I move—

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Sir, we have no objection to this Bill. The Bill has been adopted in the Other Place and we have no objection to all the stages being taken now.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

When this debate was adjourned yesterday evening I was dealing with the inability of the Ministers and of the whole of the Nationalist Party Government to look after the interests of the farmers properly, but before I proceed with this matter I should like to say something which I may not have the time to say later on. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing to give his attention to the question of introducing a comprehensive crop insurance scheme for the farmers of South Africa. Sir, we have been told by hon. members on that side of the millions of rand spent by the Government to aid the farmers; some of these loans have been repaid and in other cases the money is not recoverable. I think that if we can establish a comprehensive crop insurance scheme in South Africa we may perhaps be able to eliminate many of these difficulties with which the farmers have to contend. I am referring particularly, of course, to crop-farming and horticulture, but when we take into account the fact that every dairy needs fodder and that the dairy producer therefore goes in for crops; that every person who produces meat needs fodder and that he also has to go in for crop-farming therefore, then I think such a scheme will assist the whole of the farming population of South Africa. Sir, this scheme, of course, is a very comprehensive and a very complicated scheme. Many of our farmers insure against fire and hail but I cannot see that that is going to help the farmer much when he has to contend with droughts, floods, un-seasonal cold weather, frost, wind, lightning, insects, plant diseases, pests, snowstorms, etc., against which the farmer is completely helpless. The farmer has absolutely no control over these risks. I have already said that this is a complicated scheme. We will have to make sure that this scheme is only applicable to farmers who do not follow wrong farming practices. The more a farmer specializes, the greater his risks are. Mechanization in these days results in higher production costs and reduces the profit margin more and more. It is perfectly clear, of course, as we have often pointed out in this House, that a single crop failure may put a farmer back anything from three to five years. I want to point out that there is such a scheme in operation in other countries. In the United States of America this scheme has been in operation for something like 30 years. I think the scheme in the U.S.A. is run on a basis of voluntary membership. In Japan it is compulsory for farmers to belong to it. But there are also other countries where this scheme is in operation. It is in operation in the following countries: Brazil, Ceylon, Chile, Belgium, Costa Rica, Greece, India, Jamaica, Canada, Manchuria, Mauritius, Mexico, Pakistan, Puerto Rico, Turkey and Uruguay. These are all countries which have a scheme of this kind. It is perfectly clear, of course, that it must be a State-aided scheme. The contribution which the Government usually makes is to bear the administration costs of the scheme. The insurance part of the scheme is expected to be self-supporting. Mr. Speaker, I have here a whole mass of literature in this connection and if the hon. the Minister is interested I will give it to him.

I read it long ago—ten years ago already.

The hon. the Minister says that he read it long ago but if that is the case then I want to ask him, having regard to the fact that there are so many countries where this scheme is already in operation, why he has never proposed that it be introduced in this country? It is of no assistance whatsoever to the farmers if the Minister reads this literature and then does nothing about it. He should do something about it.

You do not understand what is going on in the agricultural industry.

There is no such thing as a comprehensive crop insurance scheme in South Africa. I want to tell the Minister that hail insurance premiums are so high that most farmers simply cannot afford to pay them. I wonder whether he is aware of that.

But he gets no hail.

In the area in which he farms he gets no hail. As I have said, the premiums are tremendously high. Sir, the farmer insures against hail, and what happens then? Instead of a hailstorm, a drought comes along. The hon. the Minister tells me that he read this literature ten years ago already; I can only say in reply to that that in that case he has been occupying this post ten years too long. I said yesterday evening and I repeat that the inability of this Government to do something for the farmers of South Africa is as clear as a pikestaff. Not only this Government and the Ministers but the whole of the Nationalist Party have lost all interest in the farmers of South Africa.

Do you still remember Mr. Strauss?

The hon. member wants to know whether I still remember Mr. Strauss. Sir, in a moment I am going to quote something to that hon. member and then ask him whether he still remembers those words.

The hon. the Minister of Finance talked about the deterioration in the balance of payments position; he talked about the restrictions which have been placed on the commercial banks and he then gave the assurance that credit for the purposes of agricultural production would not be curtailed, but he went on to say that the discount rate of the commercial banks was still too high and that it would come down. Mr. Speaker, what does this amount to? It amounts to this that this Government is combating inflation by restricting the credit of the small farmer, the poor man, and by creating difficulties for him. The hon. the Minister talks about his conservative policy. The conservative policy which the Government has followed up to the present time has been to let things simply take their course; the farmer has had to see to it himself that he keeps his head above water. Sir, I have noticed a disturbing phenomenon amongst the farmers. The farmers have many problems to cope with in the shape of droughts and changes in prices. And here I come to the hon. the Deputy Minister who wanted to know yesterday evening whether the prices of agricultural products had ever been reduced when there was over-production. Has he forgotten that when this matter was discussed in this House and when I talked about the prices of dairy products which had fallen so much and pointed out to him that there was an over-production of dairy products as a result of the policy of this Government . . .

Over-production?

Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry, but I am not going to reply to the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) because when he wakes up he usually does not know what the debate is all about. In 1961 and even before 1961 when this Government gave loans to farmers to carry on with crop production and to acquire livestock, most of them acquired milch cows, and when I referred to it in this House the hon. the Deputy Minister told me that the cattle which they had bought were not all cows. Does the Deputy Minister still recall that? At that time there was an over-production of dairy products and the prices were then considerably reduced. Sir, that is precisely the difficulty that the farmer experiences. He never knows from day to day what his prices are going to be. The prices have now been increased again, but if there is an over-production of maize to-morrow, the prices will come down again; as soon as there is an over-production of dairy products again the prices will come down, and as soon as there is an over-production of cotton the prices will be reduced again. The disturbing phenomenon which I am beginning to notice amongst the farmers is that they are beginning to ask themselves whether they should continue to farm or whether they should sell out. They are beginning to ask themselves whether they should continue to borrow money. The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) told us here yesterday evening about the enormous sum of money—I think he said R265,000,000—which had been devoted to the farmers of South Africa, and of which R56,000,000 had been repaid. But, Sir, when one takes into account the numbers of farmers who have to repay that money, it is not such an enormous sum. It seems to me that what this Government wants is large super-farms. They want to do away with the small farmer; they want to do away with the man whom they describe as “uneconomic”. Sir, trie hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) asked me a little while ago whether I remembered Mr. Strauss; I want to ask him something else. I want to ask him whether he remembers Dr. Malan. Because I want to quote here from Dr. Malan’s book, “Die Groot Vlug”.

He then goes on to say—

But what is the present position? The present position is that for every one White man who has left the platteland, 26 Bantu have settled in the rural areas. Fifty thousand Whites have left the platteland. The hon. the Minister will tell me that they were not all farmers; that this figure includes hangers-on, their friends, their children, their mothers-in-law, etc. Let us concede that. Dr. Malan talks about Whites who are leaving the platteland, not about farmers.

When was that book written?

That does not matter.

The hon. the Minister wants to know when this book was written; it was written before 1947. Sir, when one stands up in this House and talks about farming hon. members on the other side always come along with one of two stories; the one story is that the farmers are doing extremely well—and here I am interested in the green booklet which the Deputy Minister had with him yesterday evening, the one which he himself wrote. I want to know at whose expense that booklet was printed and by whom it was printed? I wish the hon. the Prime Minister would listen to this. I want to remind the House that shortly after his appointment in that capacity, the Deputy Minister told this House about his helicopter flights and the hundreds of photographs which he had taken. I wonder whether that was done at the expense of the State. He quoted here from a booklet and when I asked him what he was quoting from he said that he was quoting from something which he himself had written, but I want to know who printed that book and at whose expense it was printed. I want to tell the Prime Minister that he is going to find that this Deputy Minister is going to cost him a great deal and I cannot imagine that the farmers, having regard to the hardship which they are enduring at the moment, are going to appreciate that sort of thing. But let me go on quoting what Dr. Malan said. This is what he says in referring to the landless, unskilled White man—

Sir, these are the people who have to leave the platteland at the present time. These are the people who are being told that they are “uneconomic”. These are the people who have to fend for themselves. These are the people in respect of whom the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing said, “If the man can get a good job in the city, if he can go and work in the city for R3,000, what is he doing on a farm”? But, Mr. Speaker, the trouble is that he is not going to work in the city for R3,000; he is going to work there for R1,000 or he is going to work there for R650. That is what the hon. the Minister said; it is recorded in Hansard.

You are distorting my words.

The hon. the Minister referred to the small farmer who has 100 moregen of land and 100 head of cattle and who is going to sell 20 head of cattle per annum. Sir, this only goes to show what sort of Minister we have, a Minister who thinks that a small farmer can farm with 100 head of cattle . . .

On 100 morgen of land.

He went on to say, “Who is going to stop those people if they want to go to the cities”? Sir, let me quote further what Dr. Malan said about the unskilled landless White man in South Africa— and that is what he still is to-day; he is still unskilled and when he is driven away from the platteland he is still an unskilled landless individual. Sir, Dr. Malan made a thorough study of this matter. He was not referring to the farmers only. He went on to say—

Those words are still absolutely true at the present time, just as they were at that time.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude with a final quotation from this book. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Brakpan wants to know what the Whips have been telling me. The Whips have been telling me that my time has expired. The hon. member apparently does not know that every speaker is only allowed 30 minutes. I conclude with this final quotation—

Sir, when one talks about the interests of the farmer one gets this giggling and cackling from hon. members on that side of the House, as well as from the hon. the Minister. These are the people who have no time for the farmer, who would rather see the small farmers clear out of the rural areas.

I do not intend directing the debate in another direction at this stage but before I return to agriculture I trust you will allow me, Sir, to refer to an episode which happened yesterday afternoon between me and the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hope-well). While the hon. member for Pinetown was speaking and saying that this Government was not paying any attention to the demands of the wage earner I interjected and said, “Should all demands be met”? The hon. member for Pinetown apparently did not hear me clearly because he then repeated my words as though I had said, “All demands have been met”. In spite of the fact that I repeatedly told him that that was not what I had said and again asked him that question he persisted. I now want to repeat the question I put to him—and I repeat that question this morning to him and to the United Party—was the following “Should all demands be met”?

The United Party will, of course, now go to the country and tell the people that we have frozen salaries—that has also been the argument that has so far been advanced in this debate—and that it is not the intention of the Government to grant any salary increases, in spite of the fact that we have told them that adjustments have been made and that further adjustments will be made. Hon. members are aware of the fact that the Post Office staff have been given an increase this year and that it is possible that there will be further increases. Hon. members are also aware of the fact that the salary scales of the police have been adjusted; they are also aware of the fact that the railway workers were given an increased salary scale with better holiday bonuses during the past year. I can mention one after the other. Sir, and hon. members are also aware of it but it naturally suits them politically to say that this Government has frozen salary scales and that those scales cannot be increased. I now want to repeat the question I asked last night: Should all demands be met? Hon. members have already said that the railway workers, the police, etc., must receive higher salaries and as soon as a farmer complains about the price of mealies they immediately say, “Higher mealie prices”. When the farmer complains and says the price of meat is too low hon. members opposite immediately say, “Higher meat prices”. Will it not be easier for them simply to tell us who should not get more? Do you see the opportunism of the United Party, Mr. Speaker? I have already thought about it that if Members of Parliament were to complain a little and say their salaries were too low, the Opposition would to-morrow advocate an increase in salaries to Members of Parliament.

And you will say no thank you.

This opportunism on the part of the United Party as far as salary scales are concerned has no effect on the electorate; nor has this opportunism of hawking around this question of increased prices for the farmers’ products any effect.

I want to return to the interjection I made last night while the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bennett) was talking and referring to the Minister for Gardens. I then said: “No, the hon. member for Gardens.” The hon. member for Albany said: “Thank you but the member for Gardens will still become Minister.” I just want to tell him this morning that that possibility does not exist because the United Party has a record. Even if the younger members of the United Party do not perhaps know what that record is the country knows. In a recent speech the hon. member complained and said there was no increase particularly in the production of beef due to the policy of this Government of not keeping pace with the increased costs of production of beef and of not keeping pace with the increased requirements to which the price level had not been adjusted.

The minimum price level.

Yes, the minimum price level. I just want to remind the hon. member of what the United Party did when they were in power . . .

Eighteen years ago.

Yes, that is considerably shorter than the book written by the late Dr. Malan about the Great Trek to the cities in which he pointed out in what a bad position the farmers of South Africa were. A commission was appointed by a national congress to inquire into the question of poor Whitism in South Africa. It is much more recent than that. The hon. member wants to argue that away to-day. I want to point out to you, Sir, that the United Party was the first to fix meat prices but the meat prices they fixed at the time were not minimum prices. It was a fixed price. You could not get less than that but you could not get more either.

But you knew what you were going to get.

Yes, you knew what you were going to get. The price was announced on 15th April 1944. [Interjections.] The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) has already tried in public, when he was still a member of the O.B., to shout me down but he will not succeed in doing so.

The meat price that was first fixed was 5.35 cents per lb. Members may perhaps argue that that was a reasonable price in those days. A year later—just as we are adjusting the prices—they adjusted the price by reducing it by .1 cent per lb. Then the price was only 5.25 cents. That was in 1945. They again announced a price in 1946. Then it was not only reduced by .1 cent but by .25 cent. The price was then exactly 5 cents per lb. There was a further lowering of the price in 1947 to only 4.9 cents per lb.

That was the time when production was decreasing.

No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must remain quiet now. That was due to Redcol which they had introduced at the time to bring down the cost of living and the people who had to pay for it were the farmers. That was the position. We then had an election in 1948 and the meat prices were announced in the month of April. That was the first increase we received and it was an increase of .5 cent. The price was then 5.4 cents per lb. That period of five years is very interesting, Mr. Speaker. During that period of five years there was only an increase of .05 cent per lb. in the price of meat. If we talk in terms of 100 lb., as the price is given to-day, it means that there was an increase of 6d. per 100 lbs. over that period of five years. That is their record. We still worked in pennies in those days and not in cents. That was what the farmers got from the United Party Government. Fortunately the National Party came into power in 1948 and there was an immediate increase. Time does not permit me to show how steep these increases were but the price was 5.80 cents the next year; the following year it was 6.50 cents; the following year 8.1 cents; the following year 8.6 cents and in 1956 we introduced the new scheme of a guaranteed price, a scheme under which the farmer could get a price higher than the guaranteed price. At that stage the guaranteed price was 8.9 cents. The United Party ruined the cattle farmers, Mr. Speaker. The cattle farmers are still suffering to-day from the setback they experienced under the United Party. In 1959 the price had risen to 9.9 cents.

