federation; it has always been race federation.

It sounded new to me—the three-prongs made it sound different.

The practical application is with regard to three groups. The first is the Bantu in the rural areas, in the reserves and in the urban areas. I see from the anxiety of the Secretary that I am in difficulty as far as the time is concerned. Perhaps you can help me, Mr. Speaker, have we to vote before 6.30? Well, Sir, I think this policy is well enough known, the policy in respect of the Bantu in the urban areas, in respect of the Bantu in the reserves and those in our rural areas.

Let me make it clear to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that it is all right as long as we commence with the voting before 6.30.

Thank you, Sir.

There are one or two matters with which I want to deal rapidly, matters which, I think, are of more importance. The hon. the Prime Minister says: How can you maintain supremacy when you have integration? That was his first question. Sir, we have had integration in South Africa to a greater or lesser degree for 300 years. We have possibly had it longer than that. It is not necessary for me to tell this House what integration is. But integration has existed here for over 300 years and White leadership, in the sense of White political control, has been retained and is retained here. Let me tell the hon. the Prime Minister that under the policy of this party it will be retained here. The hon. the Prime Minister asks: Can control be effective under our policy in respect of the urban Bantu, the reserve Bantu and the protectorates? I say that in respect of the urban Bantu we have said, first of all, that they should have undisturbed family life; secondly, that they should have home ownership but only in their own urban Bantu townships—not all over South Africa as those hon. gentlemen are trying to suggest. Thirdly, that the responsible class of Bantu should be exempted from the application of the pass laws so that you would have him on your side in the maintenance of law and order. But we never said that influx control must be done away with. We never said that influx control was not necessary in the interests of both the Bantu in the urban area and the Bantu coming from the reserves very often without a job to go to. We have said that the Bantu in the urban areas must have a measure of local self-government but we have said that they must also be represented in the Parliament which controls their destiny, namely the central Parliament of South Africa. There their representation will be joined with that from the rural areas and the reserves and they will be represented on a separate roll by eight White representatives. The hon. the Prime Minister says: Is that moral? Can you resist the pressure for an increase in the number of representatives? Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister has told us for many years that the policy of the Nationalist Party is to get away from discrimination, that it is a moral policy. He has put the Coloureds on a separate roll and he has given them four representatives. Is that moral or is it not as far as the Coloureds are concerned?

The Blacks have their own areas.

That has nothing to do with it. You have not the courage to put the Coloureds in their own areas.

That is quite a different problem.

Does the hon. the Prime Minister want to tell me that the Coloureds are quite satisfied with four representatives or is there pressure for more already?

They will be satisfied with their body they are getting.

Is the Prime Minister speaking of removing those Coloured representatives?

I never said⃜

If he does not know it, let me tell him that there is pressure for more Coloured representatives. But despite the fact that there is pressure the Prime Minister is so sure and happy that he sees no danger in it. I say the Bantu will have eight representatives. I believe that pressure can be resisted, as it has been for 300 years. When I say that the hon. the Prime Minister says: Oh, that applies to the Coloureds but it does not apply to the Bantu. Sir, if you are to compare the policies of that side of the House with those of this side you come to the conclusion that, when you look to the future of Western civilization in South Africa, the policies of this side present more security, more safety and more certainty that that civilization will be retained here for all time for ourselves and for our children. The policy of that side of the House, Sir, is going to lead not only to dangers from the Bantustans but to a black proletariat in our urban areas a black proletariat that will develop all the characteristics of which General Hertzog warned in 1936 when he said: You cannot keep these people in your midst without giving them political rights in the Parliament which controls their destiny. Those are the people who threw General Hertzog out. They could not accept his policies. Now they come and tell us theirs is the traditional policy of South Africa.

I maintain my case is made out. If ever there was a government incompetent in the handling of the affairs of the country it is this government. It is even managing to mismanage our prosperity at the present time. When you have regard to the policies they have selected and which they are trying to defend, their incompetence becomes more evident because of the dangers to the future of White civilization in the Republic of South Africa.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—49: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bloomberg, A.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; 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.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hopewell, A.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. 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.

NOES—89: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; 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.; Fouchd, J. J.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Henning, J. M.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Koorahof, P. G. J’.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzd, 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.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. L; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and P. S. van der Merwe.

Question accordingly negatived and the words omitted.

Substitution of the words proposed by the Prime Minister then put and the House divided:

AYES—89: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. I. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; 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.; Fouchd, J. J., Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Henning, J. M.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, L; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzd, 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. L; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J., Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—47: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bloomberg, A.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hopewell, A.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. 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.

Substitution of the words agreed to.

Motion, as amended accordingly agreed to, viz: That this House takes cognizance of the blatant opportunism of the Opposition in now suddenly proclaiming itself the champion of the Whites in the Republic and of its attempt to bypass its policy of race federation, which has obviously failed, and consequently reaffirms its full confidence in the Government’s purposeful and effective actions and honest policy, which are designed to benefit all race groups in the Republic.