Everything is fine with the farmers!

Keep quiet; you also have a share in these sins of the United Party. In 1960 it rose to 10.75, in other words, it was double the price fixed by the United Party. I now want to know whether production costs had doubled by 1960?

What was the value of money?

If the hon. member wants to calculate that he can do so. I have to hurry: In 1964 the price was 11.7 cents and to-day it is 14 cents per lb. In other words, there has been an increase of 2.30 cents in one year. I said a moment ago that during the last five years of the United Party Government there was an increase of only 5 cents per 100 lbs. and during the first five years of National Party Government it was R2.80 per 100 lbs. During the ensuing five years there was a further increase of R1.20 per 100 lbs. and during the past year there was an increase of R2.30 per 100 lbs. Then they are the people who tell us that this Government is not making the necessary adjustments for the farmers!

Whose money guarantees that minimum price?

The money of the producer but who guaranteed these prices previously? The Government? No, Mr. Speaker, that argument of the hon. member is without substance because what he was pleading for when he recently pleaded for an increased floor price, for a still higher guaranteed price than before, was not a plea that it should come out of the pocket of the Government. He then also demanded that that increase should be guaranteed by the levy fund of the farmers themselves. I am pleased that the hon. member has made that remark because I want to point out to him that he is not being practical if he thinks he will elicit a little sympathy from the farmers by pleading for increased prices.

I want to refer to what happened in 1964 before the price was increased and before the serious consequences of the drought had made themselves felt. In January 1964 the Meat Board already had to buy in 3.396 carcasses. When you study the purchases of the Meat Board during the previous years, Sir, you notice that the purchases are particularly heavy in the month of January but that they become heavier and reach their peak during the period when meat is plentiful, namely, March and April. In 1964, however, the position was different and that was why it was possible to increase the guaranteed price at that stage. In 1964 those purchases declined because we were then beginning to feel the serious effects of the drought. It is easy for hon. members to say we shall have to import meat this year because we shall not be producing enough. It does not call for a wonderful prophet to be able to prophesy that because that is the logical consequence of the severe droughts the country has experienced. But unless we take into account what the consumer is prepared and able to pay we cannot come forward with increases from time to time which the consumer cannot absorb.

Was the last increase not justified?

Of course it was justified. That is precisely what I am trying to explain to the hon. member. The consumer can pay that at the moment and the production is so much less.

Now suddenly the consumer can pay it!

The consumer can pay it because he is getting a better salary than he got before. The hon. member for East London (City) is only arguing that way because he wants to go and tell the consumer what high prices he has to pay for meat and that he has to pay them because the National Party Government has no sympathy for him as a consumer.

Hear, hear!

There you have the “hear, hears” Mr. Speaker. That is what is wrong with this United Party; that is the reason why they again yesterday lost somebody like Mr. Kallie Koch. He joined the National Party . . .

I don’t believe you.

I know it is very difficult for the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) to believe it. He joined the National Party yesterday, for the information of the hon. member for Wynberg. It is a bitter pill to swallow to know that they are losing people like Mr. Kallie Koch. But the United Party is trying “to be all things to all men” and the electorate are tired of that and people like Mr. Kallie Koch are tired of it. That is why they join the National Party.

The arguments they advance to show that the farmers are having a hard time under the National Party Government are without substance; the farmers pay no attention to them. The record of the United Party is too black and that is why they will not win over the support of the farmers.

I just want to lift the lid off something which intrigues the United Party tremendously and that is this little green book. They want to know who compiled it, where it was printed and where it comes from.

Who paid for it?

Yes, they also want to know who paid for it. I also paid for it—I paid 50 cents. I take it, Mr. Speaker, that they have already collected your 50 cents and if you have not paid it yet I want to appeal to you kindly to do so. I also assisted in its compilation. [Interjections.) We have a farmers’ group on this side of the House which works. Sir, It is a group which is divided into a wool group, a wheat group, a mealie group, etc. I belong to the wool group. Although the hon. member for East London (City) was chairman of the Wool Board and of the International Wool Secretariat he will nevertheless find the information I give in this booklet very useful. It will be of great assistance to him.

It is slanted.

No, you can judge later whether or not it is slanted. These various groups drew up their reports and they are contained in this report. It was typed by our own typists: it was roneoed on the National Party’s own duplicating machine in our information office, the cost came to 50 cents each and we have each paid our 50 cents.

Is it worth that?

Much more. It is just not possible to appreciate its value. I just want to tell the United Party that they must occupy themselves less with politics, that their farmers’ group must also do some work and that they will then be able to come forward with something similar.

Was Uncle Gerhard also a contributor?

I shall not say “Uncle Gerhard” but the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) made a particular contribution. He is the chairman of the farmers’ group and I can assure you, Sir, that he sees to it that the group works and that we see to the interests of the farmers.

I now want to turn to the hon. member for East London (City) who has been so vociferous this morning and last night. He asked us last night whether we were going to ignore what the South African Agricultural Union had said and that we were rejecting the South African Agricultural Union. I just want to know from the hon. member what his attitude was . . .

I said you did not always agree amongst yourselves.

Is the hon. member suggesting that they do? I just want to know from him what he did with the evidence given by the South African Agricultural Union before the Select Committeee in connection with the uneconomic subdivision of agricultural land? He must consider that for a moment and then tell me what he intends doing with that evidence. Why is he prepared to reject the evidence of the South African Agricultural Union in totol No, the hon. member should put his hand in his own bosom and see whether it is clean when he pulls it out.

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) also spoke.

A very fine speech.

Mr. Speaker, I have a particularly high regard for the judgment of the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor); she must not give me reason to lose that high regard. The hon. member for Drakensberg said that it was evident that the Government could not do anything for the farmers of South Africa. Once again we had the old cry from her that this Government had only one object in mind and that was to make the small farmer disappear from the platteland.

Yes.

There you have it again, Sir. I want to know from the hon. member how she reconciles that with the complaints made by the hon. member for Albany last night when he asked where we were going to get the farmers to settle on the 300,000 morgen of irrigation land under the Orange River scheme?

But you are chasing them to the cities.

Just listen to that, Mr. Speaker. Why is this Government embarking on the biggest irrigation project that has ever been embarked upon in South Africa? Why does this Government hold the record for having established the most irrigation schemes in the history of South Africa under any Government? Which Government has resettled more people on the platteland than this Government? Which Government has placed more land under irrigation than this Government?

Had you tackled the Orange River scheme when you came into power those areas would have been full of farmers to-day.

Has the hon. member ever thought about this that had the United Party tackled that scheme in 1910, when they had the opportunity of doing so, how many farmers there would have been to-day? It is ridiculous to argue that way, Mr. Speaker. Surely one does something when it is necessary to do it and when you are in a position to do it. The Government may still perhaps be faced with the difficulty predicted by the hon. member for Albany last night, namely, that there will not be enough farmers to occupy those holdings. Hon. members now say the small farmer must disappear. I want to repeat the statement made by the Ministers of Agriculture and by National Party members because that is the policy of the National Party: The uneconomic farmer of South Africa must be converted into an economic farmer. That is the objective of this Government. If the farmer has an uneconomic unit it is the objective of this Government to assist that farmer to acquire an economic unit. By enabling the farmer to acquire an economic unit by making it possible for him to purchase another piece of land, by the guidance that is given to the farmer and by the research work which is carried out in the agricultural field and by making the results of that research available to the farmer this Government will see to it that even the uneconomic farmer in South Africa will farm economically, whether he is farming uneconomically because he has an uneconomic unit or whether he is farming uneconomically because he is farming incorrectly. But I also believe that the time will arrive when no further uneconomic units will be created. I want to predict that if legislation should be introduced to prohibit the creation of uneconomic units the United Party will strenuously oppose it: that they will once again try to make political capital out of it by saying that we want the small farmer to disappear from the platteland. Nothing of the kind; no Nationalist has said that the small farmer must disappear. We adhere to our policy that the uneconomic farmer in South Africa must disappear; that he must be converted into an economic farmer. The hon. member for Albany is now at liberty to make as much political capital out of that as he can. That is the objective the Government has in mind and it will not allow itself to be diverted from that course by the opposition it gets from the United Party.

In all the years the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) and I have been in this House together I can’t remember him ever struggling as much as he did this morning to try to put the point of view of his party in respect of agriculture. You see, Sir, the trouble with the hon. gentleman is that he is far too good a farmer to believe all that he has heard from the Nationalist Party about agriculture in South Africa. I believe that his greatest ambition would be to make the sort of speech which comes from this side of the House on agriculture at the present time.

Don’t insult him.

I admit he will find it difficult to measure up but don’t let us discuss that any further.

I hope the hon. gentleman will forgive me if I don’t follow him directly but I intend dealing with some agricultural topics in which I shall handle certain of the matters which he raised. This is the last important debate of the Session, a Session which has been, I think, a somewhat dull one possibly because the many preparations for a general election have not seen the light of day in the House. People have felt that much was going on behind the scenes which was not revealed to the public in the House. I want to say at once that it is, of course, the prerogative of the hon. the Prime Minister to decide if and when there is to be a general election this year or if he is going to postpone it until next year. Nevertheless, Sir, in anticipation of his decision I think it would not be unwise to have some regard to the record of that party during the last few sittings and certainly since the last election. I think that when that record is examined one will find that there are examples of unbelieveable blunders, of unbelieveable stupidities and also examples of policies the Government has followed which have lost their logic and all their relationship to reality. When one thinks of the last session I think the headlines the public will remember will probably be those concerning the strange decisions taken about the banning of Debbie, about the Independence incident, and possibly about the sunburnt Cypriot. These are examples of the unbelieveable stupidity of this Government in the course of just the past Session. You, Sir, are no doubt familiar with the case of Debbie. Debbie is a film which was originally banned to all persons under the age of sixteen. It was then viewed by the hon. the Deputy Minister and he raised the age restriction to 21 years. Subsequently the Deputy Minister again viewed the film, accompanied by people of his choice, and all restrictions on the film were thereafter removed! Now, Sir, what I think is interesting is the fact that when the Minister announced his decision in the House he said he was bowing to public opinion. I think what we are entitled to know is this: Is the Film Publications Board—for which the hon. the Deputy Minister is responsible—then unable to interpret public opinion? Must it be held that the hon. the Deputy Minister, with certain casual viewers of his selection, are better able to interpret public opinion? If so, Sir, what have we got the Board for? Should we not do away with the Board altogether?

Rather do away with the Minister.

We have now landed in this ridiculous situation. How ridiculous can this Government make itself by acting in this manner and giving reasons of this sort?

Then we come to the second incident, namely that of the American aircraft-carrier U.S.S. Independence which, as you know, was to have docked in Cape Town, and which was informed that mixed aircrews would not be welcome, would not be tolerated on South African airfields. We know that at that time our own defence force was advertizing for Coloured seamen to serve in our naval ships and for Coloured men to serve in the South African Coloured Corps. But be that as it may, Sir, the visit was cancelled. Not long afterwards we were treated to a commentary on this incident over Radio South Africa, a commentary which suggested that the incident might have been engineered by the United States of America, with the connivance of the United States Ambassador in South Africa. This matter has been raised before in this House, and so far as I know there has been no apology by Radio South Africa. There has been no condemnation of Radio South Africa by this Government. So far as I know there has been no suggestion of an apology by this Government for the irresponsibility and the brashness of Radio South Africa for making suggestions of this kind.

Mr. Speaker, what is the attitude of this Government? Is that sort of thing to be allowed to go on? Are we not keen to have friends in the international sphere? Are we unmindful of what our possible allies might think of behaviour of this kind? Can there be a greater example of irresponsibility?

Let us take the third case, a case in which the Government has been made to look ridiculous and which caused our enemies throughout the world to chuckle at us. I refer to a Cypriot who was recruited, apparently by agents paid by the South African Government, in Alexandria to come to South Africa where it was believed he would get a good job. But despite the fact that he had been recruited by those agents, when he arrived here an immigration official thought he was too dark and consequently refused to let him land. After further representations had been made, it appeared that the skin of certain parts of his body, parts which were not touched by the sun, was a good deal lighter. [Laughter]. He has now been allowed to land under a temporary permit valid for three months. Is this person here as a White man? Is he here as an honorary White man? Or is he here as a non-White on permit whilst decisions are taken about him? I understand he has relinquished citizenship of the State from which he came and that he came to this country on an exit permit. Here we have the ridiculous situation of a man, who was apparently selected by one of our own immigration officials overseas being denied the right to land here by one of the South African immigration officials. Now, Sir, one wonders whose writ is to run—the agent who selected him, or the man who decides on having a look at him when he arrives here whether he is fit to be allowed to land in South Africa? That, Sir, is the picture as it has unfolded itself up to the present point in the newspapers. Can one imagine how people overseas are chuckling about this sort of thing? No wonder the South African Foundation is asking for R500,000 to try to protect South Africa’s good name overseas. Why, I wonder whether even R500,000,000 could undo the damage done by these three incidents—done by the Government in effect—during the past Session!

That is not all, however. The Government has also been responsible for less spectacular blunders, blunders which nevertheless have possibly been of a more far-reaching nature. I shall detail some of them. One of them I believe has been the mismanagement of our economy by this Government and particularly by the hon. the Minister of Finance. We heard from him that he in fact conceived and planned the boom. Well, if he did that, then surely he must have foreseen the manpower shortage which has resulted? And if he did foresee the manpower shortage—which he should have—he should have foreseen that a certain measure of inflation would result from a situation where too many jobs were chasing too few people. But, despite our appeals to the Government over the years, the manpower question has been sadly neglected. We now find ourselves in the position of having a perfect example of a stop-go economy, an economy with uneven development which is going to make planning difficult, if not impossible, which forces the whole nation to live on an ad hoc basis, and which creates the maximum hardship for certain classes of the population, a point with which I will deal later on.

I think the second example of incompetence and ineptitude has been the handling by the Government of the drought conditions which have obtained in South Africa for months— and in many cases, years—in various areas. This matter was raised before and on that occasion we were told to wait until the drought was over and see what the Government would do for the farming community concerned.

They have done much already.

The hon. member says the Government has already done a lot. I know very well that the hon. the Minister of Transport is working night and day to move cattle; I know of the trouble he is experiencing in regard to shortage of trucks and things of that kind; I know the Government is giving grazing and granting loans. But, Mr. Speaker, the essential problem is two-fold. In the first place there has been no proper planning to deal with droughts of this kind at Government level, and there is still no sign of any proper planning by the Government. In the second place, the sort of financial assistance which has been given up to now is such that the farmer fails to see how he will ever be in a position to repay the money under the Government’s present price policy. The result is that the honest man, not seeing any way out, is leaving the land, whilst the man who is prepared to take a chance is staying on. And the consequence of this is, Sir, that we are losing some of our very best farmers in South Africa. What a blunder. What a pity.

As a result of lack of foresight on the part of the Government we once again landed in trouble in three respects. I refer to what I shall call “the case of the three Commissions”. You will recall, Sir, that some 18 months ago this side pressed for a financial inquiry into certain financial institutions, and in the course of that debate the Parity matter was mentioned. But our request was refused by the hon. the Minister. He refused to appoint a Commission, but now that we have had the Parity scandal the Minister has belatedly appointed a Commission. If the Commission had been appointed 18 months earlier I wonder whether a great deal of the damage done could not have been avoided.

We have had the same thing with the hon. the Minister of Transport. Last winter when there was a shortage of coal I appealed for a commission of inquiry to go into the whole question of our transport services in South Africa. And what did we get? We had a few statements from officials and the hon. the Minister to the effect that there was nothing to worry about because the situation was in fact well under control. But in March of this year the Commission was appointed.

The position was indeed under control.

But in March of this year a Commission was appointed.

But it was not for that purpose.

Then I take it the Commission is going to investigate something that is really under control? But why then a Commission?

It is not investigating the Railways.

It is investigating our transport system.

It is investigating the co-ordination of transport.

Exactly. And that is vital, because your trains cannot move the coal and as a result you are using motor transport. The hon. the Minister knows that very well.

The Commission has nothing to do with what you are talking about.

We should have a commission to investigate the affairs of your Party.

I think the commission we want is one to investigate whether it is desirable for this hon. Minister to continue as a member of this House. At the beginning of this year I said I was afraid that we were going to land in a position where the war-cry this winter would be, “Stem Nat en Bewe met Ben”. Well, Mr. Speaker, it looks to me as if we are indeed going to land in that position.

Then, Sir, a third Commission was appointed. For two or three years members of the defence group of this side have asked for a Commission of Inquiry into methods of training and the purchase and use of arms in the defence force. And for two or three years their requests have been refused. Now, when the training scheme has been under way for several years, when the public have been shocked by certain unfortunate incidents, now we have appointed a commission with the widest terms of reference. It is to go into the matter of ballottees, the matter of human relations, the relationship between the trainees and the older members of the defence force, and a whole series of matters of that kind. Mr. Speaker, why were these Commissions not appointed earlier? Because, Sir, I believe that in every case they could have avoided much of the trouble with which we are faced to-day.

But the whole trouble with this Government is that it just cannot accept a suggestion made by the Opposition. Because, Sir, it is afraid it might be infra dig to do so. All the Government is interested in is to stay in power whilst it is not running the country properly.

Look for how long we warned regarding the situation developing in the post office. And look at the position existing to-day. But they would not listen.

I said I would give a few examples. Let me give certain examples in the field of Colour policy. For a long time we knew that the Cape Nationalists had hoped that the policy of the Government as it affects the Cape Coloured people would prove to be a flexible one. I believe also that many of them in their intellectual discussions held out hope also to the Coloured people that the policy would in fact be a flexible policy. We remember what happened afterwards. We remember the campaign their newspapers here in the Cape advocating direct representation in Parliament. We remember the big meeting they had in the hall of the Goodwood show-grounds. We remember the speech by the hon. the Prime Minister at Swellendam. But what happened in the end? When the hon. the Prime Minister made his statement this year we found he had led his Party into an intellectual cul-de-sac as far as the Cape Coloured people were concerned. All justification for his policy, all merit it may have had, seemed to have vanished. For, Sir, a flat ceiling has been imposed overhead: So far and no further. And the Coloured people are of necessity to be second-class citizens for all time. What effect will this have on future race relations in this province and in South Africa?

I go further. The whole basis of the Government’s policy as regards Bantustans, the whole justification for it, was that as a result of applying this policy the number of Bantu in White areas would be decreased. Year after year we have pointed out to the Government that the number of Bantu in the White areas was increasing, and increasing faster than they had ever increased under any other Government in the history of South Africa. Hon. members opposite confidently said, “Ah, but wait until 1978. For in 1978 you are going to see a reversal of the flow”.

Well, this year we succeeded in pinning down the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and discovered that he based those forecasts on two projections, one of which appeared in the Tomlinson Report, and one which was prepared by certain members who sat on that Commission but one which did not appear in the Report. But when those projections were examined, what did we find? We found that the one attached to the Report at no time forecast a reversal of the flow by 1978. And the one which did not appear in the Report was based on certain hypotheses to which this Government has never subscribed. And despite the fact that it never subscribed to those hypotheses, nevertheless we heard airy words expressed by hon. members on that side as to who had worked on that projection. Yes, they did work on it, but they worked on it using premises which this Government never accepted. And, therefore, they cannot claim the conclusion. What was the result? Why, even the Burger helped us to bury 1978. But no sooner was it buried then the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development attempted to give it the kiss of life. He did his very best to revive it. Why? Because he realized it is the fundamental basis of the justification of his policy. For if that is cut away, where then will his policy be? And it is cut away, because his policy now bears no relation to reality at all, and he knows it. But they will have to try. They tried again this morning. You can take it from me, Mr. Speaker, there is no scientific basis for this statement about the reversal of the flow in the year 1978. If we are going to have economic development that flow will not be reversed. In fact it will be intensified.

Despite this undermining of the logical basis of their policy they still continue on their merry way and we still have at the end of the road this business of independence for the Bantustans. Despite the fact that the whole policy has become an abstract theory and a utopian cloud-land—if I may put it that way— they are still prepared that South Africa should incur the risks inherent in a policy of this kind. What are those risks? We heard the hon. the Minister of Justice talking about training camps at Dar es Salaam and other places. But, Sir, we are going to have eight more training camps in eight more Dar es Salaams if these places are to be given their independence. We realize that in the Protectorates, even in Basutoland, the communists were only just defeated by three or four members when it came to the final result of the election. We have been warning about this for some time. It is no wonder, Sir, that a former Minister, Mr. Frans Erasmus, has asked for a national conference of the Nationalist Party in order to clarify their position in regard to the independence of the Bantustans. It is small wonder that he has begun to realize just what those difficulties are.

The last point to which I want to draw attention as regards the failure of this Government—a failure which is no doubt going to have far-reaching consequences—is the neglect by this Government of the ordinary family man in South Africa during these years of boom conditions. He has not shared in that boom, as has been shown here so often. Not only has the man in the town not shared in that boom but the small family man in the rural areas and on our farms has not shared in it either. But let me deal with that later.

Mr. Speaker, with such a record for the past, what can we expect for the future as far as this Government is concerned? First of all, it has projected an economic development programme for developing South Africa economically. But already it is becoming clear that certain of the hypotheses, certain of the conditions, fundamental for carrying out that project have not been appreciated by this Government. It is quite clear that they are not going to achieve that which they set out to achieve because of certain changes which the Government itself has allowed to come about. So, Sir, we have no blue-print now for our economic development.

But that is not all, Mr. Speaker. Neither have we got a blue-print for our relationships with what will perhaps be our most important neighbours, namely the Protectorates. We discussed the matter with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and we received a lecture on the mutual assistance that had been given. But we were also told that the matter still lay with the hon. the Prime Minister. Well, I think, the time has come for the hon. the Prime Minister to give us some idea of what his plans are, because we have no idea what he is up to in regard to the Protectorates. This may perhaps become the most vital question for the future of South Africa in the next ten or 15 years. For we must remember that independence for Basutoland is probably less than one year away.

What else can we expect? I am afraid we have to expect a further breakdown in our foreign relations in so far as it exists at the present time. When I talk about foreign policy then I mean the creation of mutual understanding between states and the working together for a friendly solution of the problems which exist. Well, Sir, we have had very little success in that sphere. And now we are faced with a tragic situation which has arisen in respect of one of our oldest friends and allies, namely the Netherlands Government.

It seems to me, Sir, that here is another sad example, a very sad example, of the failure of our foreign policy culminating in the statement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs in this House yesterday morning. Let me say at once, Sir, that in my opinion the Government had every right to react in the way it did to the action of the Dutch Government in making funds available to Defence and Aid in response to a request from the United Nations Organization. In my opinion the Government had every right to react in the way it did. In view, however, of the overall interests of our two countries, and the association which has existed in the commercial and cultural spheres between us for so long, I think I speak for all South Africans when I say that I hope it will be possible for restraint and better understanding to lead to a healing of that breach.

In this matter I feel very much like the leader writer of the Burger the day before yesterday when he wrote the following about the relationship between the Netherlands and South Africa—

As I said, I feel very much like this writer. As you will notice, Sir, he emphasizes a lack of knowledge and suggests that that had lead to points of view and actions on both sides being misunderstood.

Fortuitously, and through certain agencies, I obtained a copy of the speech made by Canon Collins to the special committee on apartheid of the General Assembly of the United Nations, the speech which apparently lead to the Dutch Government making this decision. Having read this speech, Sir, I can only say that it is quite beyond me to understand how any one who is well informed about the situation in South Africa could have been influenced by this twaddle. This is what he was reported to have said—

It then went on to state how much was needed and gave the following conservative estimate—

He went on and spoke of the assistance given by Sweden, a country which had contributed $200,000 (R140,000) to Defence and Aid and said—

What do you think of it?

I think it is the biggest nonsense I have ever read and I cannot understand how it can be conceivable that the Netherlands Government at its highest level is so misinformed of the true situation in South Africa that it can be taken in by this sort of talk. All the more surprising it becomes when one recalls, as the Minister did yesterday morning, that Defence and Aid has been refused registration as a welfare organization also in the United Kingdom.

You see, Sir, I view this tragedy as being the result of a complete breakdown in understanding between our two countries and it seems to me to be of vital importance that this situation should be remedied as speedily as possible. It is tragic to think that the Netherlands Government, in the light of its ties with South Africa, can be so misinformed and so poorly advised that it can commit such far-reaching interference in our internal affairs and that at a time when we all were hoping that our relations at least with the countries of the West would improve. We need a better understanding and we need friends in the councils of the world. I think, therefore, that it is the wish of everyone that diplomatic action will resolve these difficulties and restore the traditional good feeling and mutual understanding between our two countries. When I have said this, I feel I have expressed the feeling of this side of the House and for that matter of most South Africans. That applies also to the situation which might arise in respect of Denmark a country with which we have old ties also and old associations. I shall be interested to learn the reaction of the hon. the Prime Minister in regard to these matters.

A I have already asked, what can we expect for the future from this Government? Well, as far as foreign affairs are concerned, we have not been lead to expect very much. I think we are also faced with the fact that we are going to see a continued determination by this Government to subordinate the economic welfare of our nation to ideological theories. There is no doubt, Sir, that the policies of this Government are eventually going to weaken us economically and in weakening us economically they are going to weaken the resistance of this country and its determination to continue the civilization which we have built up here. Already we see stricter control of Black labour; we see job reservation during a manpower crisis; and we see concentration on development in certain areas where the return to the national income is not as good as from other areas. For what purpose? For ideological purposes and not for economic reasons.

There is another thing we must expect from this Government, namely that in this nuclear age, in an age of science, we shall see more and more of the ox-wagon mentality and less and less of the ability to adaptation to modern scientific and nuclear developments. Here I remember what Disraeli said about the old Liberal Cabinet, namely—

I fear that applies also to this Cabinet, except that one might add, as Disraeli would have done had he stood here—

We have a right to demand in these days and times that the Government should forget its petty prejudices and its sectionalism and as true patriots get down to planning for the peace, progress and prosperity of South Africa.

When I talk about “peace” I do not only refer to peace in the international sphere, but I also refer to internal security. In this respect I want to say at once that this Government has had success in crushing certain movements and organizations which have set themselves the task of overthrowing ordered Government in South Africa by means of violence. But, Sir, this Government is its own worst enemy because, surely, if you want internal security, you will keep your fatherland united and not fragmented; if you want internal security you will keep your urban Native—the focus of the troube—loyal to South Africa instead of converting him into a citizen of a foreign State with no loyalty to you. Surely you would not destroy the concept of South African patriotism. Surely you would try to keep a common loyalty among all our inhabitants in one State, South Africa. Surely under tht umbrella of that common loyalty you would build up a strong and contented Defence Force with an intense love for South Africa; and surely you would never allow your Police Force to become unhappy or demoralized, but you would keep a strong, well-paid and efficient Police Force. Surely you would try to develop a desire among all our people to cooperate to protect our cultural goods and to ward off the attacks of Communism. Surely you would not want to regard the urban Native as someone whose position was of no concern to you and to South Africa because you satisfy your conscience by saying he will get political rights in an embryo Bantustan which will become a sovereign, independent State one day; surely you would accept him as permanent inside this portion of South Africa. Surely you would accept that he was entitled to home ownership in the Bantu townships. Surely you would accept that the responsible ones would be exempted from the pass laws and that they should be entitled to undisturbed family life and have a measure of local self-government, and that they must be given a measure of function by having representation in the Parliament which controls their destinies, however limited, and by White people? On that basis you could move in the direction of creating permanent internal security. But what is happening? We are making the mistakes many metropolitan powers in Africa are making. We are beginning to hand over power to immature people who do not yet know how to exercise it, instead of retaining that White control over the whole of South Africa which we have at present. Sir, when we talk about peace in the external peace, I say the United Party wants peace, but not peace at any price. In the war we proved that we had our standards which we were prepared to fight for and 17 years of Nationalist rule has not changed us. That is why we said we would not tolerate interference inside South Africa, and that is why we backed this Government when it protested against interference by UN. We believe we have a bad Government, but it is our privilege to kick it out and not that of the outside world. I may say that is a privilege I will defend very jealously indeed. I look forward to that day. [Interjections.]

Order!

You hear the whistling in the dark, Sir. They realize it is around the corner. But if you want peace you must prepare for war, and we want South Africa to be prepared. We also seek friendship with the outside world. We believe that we stand a better chance on this side of the House of finding those friendships and cementing them, because our attitude and our trustworthiness have been proved in the past to the free world. The hon. member for Cradock knows very well that the outside world trusts us, and he knows something else. He trusts us, because he knows that in essence this is the United Party of which he was once a member. These are the requisites for what I put as the second objective for which we should be working, prosperity for all our people, and not just for a few and for the Government. I believe there are two sections at the moment who are not enjoying that prosperity, as was shown in many of the speeches in this House during this debate. Sir, lest you disbelieve me when I say that the salaried worker and the person with a fixed income are not sharing in the boom, may I quote what was said by Mr. R. H. Botha, the President of the Federation of Salaried Staff Associations in Johannesburg last month—

The Government has tried very hard to explain that it never suggested that these salaries should be frozen. I do not say that they said they should be frozen, but I do say that this Government has adopted a very unsympathetic attitude to the pleas of those people, and that is borne out by what the Prime Minister said to me earlier this Session, when he said it is not that they are worse off but merely that they desire more. Well, we are not going to solve that problem without more attention both to manpower and education. It is rather amusing to note the attempts of hon. members opposite to criticize our proposals, but at the same time to try to take them over. It is not necessary for me to go into them at any length because they have been outlined so often, but the Government is beginning to adopt them as its own, but they are doing it too slowly.

The second group is the farmers. I think there can be no doubt whatever that those farmers whose prices have been fixed by the procedure laid down under the Marketing Act have definitely not shared in the boom. I think that the debate so far on that subject has revealed certain important differences between the Government side of the House and our side of the House. I think the Government’s attitude is that it is quite prepared to see a large portion of the agricultural production in South Africa fall into the hands of a few big producers, with the object of producing cheap food. That is why it has been so interesting to notice the refusal of the hon. the Deputy Minister to reply to queries put to him in respect of the statements of the Chairman of the Marketing Board, that the tendency should be in the direction not of higher subsidies but lower subsidies in respect of agricultural products. Our standpoint is a different one. I think it shows up very clearly the difference between the Government and ourselves. We believe that in South Africa we are producing at the moment food as cheaply, if not more cheaply, than anywhere else in the world. But we believe that the continued existence of a stable agricultural community is vital to the future interests of South Africa because of their influence on the character and the type of people we shall be. It is because we believe that, that we stand for the maintenance of a stable agricultural community. We stand four-square behind all efforts to achieve that, but we do not see any signs at the moment from the other side of the House that the Government is prepared to accept a policy of that kind.

I go further. I say that when one looks at the prosperity in South Africa, we believe that it needs planning, but we do not believe in State interference and Government direction. We have always been a free enterprise party, and for that reason we believe it is the function of the Government to help and to advise but not to direct and to compel. That has been our approach to this issue, and our approach is very different from that of the present Government.

The third objective I have outlined after peace and prosperity was progress. In a world in which so much scientific advance is being made, when one speaks of progress one thinks naturally of progress in the field of science.

It is for that reason that we have been hammering this Government so hard and so long in respect of the lack of attention to scientific education in South Africa. I know the Prime Minister appreciates it; he has admitted it before. I am afraid we are falling behind in scientific education and research. Our problem is no longer to keep up, as it used to be, but it is to catch up with what is going on in the outside world. I believe the next decade will see the most tremendous advances in science we have seen perhaps in any decade in the past. We have seen things happening which we believed were science fiction, but they became real in our time. We have seen satellites circling the earth and we hear talk of landing on the moon. People are reaching for the stars. It seems to me we are missing out and not ensuring that South Africa is going to be on the crest of the wave in regard to the scientific advances in the rest of the world. I believe anyone with scientific education on that side of the House will back me on this. Automation, transistors, computers, etc., are new scientific tools which can be used to increase the wealth and the progress of our people, and which can lead to greater leisure and greater developments all round if they are properly employed. We must resist the temptation to rely too much on unskilled labour which may appear to be cheaper to begin with but which in the end will result in our not being able to compete with the outside world. I wonder whether we are spending enough on research. In Great Britain they are spending £84,000,000 a year; that is spent by the Government on certain research councils, and £2,000,000 a day when you have regard to their total expenditure. I believe it is estimated in most foreign states that it is justifiable to spend 3 per cent of the gross national product annually on research in science. That is why we find it so inexplicable that one of the greatest weapons of scientific and educational advance, television, is still denied us by this Government. South Africa to-morrow will have to use modern means of telecommunication. I believe that with our uranium resources and our technical skill we could make vast new sources of power available. We could probably get electricity from nuclear plants. We could probably do much to increase our water supplies by desalting sea water by means of nuclear power. These are all visions for the future in which this Government seems to be left entirely behind.

But progress is not limited just to scientific advance. There must be progress in the political and the sociological fields as well. If I were to be asked what sociological progress I would seek from this Government, it would be first of all that immigration to South Africa should not just be to meet a shortage of labour, but to strengthen the White race in South Africa as the vehicle of White civilization.

Now he is coming to the Jews again.

Did I hear correctly? Did I hear “Dan kom al die Jode”? I am glad if I did not hear it, but it is quite clear what the attitude of hon. members opposite is. They are afraid of immigration. I believe there should be steps also to assist larger White families. I believe we are dropping behind in our educational policy, allowing for educational rebates and ensuring that children are trained for leadership. I believe we are falling behind in not having a national contributory pension scheme or a medical aid scheme for all the people. I believe we are committing a social crime—and I should like the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to listen to this—in denying the boon of television to the lonely old people in South Africa. Let him remember that the age of our population is rising, and that the time may come when he will feel happy in his carpet slippers in front of a television set when he is no longer Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and there is a little advance in South Africa.

There should be political progress as well and I think it is of vital necessity for all communities to have a measure of self-government for themselves and also to be given a sense of function. I was reading what General Smuts said nearly 70 years ago in a great speech he made which somehow is never quoted by hon. members opposite, despite the fact that they show such interest in his previous speeches. This is what he said—

Then he goes on, and this is a paraphrase—

I think that is as true a statement of the philosophy of the United Party to-day as it was then. We still stand for a strong, settled I Government under White control, but we believe that that White control must be enlightened. We believe that we must put our own house in order in the sphere of race relations in order to make it the foundation on which we can built to establish a relationship between us and not only the other states in Africa but the Protectorates and the peoples of the Western world. We believe that to be successful our policies will have to answer to two criteria as well. We will have to relieve racial tension and make co-existence a practical proposition, and we will have to restore world confidence in South Africa’s ability to solve its racial problems by consultation and the democratic process instead of by coercion. I am afraid we have little hope of this Government’s achieving those objectives. We believe that if there is to be true patriotism in South Africa and an advance in the direction of peace, progress and prosperity, then we shall need another Government. It is for that reason that I support the amendment of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson).

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to work up much interest or excitement with reference to the speech which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has delivered here to-day for the umpteenth time. He did perhaps go to a great deal of trouble over the past few days to put it into different words in an attempt to make an impression; he probably also did his best in delivering his speech to make it sound exciting in an effort to create the impression that he was dealing with something important and new, but we have discussed all those subjects here over and over again and I find it really difficult therefore to take any great interest in his speech. I even found it difficult to listen to him with interest. Even the joke which he cracked here was old, i.e. that the United Party was looking forward with interest to the day when this Government would be replaced by a United Party Government and that that day was just around the corner. That story is told regularly before every election to give them courage in fighting the election, but after every election we once again witness the despondency and the depression and even the collapse of the United Party. We again witnessed it during this Session after the provincial elections. One finds it difficult therefore to continue to appreciate that little joke.

What is the position really? We have had a calm, tranquil Session here in which the United Party has occasionally shown a little emotion but without much enthusiasm and without any effect. Sir, the reason is perfectly clear, and that is that whilst the Government has continued to give its deliberate and constructive attention to the interests of South Africa, the United Party on the other hand have had no alternative policy to put forward. Hon. members of the United Party stated publicly at the beginning of this Session that they wanted to create a new image of the United Party; that most of the burning issues of the past had fallen away; that we were entering a new future and that the United Party must therefore present an altered image.

Where was that said?

The Leader of the Opposition said so. That altered image still does not exist. The United Party have not yet succeeded in creating a different image although they seek to create the impression, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition again did here to-day, that they too want to be the protectors of the White race, and that they are prepared to practise discrimination, a concept which they previously rejected, because they want the White man to be the ruler, if one is to believe them, and they want to grant certain rights I o the non-Whites, but they want to keep those rights within quite narrow limits. That is the one element in the new policy which they are trying to sell the public of South Africa, but apart from that the United Party has come forward with nothing which has any real, positive content. That is the point with which I want to link up the few ideas that I want to put forward here.

No party can create an image of itself in the mind of the public unless that image is given a positive content, and that is what is lacking in the United Party. In no single sphere does the public of South Africa know what the aim of the United Party is. I am not even talking about an altered image because the public can form no picture at all of the Party unless it indicates positively and clearly what it is going to do in each particular sphere. It does not help to make vague statements or to couch one’s thoughts in fine words, and above all it does not help just to try to break down the image of one’s opponent in the hope that in doing so one will oust it from power. Sir, that is the point that I want to emphasize. The whole of the debating talent of the United Party and all their ideas are concentrated on one object only and that is to break down the image of the Government Party. Its entire aim, at all times, is negative and destructive. I want to illustrate this by discussing certain points made here by the Leader of the Opposition. It is not my intention, however, to cover the whole field which is regularly covered by hon. members of the Opposition. I merely want to discuss a few points made by him in his speech to explain what I mean in making this cardinal accusation against the United Party that it is unable to create any image at all of an alternative government or of a newly born party, because it is not prepared to give its policy a positive content; all it does is to live in the hope that if its attitude towards the Government is sufficiently critical, if it tries hard enough to break it down and if it tries hard enough to represent the Government as a miserably weak government, it will come to be regarded as the alternative government.

Let me deal with the economic sphere. The image of the Government in South Africa, justifiably so, is that it is a Government which was prepared to take very energetic steps to save South Africa in a difficult period when it was expected, as indeed they prophesied, that South Africa would be ruined as a result of the establishment of the Republic and our withdrawal from the Commonwealth. In point of fact, a new life was given to South Africa because there followed a new economic upsurge, which was almost unprecedented. Within the space of a few years a sudden change came about in our economic position; we had an economic upsurge such as few nations have experienced in recent times, with the result that to-day South Africa’s initiative is respected throughout the whole world. The image of South Africa in the mind of the public of South Africa and in the outside world is that we are a country with wonderful possibilities, possibilities which are being exploited correctly by the South African Government, properly supported by all sectors of the population which are co-operating enthusiastically to make South Africa a great and prosperous country. Sir, that image is one which the United Party cannot tolerate. They know that they can never get into power as long as this image of a prosperous country with a good Government remains, and that is why they try to break it down. But they forget that we realize what they are doing; and we will warn the nation that anybody who tries to break down this image of South Africa in the outside world and who succeeds in doing so, will at the same time be breaking down the very image which forms the basis of South Africa’s security and progress. In its efforts to throw the Government out of power therefore, the United Party, in making these attacks, is trying to destroy the prosperity of South Africa herself.

Hon. members on the other side made the accusation here yesterday, through the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), that South Africa was being led into great difficulties as a result of what this Government was doing to build up prosperity. The Government has allegedly been too active! Not only has it undertaken certain large schemes itself but it has inspired others, including the large utility companies, to tackle large-scale undertakings, as a result of which there has allegedly been over-development. Sir, we recall that it was not so long ago that it was stated in this House and outside by the Opposition that this prosperity was due to all sorts of other extraneous factors and that the Government had made no contribution towards it. If the United Party had been in power there would have been an even greater amount of activity ! They would have given an even greater impetus to the economy! In spite of that, however, they come along with the opposite accusation and that is that we excessively stimulated this prosperity.

Hear, hear!

The fact that hon. members of the Opposition say “Hear, hear”, means by implication, having regard to what the hon. member for Constantia said, that if they had been in power now they would have had to condemn themselves for having caused even greater problems because they would have given an even greater fillip to our prosperity. The truth of the matter, of course, is entirely different from the impression which they created here, and that is that the Government, as they now admit, was in fact responsible for many of the things which gave rise to our prosperity, the things which are still maintaining our prosperity and which will cause it to continue; but as a result of this prosperity we are faced with certain problems, problems which are due entirely to our prosperity. Sir, it is not preferable to have to deal with the problems of prosperity rather than to have no prosperity? That is precisely what is happening at the present time. There are certain problems. It is also true therefore— this proposition was rather ridiculed here today by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—that there are times when a Government has to apply the brake, and there are times when it has to release the brake. Prosperity in the economic sphere, as in all social spheres, is not a mechanical process; it is a process which is influenced by powerful factors. It is influenced by what happens in the outside world; it is influenced by human factors of various kinds. It is not something therefore that one can drive like a piece of machinery. Prosperity is something which one can help to bring about and which one can help to stimulate but which one also has to watch carefully; one must be prepared to apply the brake at the right time and having done so one can then release the brake again when it becomes necessary. Prosperity is a delicate, socio-economic phenomenon which one can guide but which one cannot steer mechanically and evenly like a machine without any change in speed. That is why the position in all countries has always been that those who are in control of the economic system are called upon at times to provide the necessary impetus and at other times to apply the brake with a view to maintaining a proper balance as far as possible. In former years, when our knowledge of economic laws was more limited, we often found that booms and depressions occurred in cycles, but nowadays our aim is to keep the curve even. Sir, who is the Leader of the Opposition to ridicule the Minister of Finance or to try to castigate him because of the fact that at the right time he took the correct measures to stimulate our economy, with valuable results for South Africa, and the fact that he is now applying the brake, cautiously but nevertheless firmly, to the extent that it is necessary to do so, or the fact that he is going to release the brake again as soon as it becomes necessary? What the Leader of the Opposition has said here is really tantamount to praise for what is being done by the Minister of Finance and the Government, and that is that instead of allowing these processes which influence prosperity to develop haphazardly and instead of them applying the brake clumsily, our aim is to place our economy on an even keel, as far as it is humanly possible to control it. Competent visitors who come here from overseas in fact admire the way in which this Government is regulating and controlling the processes of inflation and depression. They are amazed at the degree of progress in this country and at the same time they realize that we are also prepared to intervene, if necessary. I want to say here definitely that the image of this Government is that of a careful Government and a courageous Government which is prepared to take the correct steps at the correct time either to stimulate the economy or to apply the brake, and that image will not be broken down just by abuse or by criticism of the sort that we have had here.

I want to proceed now to deal just briefly with the other point in the same sphere, namely the attitude of the Government towards wage-earners and salaried staff and people who are dependent on a small income. Sir, the story which is continually being spread by hon. members on the other side that I or others adopted the attitude that no change would be brought about in the wage structure in this country but that wages would be frozen in one way or another, is devoid of truth. It is also untrue to suggest that we said, or that I said, that people needed nothing more; that they simply wanted more. What I did say, and what I am prepared to repeat, was that there had been a continual rise in our standard of living (a fact which I welcome) as a result of the prosperity which we had brought about; that there had also been a continual rise in our wage structure, to an even greater extent than the rise in the cost of living and that that was accompanied by an ambition to raise the standard of living even further. After all, that ambition to raise one’s standard of living is basic to mankind’s advance along the road of civilization. There is nothing wrong in saying that people desire more. It is a good thing for people to desire more.

They desire more seats.

But what is not a good thing is for a Government, just for the sake of seeking popularity, to meet that desire in such a way that the economy of the country is harmed, with the result that it leads to an economic set-back and the further result that the standard of living, which rose for a while, then drops again. In this case too therefore it is necessary for the Government to act wisely and with insight in an attempt to ensure that the standard of living continues to rise and that it becomes possible to meet the desire of people to attain a higher standard of living, but the Government must not allow itself to be forced, by the desire of people to attain a higher standard of living, to make concessions which are asked for at a time when the Government knows that in granting such concessions it will do those same people more harm than good in the long run. What I advocated was self-control. But although I advocated self-control we did not say that there was no wage-earner in the country who was struggling. Nor did we ever say that there were no irregularities to be rectified! And, above all, at no time did we say that our economic structure was static and that wage increases would never be granted! On the contrary, my attitude is and was that certain adjustments were already called for but that the Government must be careful in connection with general increases and that it should also do its very best to check price increases. But as far as price increases are concerned no Government can simply fix a ceiling and say that prices will never rise.

I have explained on more than one occasion that circumstances may make it necessary, for the sake of producers, including farmers, to bring about increases in prices, even in the case of essential food products, the prices of which nobody would like to see increased. In the case of essential food products one has to control the prices and go so far as to make sacrifices out of State funds in order to keep them low. To expect that there will be no price increases at all, however, is to expect the impossible; it is simply not practical and there is no country in the world where price increases do not take place, so there will have to be wage adjustments. It goes without saying, therefore, that I do foresee that in the period which lies ahead of us, the Government will take the right steps at the right times, as far as wage and salary increases are concerned. But it must not allow itself to be persuaded by threats to take these steps at the wrong times and in the wrong way, with resultant harm to the economy of the country as a whole. The Government adopts the attitude that capital and labour must share our prosperity. The first question that one has to ask oneself, however, in connection with any measure which may be taken is this: How can we ensure that we perpetuate our prosperity, in so far as it is within the power of the State to direct it? My reply therefore to this attack, this criticism, which is intended to destroy the image of the Government as a Government which takes a great interest in the workers of South Africa, is that it is not a genuine attack. The workers of South Africa are not so stupid that they do not realize that. They will have observed, amongst other things, that in this case too, the United Party has adopted no positive attitude as to how it proposes to deal with this matter. They dare not say—although I once asked them to do so—precisely what wages they proposed and to what extent they wanted to increase salaries and what the effect of it could be on the rising cost of living. Surely the result of it is going to be that the people who are going to suffer most are going to be those very same people. Sir, in dealing with this whole policy of an increase in wages, with its effect on price levels and the effect of that on the cost of living and the consequent greater suffering, in spite of an apparent increase in income, the United Party made no attempt to complete the picture. There is nothing positive in their way of thinking, whereas we on this side have stated perfectly clearly that we will bring about controlled wage increases and even price increases as long as we can do it in such a way that a proper balance is maintained, insofar as it is humanly possible to do so. If that is done, then a wage increase will benefit the workers. That is the basis of our attitude and it would be an evil day for the workers of South Africa if they. rejected this careful attempt on the part of this Government to keep their standard of living on a sound level and if they placed themselves in the hands of a lot of opportunists who are only out to get into power and who, having got into power, will not only hand South Africa over to the Black Nationalists but who, apart from that, will ruin the economy of this country.

But it is not only in the economic sphere that the United Party, in its attempt to get into power, tries to destroy the fine image of the Government. It is not only in the economic sphere that its negative attitude is apparent but also in the sphere of colour relationships. Let me again take the example of the Coloured community. We are faced here with two possibilities. The one possibility is to say that you are going to absorb the Coloureds into the White community. There is only one way in which that can be done and that is to allow the Coloureds exactly the same opportunities and privileges as the White man in all spheres and to allow him to exercise those rights in precisely the same way.

Why not?

That is to say, to adopt the attitude which is adopted in the United States.

An hon. member on the other side wants to know “why not”?

Yes. I heard the interjection. The hon. member talks on behalf of the United Party of which he is a member. In other words, he supports the idea of complete integration, as advocated in the United States of America, and in addition to that he is willing to absorb the Coloureds fully as a constituent element of the population. This policy must therefore include, amongst other things, inter-marriage and complete national fusion; that is the road of complete integration which is advocated in the United States. There is one member on the other side of the House, however, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson), who adopted a different attitude recently, an attitude which the United Party has apparently not yet publicly appropriated as its own attitude, and that is that they want to perpetuate a situation which amounts to political discrimination. That situation will allegedly be brought about, not by integrating the Coloureds in this way but by granting them limited rights only; in other words, by doing something which this side is not prepared to do, and that is to allow the four representatives of the Coloureds in this House—or more if they are given greater representation here—to be Coloureds. That is the attitude which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout adopted, namely, that the four representatives of the Coloureds must be Coloured persons. [Interjection.] That is not the attitude of this side of the House or of any member on this side, and if the hon. member for Bezuidenhout makes that allegation again, as he has done on more than one occasion. I challenge him to mention the names of the persons concerned so that they can defend themselves against the insinuation made by him.

That, however, is not the broad outlook of the United Party, with which I am concerned here at the moment. Their attitude is the “why not” attitude which the hon. member adopted here a few moments ago, that is to say, that the Coloureds must be placed on the Common Roll, and in addition to that I take it that the United Party accepts all the consequences which flow from integration because, after all, unless you accept that, then you are discriminating in other ways, and it is on that ground that they attack our policy. In other words, what will then happen is that there will not be four representatives of the Coloureds (either Whites or Coloureds) in this Parliament, but for every Cape seat which the Coloureds are able to win by virtue of the number of Coloured voters, there will be one Coloured in this House to represent the Coloured people. We must assume that the Coloureds will all be registered, men and women, because, after all, according to United Party policy they have to be treated in the same way as the Whites. As far as I can see. the minimum number of seats which they would be able to win in that way would be approximately 21, and that is what the United Party would then have to accept. Moreover, the United Party would not be accepting integration fully if at the same time it did not accept the Coloureds, on a basis of equality, as members of the party. Furthermore, the United Party cannot advocate such a policy of integration as a policy which is supposed to remove all differences and in terms of which no ceiling will be placed on the ambitions of the Coloureds unless it is also prepared to absorb Coloureds into its Cabinet, if the United Party is perhaps called upon at some future date to form a Cabinet. It will not be able to keep them out of the party and out of the party’s executive committees, nor will it be able to keep them out of the Public Service or the Defence Force or anywhere else, on a basis of equality. It would have to be actual integration. After all, that is the United Party’s only alternative if it makes the accusation against us that we are doing it to put a ceiling on the ambitions of the Coloureds whereas the United Party, in its holiness, refuses to put any ceiling on their ambitions. Well, that is the one possibility. That is the road which the United Party will have to follow, not at the moment but as far as longterm development is concerned, if it wishes to give positive content to its attacks upon the Nationalist Party. We say that we are not prepared to do that; we adopt a different attitude. Our attitude is based on the fact that we are dealing here with the Coloureds as a minority group of the population, a group which in our opinion can be treated much better along different lines. We have said that we believe that even if one adopts the sort of policy to which I have referred here, i.e. a policy of integration, the White electorate, which still has and will have the controlling vote in this House, even if the United Party came into power, will be so strongly opposed to such a policy that they will oppose any form of development or advancement of the Coloured population. This opposition will be so strong that in spite of the theoretical advantages attached to that policy, the Coloureds may well find themselves back again in the circumstances which prevailed in the old days when the United Party simply exploited the Coloured vote and when the Coloureds were given no opportunities of development, either through education or through a share in the various professions and vocations, amongst their own people, opportunities which we do want to give them in terms of our policy of development within their own community. Because of the disadvantages of this opposition to the Coloureds, our attitude was that we must find some other alternative in the interests of the Coloureds themselves. That was the theme of the attitude which I again adopted here at the beginning of this year. Our attitude is that our policy, which it is not necessary for me to repeat here, is one which holds out substantial advantages for the Coloureds. It is not a policy which can cause bad feeling between the Whites and the Coloureds as good neighbours. It hold out opportunities of development for the Coloureds because it removes the source of discord and dispute. It does not make them a danger to the Whites and the Whites need not be a danger to them either if the Coloureds will only understand this policy correctly and give it their support. And they would understand it correctly and give it their support if they were not misled by Whites, particularly Whites from the ranks of the Opposition, who continually bring them under the wrong impression as to the intentions of the National Party.

Sir, after my speech here earlier on this Session, there was a further attempt on the part of the United Party to incite the Coloureds and to make them believe that we want to harm them, and they succeeded to such an extent in misleading them that they did cause harm; they unjustly caused harm to the good relations between the Whites and †the Coloureds here in the Western Province. We hope that we shall succeed in undoing that harm, not by making concessions or by changes in our policy, but by making the Coloureds realize more and more—even if our †task becomes more difficult because we have to fight against White persons who mislead them as well as against Coloureds who do not understand our policy—what benefits our policy will bring them as against the empty promises made to them in terms of the other policy. Apart from the fact that the United Party policy hold out dangers for the Whites in the long run, great harm will also be done to the Coloureds in the meantime as a result of that policy. I repeat that what the policy of the United Party holds out for the Coloureds can be judged from what happened in practice until 1948. As against that, our policy holds out the following benefits for the Coloureds: Not only will the Coloureds be drawn together as a community in their own residential areas over which they themselves will have full control in time to come; not only will they be able, without any ceiling or competition, to render services to their own people in every possible sphere of occupation; not only will they be able, apart from employment opportunities in the primary and secondary industries, to pursue every vocation in the tertiary sphere amongst their own people without competition; not only does this open a new field of activity for them, a field which at the present time is almost entirely untapped, but, in addition to that, our policy offers them something on a higher plane than local government and economic progress, something which no minority group in the world has received from any Government, and that is actual self-government, with their own legislative body and an executive council or a cabinet of that legislative body to control the functions which they will be able to exercise in the interests of their own people. This representation which will be given to them and the functions which they will exercise will apply, not only to the Coloureds of the Cape Province, but to the Coloureds over the whole of South Africa. They will be able to choose their representatives for that body, on the system of one man one vote, from the whole of the Coloured group; in other words, without discrimination within the group and without the present electoral qualifications as a result of which some of them have no share in controlling their own affairs. In addition to that, as we have said, the leaders of that group; that is to say, their prime minister or their chief minister, will have direct consultation, at least once a year, in terms of a fixed †legal arrangement, with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Coloured Affairs with regard to matters of common interest. We have said that, in addition to that, the other Coloured ministers who are responsible for various duties amongst their own people, will be given direct access to the Ministers of the White National Government. In this way, therefore, the Coloureds will have even greater opportunities for consultation. In addition to that, I said that if we reach the stage where consultations take place on a larger scale between this Government and other governments in Southern Africa, or governments with which we may co-operate, the leader of the Coloureds will be able to take part in those deliberations together with our Prime Minister in respect of matters of common interest. In other words, here we have a carefully worked-out, fine constitutional plan which fully recognizes the human dignity of the Coloured. Sir, it may be pointed out by critics that this does not comply with the requirement that no ceiling should be placed on their ambitions. My reply to that is this: What more do they want to suggest? In my opinion there is only one reply to that question, and that is that, in some way or another, provision must be made for the Coloureds to represent their own people here in Parliament. If they were to be given direct representation here under a system of discrimination, or limitation of their numbers, for example, or separately, it would still amount to a ceiling. In other words, if it is said that that ceiling must be removed, then we come back again to what I described as the consequences of the policy of the United Party, i.e. the complete absorption of the Coloured population in every sphere of the White man’s life, as well as racial integration. I say, therefore, that the National Party does place a ceiling on this minority group (which it does not want to absorb), but the National Party offers it, along the lines which I have set out here, a great future such as this minority group has never had before. Moreover, it offers them a future in which, if they accept it, their development will not only be hampered by the White man; in other words, it is a future which is capable of realization, and it is a future which other nations are not prepared to concede to their minority groups. This policy, however, which offers tremendous advantages for the Coloureds, is represented by the United Party in its propaganda, in its attempt to harm our image as friends of our non-White population groups, as a policy of enmity and renewed, gross oppression! That is why I say that the efforts of the United Party are purely negative; they are not designed to be constructive, because they are always trying, as they will do again, to escape from the consequences of their policy as I have outlined them here. They dare not admit what the long-term consequences of their policy will be. No, all they are out to do is to break down the Government’s image, an image of goodwill, in an attempt to make things more difficult for the Government. The Government will continue, however, to build up peaceful relations between the various colour groups in our country, as separate communities.

Then I come to a third direction in which hon. members on the other side try to ruin our image, without putting forward any alternative policy, and that is in relation to the outside world. Sir, every Government, every State, goes out of its way to retain its prestige amongst the states of the world, and that is also our attitude; we want to retain the prestige of South Africa. Not only is that our attitude, it is our right and it is our duty. It is the basis of the foreign policy of any country that it should protect the independence of the State, its image and its rights at all times and in all situations, even though sometimes at great cost. But the United Party always tries to criticize everything done by this Government. It will always try to depict any act of ours, which is done for very sound reasons, in the wrong light, so that the outside world, if possible, will take even more severe action against South Africa than it has already tried to do. I want to add that when the United Party does not try to impair our image with the intention of undermining us, then it adopts an attitude which is determined by its well-known old weakness, viz. that of continually bowing and crawling to foreign powers. That is a well-known factor in the history of that party. During the old colonial period the predecessors of the United Party always just tried to see what Britain wanted, what was in Britain’s interest. We were always told that Britain was the protector of South Africa and what would happen to us if Britain stopped protecting us. That was always the attitude adopted. We need not quarrel about it now. The facts have proved that it was not we who were protected, even in time of war, by such other countries, but that it was we who had to assist those countries which were supposed to protect us. We were called upon to do so. It is true that some of us were not prepared to do it, but the fact is that the United Party was always prepared to be impressed by and to submit to the interests and the demands of other countries, particularly the powerful countries with which they had to do.

All except Germany.

I concede that; they were prepared to give way to everybody except Germany.

That is very fair.

What hon. members are doing now is that they have rejected Britain as the one to whom they want to give way or as the one whom they prefer to South Africa. They have seen another world power arising, viz. the U.S.A. Now hon. members opposite are quite prepared to please that new world power even at the cost of South Africa, in the same way that formerly they wanted to please Britain. To me the Independence incident is significant in this respect that the United Party is prepared to make the preservation of the way of life of South Africa subsidiary to the wishes of the United States.

Absolute nonsense!

Let me put it clearly. It is our desire to continue having the greatest degree of friendship with the United States. We do our utmost to come to a good understanding with them, also in respect of policy where we know they differ from us. We try to let them understand the reasons for our standpoint. We try to make them understand the differences between their country and ours. We also try to point our common interests, even though we accept that we have to differ in regard to our policy and our way of life. We try to show them as clearly as possible how much assistance we will give them in the struggle against Communism if the West is threatened. We reveal all the readiness to be friendly which any nation could expect from another friendly nation. But at the same time we make it equally clear to them that our country comes first to us and that we shall and must preserve our own way of life. We have every right to expect that the friendship should not come just from one side and that all the readiness to co-operate should come from us only. We have the right to expect not to be asked to buy their friendship by abandoning our interests and our customs in this country. Therefore we have always been prepared, whenever the United States negotiates with us in South Africa in regard to privileges, to grant them such privileges wholeheartedly. If we did not want to have the United States as a friend we would not have done that. Surely one cannot allow one’s enemies to land on one’s military airfields! One cannot give an enemy the opportunity to see everything one has here and what one is doing. In other words, the fact that we were prepared to co-operate in every respect is proof of our friendship. But surely South Africa has the right to say that when the people of another state come here they must comply with the customs of this country. If the representatives of the United States go to a Mohammedan country, they will not say, “Our citizens wear shoes in our churches in our country and we will wear shoes in your churches if we want to”.

Is there apartheid in religion?

Yes, there is apartheid in religion. There is no doubt that the United States and all other states respect customs which are different from theirs when they go to other countries. And that has always been done in respect of our country. Not only ships of the United States but also ships from other countries, including warships of various countries, have often been welcomed here and some of them have non-White sailors or other crew members. Those people have never expected us to abandon our customs and habits for their sake. On the contrary, the crews were previously warned by their officers in regard to our Immorality Act and our general customs and we had no difficulty in that regard. We found that the non-Whites who landed here made friends and associated with the non-Whites of our country, and the Whites with the White people in our country. On the basis of segregation, American ships have landed here and the Negro members of the crews associated with our Coloured population, felt happy and even said so afterwards. Why should this suddenly be departed from on one particular occasion, with the risk that it will be regarded as the thin end of the wedge leading to further interference with our way of life? I want to assume that it was not the intention to cause trouble. I have already adopted the standpoint that I do not say that it was engineered deliberately, as the Opposition said. Our standpoint, however, is: “We do not interfere with what you do on your ships; that is your own affair. We do not interfere in what happens in your country; that is also your own business. We even give instructions to our representatives to behave themselves in your country according to your customs and practices, because just as we demand this right for ourselves, we admit your right to expect that your customs and practices must be the guiding factor in your own country.” In view of the fact that this is our standpoint in regard to other people’s rights, why are we not entitled, when we are officially approached in regard to the privilege of landing here, to say: “Certainly, come to our country, but remember that we cannot allow mixed association or Negro pilots on our military airfields, because that would create a problem in regard to our way of life.” However. I do not want to expand on the matter. The point I want to deal with to-day is not our problems with the United States. I hope our attitude has been understood there. In fact, I am convinced that this was accepted in America, as in fact happened, without much public complaint. They acted according to their conception of what they should do also for their own internal reasons, but they did not criticize or accuse us. The people who criticized and accused us and who are tiring to depict us, also overseas, as a foolish and stupid Government, a Government which has committed an injustice, are those hon. members opposite. Any repercussions which could have ensued would have been due to the Opposition, probably even the report broadcast over Radio South Africa. The reaction and the inferences, with which I do not agree, which were contained in that report, followed on this type of attack. Therefore I say very clearly that I am dealing with one fact and one fact only to-day, and that is the picture which hon. members opposite tried to create of this Government overseas also. They have no other foreign policy than to crawl to the powerful; they have no clear foreign policy, but they are prepared to blame us for almost everything which is done in other countries in respect of South Africa, and they make it difficult for us when we try to implement our policy of fostering friendship whilst maintaining our country’s self-respect.

The case of the Netherlands was also mentioned. Even here I see a “but” in the statements made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in this regard this morning. He did in fact associate himself with our right to lodge a strong protest against an act which one does not expect from one of our countries of origin and a friendly nation, but he seeks an excuse for the Netherlands at our cost. I am not referring now to those Scandinavian countries which acted in a similar way. During the course of the years the Scandinavian countries at various times and in various ways showed what their spirit was towards us. In any case, they are not so nearly related to us. I am nevertheless glad to see that there are immigrants in this country even from such countries as Denmark who stand by South Africa much better than some hon. members opposite.

The “but” implicit in what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said took the form that he wanted to intimate that this action perhaps took place as the result of a lack of knowledge on the part of the Government of Holland in regard to certain essential points which gave rise to this incident.

The Burger also says so.

I do not think the Burger says that; I think the Burger poses the question but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition makes that statement. But apart from what the Burger or anyone else says, the point I want to make is that I want to state very clearly that during recent months we have seen to it that the Government of Holland, through the person of its Minister of Foreign Affairs, was kept fully au fait in regard to our problem here in connection with saboteurs and the bodies which assist such saboteurs. Not only our Minister of Foreign Affairs but also our Ambassador had talks with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Luns, as the result of which it was impossible for him to be ignorant of the factors at stake here. The South African Government was therefore not negligent, as was insinuated.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

It is therefore clear that the Netherlands Government could not have been in ignorance of the situation here, as was alleged. I have given one reason, but there are still others. So, for example, for seven years we had a extremely efficient Ambassador of the Netherlands here who clearly showed how sympathetic he was towards this friendly nation which originates from Holland and our objectives, and I am sure that he would certainly always have kept his Government fully acquainted with affairs here. He was extremely experienced and knew the conditions here very well indeed.

Then we must bear in mind the fact that a Government which goes so far as to do something which interferes with the domestic affairs of another country, as happened in this case, should have acquainted itself fully with the position before announcing that it was granting money to a particular body like the Defence and Aid Fund. It should have acquainted itself beforehand with the objects of that fund. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did us the service, for which I thank him, of quoting from what Canon Collins said. Is it imaginable that the Netherlands Government did not try to become au fait with the thoughts and the statements of the leaders of that fund? Is it right to lay the blame on us, as the hon. the leader of the Opposition insinuated, because the Netherlands Government was not fully acquainted with the position, or does the blame lie with that Government? I think one has the right to say that it is typical of the attempts of the United Party to besmirch the international image of this Government by always, whatever happens, trying to find something for which they can blame this side of the House.

There is something in this connection about which we can be glad. It is the obvious unwillingness on the part of large sections, at least, of the people of Holland to participate in the actions of their Government in wanting to make a contribution to the aforementioned fund. Then there is also a second point in regard to which we can be gratified. It is that after all this is only an announcement made by that Government in regard to something it wants to submit to its Parliament. There is, therefore, still the possibility that the matter will not be taken further than that announcement. I therefore want to express the hope that, if there was lack of knowledge which no longer exists, and if notice is taken of the reactions by South Africa to this interference in its domestic affairs, and also of the reactions of Hollanders in South Africa—about which we are very glad—and of Hollanders in their own country—about which we are also very glad—it may result in this plan not being continued with. That would lay the foundation for the restoration of relations between these two Governments which one so much desires. The South African nation is wise enough not to blame all the members of another nation for what is done by their Governments. Therefore I hope that feelings will not be aroused in South Africa against that nation with which we have such close links, or against Netherlands immigrants here. We must, however, and we also do, express our dissatisfaction with what was done by the Netherlands Government in the most clear terms. We must state that if that Government also wants to maintain good relations it is for them and not for us to do something to achieve it, because by now it must know that this rationalisation that they did it purely for humanitarian reasons carries no weight at all. It is well known and quite clear that as a general practice South Africa herself looks after the families of any persons who are detained or imprisoned and who cannot look after themselves. It is also a well-known fact that at the moment there are no persons here at all who need legal representation because there are no such cases left over. It is also well known that in the cases we had those people were given ample legal representation through various channels. If this excuse is therefore still persisted in, we shall not be able to accept it. I, therefore, express the hope that after reconsideration this decision will not be given effect to.

I come back to the United Party. The United Party accuses us of having no foreign policy which has any hope of succeeding. In that way the party opposite also tries to destroy our image as the governing party. I suppose the United Party thinks, or even says, that if it were in power they could have achieved something different. But what are the facts? The facts are that there is one central reason behind all these various actions which affects South Africa. That central reason is that various nations, against their better judgement, and for the sake of making propaganda in their own interest, do things by which they hope to gain the goodwill of the Afro-Asian nations and even certain strong leftist powers in the world, or to persuade them to stand by them and to support them in regard to a particular matter. Whether they do so for the sake of trade or for the sake of gaining votes in international organizations is a matter of indifference. The fact is simply that in international politics to-day there are many countries who try to serve their own interests by gaining the sympathy and support of many of the younger countries in Africa and in Asia, which are getting out of hand. It is even realized that those countries act foolishly in regard to their foreign relations, also vis-à-vis South Africa. Still the older Western states try to obtain their goodwill for their own reasons. When something happens, like the incidents I referred to, it is not necessarily aimed at South Africa so much as to attain the object of getting the support or sympathy of those other countries. It even happens that the Governments of countries which are very well disposed towards us at times act in a certain way, which makes them feel unhappy because that action is directed at us, but, still they consider it desirable in their own interest to do so. It is in that atmosphere that South Africa must carry out its international policy. That should also be taken into account when our policy is being judged. One is not dealing with a clear, open situation in which everybody can see who is friend or foe. or how to cultivate friendship without harming one’s own country. One is faced with smokescreens put up over action which is taken for the sake of achieving quite different objectives than to show emnity to South Africa. The fact is that South Africa has succeeded in maintaining its position as a country which can be respected by the other countries of the world, even by those with whom we come into conflict. South Africa has succeeded in not only always acting correctly and in a controlled manner, but in such a manner that even when it comes into conflict with another country, that country’s respect for South Africa increases instead of decreases.

Let us therefore have no illusions, and let us not be misled by the United Party into thinking that South Africa has nothing but enemies in the world because on occasion all the votes of the nations represented are cast against us. That also happens for other reasons. South Africa in fact has many good and great friends in the world. That is due to the civilized, unequivocal, clear and definite attitude which South Africa and her Government adopt.

There is another matter in regard to which I have also been asked to express an opinion, namely our relation with the Protectorates. What more can I say at this stage than I have already said? What policy can one propound at this stage when they are still dependent? We can only state clearly what the basic object and direction of our policy is. That we have stated over and over again, viz. that it is one of friendship and co-operation, of recognizing their independence when they obtain it, and that we will attempt to establish economic and other relations with them on the best possible basis by negotiating with those Black governments when they are established and if they desire it. That is a clear and unequivocal objective, of creating bonds of friendship with neighbournng states. We have no aggressive ambitions as far as they are concerned; we have no ambition to invade them, and we are prepared to be helpful. That is clear, and it has been said over and over again. What more can I be expected to say? Must I, before those states have reached the stage where they can negotiate with us in regard to their problems and ours, put all my cards on the table and say what we will undertake to do and what not? Is it not a matter which wise states leave until the day when the negotiations take place? Obviously the only wise international tactics are to make one’s basic objective quite clear, viz. that of friendship and of having no annexation ambitions. In that regard we go much further than the United Party which still at times shows signs of trying to cling to the old set-up, in which is inherent the very ugly threat of the future incorporation of those neighbouring states.

What did Dr. Malan say?

Yes, in Dr. Malan’s time the position was still different. I am speaking now, and I am referring to this Government’s attitude to-day. We have made it quite clear that we will recognize the independence of those neighbouring states, and we realize the importance of having friendly neighbouring states and the necessity of negotiating with the Black governments of those neighbouring states in regard to any problem which might arise. I am not prepared to go into details now as to what they might want and what we might want, or to give details of what we might concede or may not wish to concede in any eventual negotiations. It is foolish to expect anything like that, and one can only get such questions from the type of Opposition we have to-day, and which itself has more unacceptable aims.

Finally the question was asked as to what the picture for the future is? What do we see for the future in the various spheres? In the first place I shall refer to the political sphere. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to talk about the future in nice, vague, general terms. That takes one no further. What I want to say clearly is this: I see the future of South Africa for a long time to come still as one which in the political sphere will be led by this Government and its policy. I cannot see the United Party coming into power within the foreseeable future. Politically that party is bankrupt. The people have no confidence in the United Patry. All these facts are clearly visible. All the points of dispute of the past have fallen away, as they themselves have admitted. They are not able to announce a new policy for the future. It has been their fate to suffer one defeat after another. Therefore it is clear that in regard to the future we must see a South Africa which is governed by this Government in terms of its policy. That is fortunate for South Africa. Its faith is based on the fact that the whole world will continue to recognize how stable it is and what prosperity particularly resulted from that realization that there is a stable Government here and a splended future for everybody in this country, a position which promises certainty and safety.

In the international sphere the salvation of South Africa also lies in that. The United Party, if it should come into power, offers all the groups in South Africa—and offers those people in the world who make demands of South Africa—nothing which will satisfy them. The United Party also alleges that it will not submit to the demands made by other countries that we should change our way of life from self-preservation through segregation to one of self-destruction through integration. It is no use the United Party saying: “Yes, but we will accept limited partnership.” In fact, it will not even help the United Party to say: “We will accept equality under White domination.” The policy of partnership was tested in Rhodesia, and the policy of equality under White supremacy was tested in the Portuguese territories. Neither of those two countries has succeeded in gaining more friendship or support in the world than South Africa by announcing those policies. On the contrary, most of the Black states of Africa, out of these three policies, prefer the one proposed by South Africa, viz. a clear policy which at least gives the Black man an undoubted future on his own. The policy of the United Party only make those people feel certain that there will be an attempt to apply permanent discrimination and supremacy, even though it is accompanied by certain concessions in the sphere of integration, which they will regard as putting them in a subordinate position.

What about the Coloureds in terms of your policy?

I discussed the position of the Coloureds in terms of our policy this morning already. I also pointed out that, if the United Party in that respect wants to apply no discrimination and to set no ceiling, it means that they are propagating the intermingling of the Whites and the Coloureds, and as against that I have stated very clearly that in terms of our policy we set certain limits. I left no doubt at all about that.

What about the morality?

In regard to the morality of our policy, I also left no doubts because I indicated how completely moral it was in terms of the relations there always are between majorities and minorities in a country, and the usually slender opportunities there are for the latter. The United Party is particularly the party which is trying to escape both from the demands of morality and from the facts. The United Party has indicated that it wants to retain White supremacy and that it will apply discrimination. That means that if it comes into power in future it will not be able to satisfy the world either. As against that our policy will in fact as it is already doing, increasingly lead to the realization that it affords a solution in difficult circumstances. As the world sees the imperfections of the Black states with their inexhaustible demands for assistance and the despotism prevalent in those states, it will realize increasingly that the system of government which we propose in South Africa in respect of the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians, and also the ideal of independence we have in respect of the Bantu, is much more satisfactory and therefore should enjoy much more support than anything which goes half-way along the road of integration, or amounts to Black domination over the other three groups. Therefore as far as the political future is concerned, the picture is quite clear to me. I see a South Africa whose standpoint, even if not supported by everybody, will be increasingly understood by everybody, and which will increasingly be accepted as a fact in international life. As the result of that, South Africa will gradually experience increasing peace, even though in the meantime it will still have to struggle for an appreciable time to reach that stage in the international sphere.

In the economic sphere I can also say that I see future development for South Africa. Although the accusation has now been made that we have pushed this development at too fast a rate and thereby have landed in trouble, I want to say unequivocally that, although at the moment we have to apply the brakes a little so as to slow down our growth to a more reasonable tempo. There is so much that has been planned for the future, and still has to be planned, that this rate of growth can be maintained and even increased. Do not think that we are at all daunted by the attacks of hon. members opposite that, in view of the difficulties we are encountering, we have embarked on too large schemes which should rather have been left in abeyance. On the contrary, every one of these schemes we have initiated is for the development of the country, not only for the next few years, but for many years to come. We have so much confidence in the future of South Africa that we do not plan for only five years, but for 40 or more years ahead. Let me, inter alia, state very clearly that, although in respect of water conservation some of our larger schemes have already been publicized, that is not the end of our water conservation schemes. We have the Berg River, and in Natal we have the Tugela; there is the Breërivier and several others. Various areas in South Africa will still derive great benefit from these schemes, and there will be large-scale development. Our country is to-day probably the greatest consumer and manufacturer of electric power in Africa. In spite of that, we foresee that, within ten years, the demand for power will double and that we shall have to provide power to meet the needs of our increasing industrial expansion. The development of the resources to provide that power is a great undertaking. We are also fully conscious of the limitations imposed on us by our water supply in regard to the development of power from coal. Therefore, we have already been considering other big schemes and methods by which this power can be produced in future to meet our growing needs at various stages of development. We are not shutting our eyes to the possible use of sea-water in this regard. We are not shutting our eyes to the most modern scientific developments in the sphere of the provision of power. We shall probably, within the next ten years, have to tackle even larger schemes than those we are dealing with now, and we shall do so in the most modern manner and by making the best use of the means at our disposal. These are not only chimeras. There are schemes in regard to which we are already doing the calculations and the planning. I am not prepared at this stage to give any further information in that regard, in view of the fact that the plans have not been completed yiet. But I do want to assure the country that we are not even within sight of our full development potential in South Africa yet, and that the Government still has many plans in mind. In the economic sphere there is a great future for South Africa. This future will only be ensured as long as South Africa maintains peace and safety in the country and opposes all those elements inside or outside the country which, for their own selfish reasons, strive to undermine the way of life and the future potential of this country.

This Government will take South Africa far. This Government, in contrast with the Opposition, not only has a clear image of its own present objectives, but it also has a picture of the future in which it must play its role. It has confidence; it has faith. South Africa will become a great country. The present Government will see to that, whereas the Opposition, on the other hand, will stand powerless to prevent it, in spite of the methods it is trying to adopt to harm the image both of the Government and of the Republic of South Africa.

On one point I agree absolutely with the hon. the Prime Minister and that is that a great future awaits South Africa but the reason why we believe that a great future awaits our country is because we are absolutely convinced of it that this Government and the policy it follows will disappear. It is only when that day dawns that South Africa will develop into something big in Africa and in the world.

Mr. Speaker, we listened with great expectation to the hon. the Prime Minister but not with great satisfaction. Because as usual, as he does every year, he devoted a large portion of his speech to belittling the United Party and the Leader of the Opposition. It is naturally his right to do so but the hon. the Prime Minister is leader of the country; he is Prime Minister. South Africa finds herself in difficulty in every sphere to-day. The ordinary man finds it progressively more difficult to meet his commitments. In regard to race relations the position is deteriorating more and more and the tension is continually becoming worse as a result of the actions of the Government. Mr. Speaker, the safety of our country is in such jeopardy that we have to pass new far-reaching laws year after year in order to control the position. As far as our overseas relations are concerned one friendship after the other is breaking up and there is nothing else but deterioration. In those circumstances one did not expect the Prime Minister to play the role of party politician here but to make a serious contribution and to tell us how his Government was going to get South Africa, particularly in the sphere of foreign relations, out of the difficult position in which she found herself. But what have we just had? A great deal of criticism of the United Party. The hon. the Prime Minister says we are using “fine-sounding words” (mooi woorde). It is true, of course, that the Opposition does not enjoy the privilege which a government in power has, namely, to do things; the Opposition can only talk. But nevertheless what right has the hon. the Prime Minister to criticize us about “fine-sounding words” because if ever there was a person in South Africa who invented formulae instead of solving problems, it is the hon. the Prime Minister himself. When you sum up the policy of his side, Sir, what does it amount to? It amounts to this: That there is a “White state”. But that is fiction. Everybody knows there is no such thing as a White state nor will there ever be such a thing. Because no matter how advanced the Bantu areas are you will always be left with a multi-racial state consisting of Whites, Coloureds, Indians and a section of the Bantu population. It is nothing than a formula which bears no relation to reality. What is his “solution” in respect of the Bantu in the cities? Go to Soweto outside Johannesburg and you will find that 58,000 houses have been built for the Bantu. That is the position in every city; railways lines are being constructed, hospitals and schools are being built, sports fields are laid out and millions of rand are being spent on that. But the “solution” of the Prime Minister is to say that these people are sojourners. We have never yet had a Government which has so easily solved problems by means of paper formulae as this Government. Talk about “fine-sounding words”! What is his colour policy? What is his Indian policy? A state within a state! Another formula. But when we ask him what a “state within a state” means, when we ask him to mention a single student of constitutional law who supports that concept, we get no reply. Why do hon. members opposite not analyse this concept of a “state within a state” for us? You can deal with the policy of the Government point by point and you will find that the Prime Minister is the last person to talk about “fine-sounding words”. He is the greatest inventor of formulae this country has ever known; formulae pure and simple which have no relation to reality.

The hon. the Prime Minister dealt with the position of the Coloureds and attacked us in this connection. Let me state it quite clearly that in regard to the principle there is no difference of opinion within the United Party as far as the position of the Coloureds is concerned. Let that be clear. We have a fundamental policy and that fundamental policy of the United Party as far as the Coloureds are concerned is that we should aim at full citizenship (gelykwaardige burgerskap) for the Coloureds alongside the Whites. That is our fundamental policy. The discussions we have had have been in regard to methods, in regard to what the best method is to materialize that objective of full citizenship for him. The policy of the hon. the Prime Minister is to place a ceiling above the future of the Coloureds. He thinks it will be sufficient to have a body with a “parliamentary” character for the Coloureds and above that a kind of “commonwealth” conference at which he can consult with the Coloured leaders. Sir, I do not think we can be satisfied with such a policy nor will the Coloureds be satisfied with it. We have a Parliament which consists of the Government and the Opposition and the whole Parliament is the body who has to consult if there has to be consultation, not the Prime Minister alone. The laws are made here. Decisions affecting those people are taken here and that is why we have considered whether it would not be best for both the Coloureds and Parliament if they were represented here on a national basis. When we come into power we shall have to revise all the apartheid measures which this Government has put on the Statute Book. We shall have to consult with the Coloureds how to free them from the oppressive measures which apply to them. And the only way in which you can effectively consult with the Coloureds is not that the Prime Minister must consult with them alone but to create machinery whereby this Parliament can consult with them direct and learn what their needs are. The party is discussing the methods therefore but there is no difference of opinion within the party regarding the principle as far as the future position of the Coloureds is concerned. In that respect the United Party will not change its policy nor has it done so. The best reply to the policy of the Prime Minister is perhaps the recent statement made by the Afrikaans Calvinistic movement in which they clearly state that in their opinion the Prime Minister’s policy in regard to the Coloureds is not satisfactory.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister only thinks in opposites: Integration or segregation. But that is not the choice. We do not have segregation to-day; we have compulsory segregation. And the opposite of compulsory segregation is compulsory integration. Both are unacceptable as it is because it is not succeeding anywhere. If there is anything which is failing throughout the world it is both compulsory integration and compulsory segregation. Our attitude is that the White people of South Africa either want to retain their identity or they do not want to retain it. If he wants to remain himself he does not require compulsory measures to maintain his position. If he wants to integrate laws won’t stop him. If he does not want to integrate all these laws are not necessary. His protection lies in his wish to remain a nation. The hon. the Prime Minister himself made a speech last year in his own constituency at Balfour and the South African Digest of 7 August 1964, reported as follows on that speech—

He says it is wrong and sinful to force people together, in other words, to apply compulsory integration. But if the hon. the Prime Minister wants to be logical then surely it is equally wrong to exercise force in order to bring about seeregation. The principle is the same. We do not say that you can change the position overnight but we most certainly revert to a position where we will stop belittling people on the ground of their colour alone.

The Prime Minister also says we are crawline before the world outside in adopting this attitude. There is a big difference between succumbing to and co-operating with the world outside. Our attitude is not that we must satisfy the world. Our attitude is that we should follow a policy which will satisfy our own national groups in South Africa. Because if you introduce a decent order, a political order which does justice to all races in the country, foreign pressure and hostility will automatically disappear. Our approach is not in the least that we must satisfy the world. That is a wrong approach. Our approach is this: Introduce an order which is fair to everybody within your own country, satisfy your own national groups, and the world outside will not have a leg to stand on. In any case, I do not think it behoved the Prime Minister to talk about crawling before the world outside. If there is one thing we are sick and tired of it is this, that Government members explain their policy overseas in fine-sounding words but tell another story when they return here. I do want to repeat what the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Defence, as well as the hon. the Prime Minister. have said overseas. When the hon. the Prime Minister addresses the South African Club in London he says it is his policy that every racial group, Coloured, Indian, everybody, must develop fully politically, just as the White group in South Africa has developed but here he tells a different story. The Afrikaanse Pers Bpk. recently published a commemorative volume containing the speeches of the Prime Minister called “Verwoerd Praat” (Verwoerd Talks) and the text of his London speech appears there but the word “fully” has been left out. It is one story here and a different story overseas. I do not want to make myself guilty of accusing anyone of crawling before the outside world. I shall rather not use those words but the Government must see to it that there is no reason to accuse it of telling one story inside South Africa and a different story overseas. Be courageous and tell the world what your attitude is and adhere to that throughout otherwise it is for us to talk about crawling.

Mr. Speaker, there is not a shadow of doubt that the next year or two will be very difficult for South Africa, particularly as far as our overseas relations are concerned. Three circumstances in particular are going to contribute towards that. The first is the court case at The Hague. It would be improper to make any speculations regarding that case but one thins is certain and that is that, as a result of that case, the pressure in the world outside for political action against our country has somewhat abated. But once that case is over, whether judgment is favourable or not, we can expect that pressure not only to be renewed but to be much more intense and to cover a much wider field. I think we should at this stage already say to the Government that if at any time in future—the pressure from outside can assume extremely dangerous proportions—serious problems in connection with our foreign relations should arise when Parliament is not in session, we trust the Prime Minister will be sufficiently wise to call Parliament together. He must not simply take it for granted that the Opposition will agree with everything the Government does. The type of incident we have had recently and which has brought South Africa under fire has greatly shocked our confidence in the Prime Minister’s ability to weigh up the value of things and to prevent our country from passing through crises unnecessarily. The Government makes mountains out of mole hills and you are never sure what unnecessary crisis, in which your country may be involved, you are going to be faced with to-morrow or the day after tomorrow. In the circumstances we have to say to the Prime Minister that he must not think he can do with South Africa what he likes and then expect us to accept co-responsibility for it. If there is trouble, and he wants our co-operation, the Government must not bypass Parliament; if he does not want to do that the responsibility for what has happened must rest on him and on him alone.

But there is a second circumstance which can create trouble for us. which can assist in creating serious problems for us, and that is the entry of China in Africa. I remember it being said when I was still at school that China would one day constitute a serious danger to us. We discussed that in debate and that day has indeed dawned. I think we would be making a mistake if we under-estimated the importance of China’s entry in Africa, because in the case of China the threat goes somewhat deeper than merely her Communism. The threat lies in the peculiar tactics which China is employing in Africa. She has shown her hand. China has clearly indicated that she is going to use the colour weapon, the very dangerous and inciting cry of colour, to achieve her political aim in Africa. In other words, China is going to use the same destructive colour weapon in an attempt to achieve political success in North and Central Africa as that which this Government has used and is still using to achieve political success for its party in South Africa. It is the same weapon for the same purpose. We know from experience what primaeval emotions that sort of thing awakens and what damage it can do to normal human relations. We can already be sure of one thing and it is this that, far from such a clash on the basis of colour favouring our position and influencing the West to side with us, the very opposite will happen. China’s tactics will lead to it that the Western nations, who have large interests in Africa, and who are at the forefront of the struggle against Communism, will draw even further away from us and with greater determination than ever before. Faced with the peculiar strategy of China to rely on colour emotions we must expect the Western nations to become more impatient in the near future with the kind of extremist colour policy our Government is following here. In view of the importance of Africa to-day we must expect the Western countries to draw further away from us. It is futile to think that the Western nations will side with us on a basis of colour. The very opposite will happen. That is why the action of China, in the light of this Government’s colour policy, is so dangerous to us.

But a third set of problems awaits us, and we had hoped that the Prime Minister would give us some hope in that regard, and that is the political upheavals which are taking place in our midst and around us. The upheavals in Africa have always, as far as we are concerned, been regarded as something happening far away from us. But there is no longer such a thing as distance. The borders between us and our neighbours which were formerly friendly borders have now become dangerous borders which we have to guard, and the position is deteriorating daily. Close to us we have the independent state of Malawi. You have the independent state of Zambia, and Lusaka is only a stone’s throw from us, and is growing in political importance. President Kuanda is already trying to establish special relations with the leaders of East Africa. He is also making a special attempt to get Bechuanaland associated with him politically and economically. We have Mozambique and Angola on our doorstep. We are very anxious to regard them as our friends and allies, and they are that in a limited sense, but when it comes to race politics they, too, are clearly anxious to draw away from us. Racial cooperation has now become a reality in the government of those areas. We have Madagascar on our east coast. During the war years, when France was conquered, Madagascar was a great source of danger to South Africa at one time, when it was uncertain into whose hands it would fall. It is not much further from Pretoria than Windhoek, and the question which arises is this: Is the Government making any attempt to establish friendly relationships between us and those countries around and near us? As against that, what is Portugal doing? Portugal is going out of her way to-day to arrange discussions between herself and other countries in Africa. She is bringing African leaders to her territories to show them what is happening there. She is active and, as a result of Portugal’s diplomacy, the position is that, whereas she was practically as alone as us at UNO a few years ago, countries like America and England are to-day voting with her. In view of all the circumstances I have mentioned, we had hoped that during this Session the Government would have shown us that it was aware of the dangers which confronted South Africa and how essential it was to make friends with the new countries around us and with the Western countries. But we heard nothing about that. On the contrary, we first had the fiasco of the visit by the Dutch Members of Parliament, and that for the simple reason that the Government did not want to allow a few of them to visit former chief Luthuli. Luthuli’s freedom of movement has been restricted, -but he is not in gaol. His book “Let My People Go”, is in free circulation. There is nothing that he can say that he has not said in that book. Was that worth the trouble? Was it a well-balanced decision, a decision which has caused this break with Holland, because a few Members of Parliament wanted to have a chat with a man who, from their point of view, had attained world status? It has also led to it that our relations with Holland have been seriously damaged. During this Session we had the damaging incident of the Independence, an incident which has created enmity with America at the highest level. We have the position that the Government is still running away from the special diplomatic gatherings which Britain and America arrange annually in Cape Town. When are we going to reach the stage where we can associate normally with people? There are people who believe that this is a strong Government. It has certain good qualities, but it is the weakest Government we have ever had in this sense, that it is afraid of Africa; it is afraid to make contact; it is afraid of people. When it sees colour it either runs away or it runs to Parliament to pass a law dealing with it. That is why it is so helpless in the diplomatic field. This Government will never bring us to the stage where there can be normal relations between us and the other states around us, because in essence its policy is an assault to every person of colour throughout the world.

I have referred to incidents which have taken place during this Session and which have been damaging to us as far as the world outside is concerned. We had the statement by the Prime Minister in regard to the Coloureds. They have now had the status conferred on them of being permanent tenant farmers (bywoners) in their own fatherland. There was the legislation which once again brought the franchise rights of the Coloureds under fire. There are all the threats of legislation that will -be introduced next year, of further curtailment of the political freedom of the non-Whites. We have had all the unpleasant incidents to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred, such as that of the Cypriot who was not allowed to land because his colour was too dark. One would swear, Sir, that 90 per cent of the people in South Africa were not dark of colour. We have had far-reaching interference on the part of the Government with the freedom of people locally. It is not necessary for me to cover that field again. I think the most typical example of the attitude of the Government was the fact that the Minister of Coloured Affairs gave permission for Coloureds to attend rugby matches at the B-field at Newlands on condition that a 6-ft. high wire-netting fence was erected between them and the Whites. Does that prove better relationships? Are we barbarians? Ropes and fences have to-day become the symbol of Government policy. On -behalf of the Opposition I want to register a protest. How can hon. members say this kind of thing is “our way of life”? Since when has -that been “our way of life”? It was certainly not “our way of life” prior to 1948. This is something new; it is a disease which has manifested itself in our politics and we, of the Opposition, want to say to the world outside, to everybody who wants to listen, that this Government is not South Africa. South Africa consists of the Opposition and the Government, and the one is as entitled as the other to speak on behalf of his country. We deny that this is the “way of life” of South Africa. This is something new which this Government has introduced, it is totally unnecessary, and we shall tirelessly strive to do away with it.

We believe the time has arrived that we in South Africa developed a new sense of values. We shall have to decide what is essential and what is not in our political life. No reasonable person is in favour of the government of the country falling into the hands of people who cannot handle the complicated machinery of modern government. We must ensure quality of government; and that is a justifiable attitude to adopt towards the whole world. But we have a multitude of laws and regulations which do not solve anything; they only belittle people and make our position untenable in the world; they have no merit and do not serve any purpose. We ought to take serious stock of ourselves and decide what is necessary and what is not. What we must do is to reject everything that is not essential for the continued existence of the White man and the preservation of quality of government. The things that are not essential must be removed.

Apart from a new sense of values we shall also have to seek a new political set-up. The one the Government has at the moment is artificial. It ignores the reality of the situation and that is why it will fail. There are only two directions, domination or co-operation. The Government stands for domination by White over non-White. The P.A.C. on the other hand stands for domination by non-White over White. The principle is the same. You must either accept or reject both principles. We reject the principle of domination and choose the direction of co-operation; that is the only direction which stands a chance of succeeding —co-operation without domination. That is the only one which can be justified and we do not believe that it is beyond our ability to find some way of co-operation which will exclude domination by the one over the other. At the moment the power rests in the hands of the Whites but there is no hope of our retaining that power alone for all time and I think sensible members opposite agree with that. We cannot hope to have complete power alone for all time. Our future will depend on how we use our power and how we set about getting the co-operation of the other races. As far as I am concerned, the solution lies in the federal idea, inter alia, in the vigorous development of the Bantu areas with all means at our disposal and not in the slow way in which the Government is doing it. You will then reach a stage where Bantu influence will be dominant in some parts of the country and where the influence of the White and the minority groups will be dominant in other parts. A good 50 per cent of the nations of the world, as far as regional interests, cultural interests, language interests, etc., are concerned, find it possible to retain diversity on a federal basis while still preserving the unity of the state. That is a direction which also enjoys a great measure of support from thinking Nationalists. I can devote an entire half hour to mentioning the names of philosophers, writers and politicians who support the federation idea. You have Mr. Willem van Heerden, who is editor of the Prime Minister’s newspaper group; you have the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn); you have Professor H. J. J. M van der Merwe, Mr. Dirk Hertzog, who was chairman of the “Vereniging van Afrikaanse Sakekamers”; there is Professor Johannes Bruwer who is now going to give evidence for us at The Hague. There is Mr. Jan Smith, the editor of another Government newspaper; Professor S. P. Cilliers; Professor Wouter de Vos; Mr. Alexander Steward who has written a book about it, and finally, Dr. D. F. Malan himself. [Time limit.]

The hon. members for Maitland (Mr. Hickman), Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher), Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson), and Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), must have had cold shivers down their spines when they listened to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) to-day, because if one thing became apparent from what the hon. member said it was that as far as he was concerned, there must not be any colour discrimination here in South Africa—that was as far as he was concerned, not as far as his party was concerned. He has to-day revealed himself in all his political nakedness; the way he argues shows his trend of thought. We must bow to world opinion as far as the colour question is concerned. We must accept world opinion on this colour issue in order to co-operate with the world. That is the basis of his attitude. In 1962 the Cape Times wrote an article about the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in which they said the following—

I agree wholeheartedly with that—

I do not agree with that—

I think most hon. members opposite are slowly beginning to realize that they have bitten off more than they can chew.

Let us turn to the colour question. I want to tell you, Sir, why I do not agree with the Cape Times that this hon. member is a highly moral man. What did he say to-day? He said that equal (gelykwaardige) citizenship for the Coloureds was the basis of their policy. He then attacked the Government because the Prime Minister had said we were placing a ceiling above the development of the Coloureds and that he was prepared to remove that ceiling. In other words, the Prime Minister has said, according to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, that the Coloureds must be taken up completely in the potilical society of the White man. There are two ways in which the Coloureds can be taken up in the political society of the White man. You can do so on the basis suggested by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout where Coloureds are represented by Coloureds. I now want to ask the hon. member whether he is prepared to remove the ceiling and to let there be justice to all? Because four Coloured Representatives here is certainly not equal justice to all. If he talks about giving these people equal citizenship then, on the basis of separate representation and allowing the Coloureds to be represented by Coloureds, there is only one way in which it can be done and that is to allow the Coloureds to be represented here on a proportionate basis—the number of Coloureds in relation to the number of Whites, without any qualifications. There are 1,5000,000 Coloureds and 3,000,000 Whites. If you want to have equal citizenship on his basis you must have at least 50 Coloureds in this Parliament, without even taking the Indians into account. I am telling the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that he belives that that must happen but that he lacks the moral courage to say it. Not 10 per cent of his party want that. But he is convinced at the moment that we can only save this nation if we give the Coloureds equal citizenship.

They are in the minority.

Does the hon. member envisage, in terms of his party’s policy, the possibility of 50 Coloureds sitting here? Of course that moral man won’t reply to that. Let us take the Common Roll. You cannot talk about equal citizenship if you are only prepared to give the franchise to the Cape Coloureds and that subject to qualification. In the first place you must remove that qualification, secondly, you must give the franchise to the Coloured women, and, in the third place, you must give the franchise to the 18-year-old Coloureds and to the Coloureds in the Free State, Transvaal and Natal. Before you do that you dare not talk about equal citizenship. And that is not the policy of that party; the United Party will never accept that. That is why I am asking the hon. member for Bezuidenhout what he is doing in that party? Hon. members opposite do not agree with this nor do they envisage that for the future. I want to ask the hon. member this: If he agrees with his party’s policy which discriminates against the Coloureds, the Indian and the Bantu from whom did he get dispensation to discriminate in a moral way? Why is his discrimination morally correct but that of this Government not? That hon. member must decide what he wants to do and his party must decide what they want to do. As far as I am concerned I say that what he has advocated he had advocated as a member of the United Party and as far as I am concerned I shall tell the country that it is the ultimate intention of that party eventually to have at least 50 Coloureds in this House. As far as I am concerned I shall say it is the intention of the United Party to place the Coloureds, together with their wives and 18-year-old children on the Common Roll, without any qualification. I shall continue to say that until the Leader of the Opposition repudiates that hon. member.

But he never said that.

There you have it. It is for them to decide who is the leader of the party. The Leader of the Opposition has to decide whether he will continue to put up with this sort of language in his party. They cannot expect us, however, not to draw logical conclusions from the stories we have had from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I say in all seriousness that I regard the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to-day as the most important member in that party. He is giving the direction; he has made them turn left. He is going along the road of the Progressive Party and he is leading them in that direction. If he should come into power I have not the slightest doubt that all these things will happen and within a very short space of time too. That is why I shall warn the people until such time as the Leader of the Opposition does his duty and repudiates him and that will be catastrophic to them at the next election.

The facts of politics in South Africa to-day are that we are at the moment witnessing two miracles, a political miracle and an economic miracle. The political miracle we are witnessing is that this Government has now been in power for 17 years and according to all the rules of politics and democracy it should by now have started to become weaker and weaker but it is becoming stronger; and these were not easy 17 years. They were difficult. We inherited a bad estate. Squatter towns had to be cleared up; there was a serious housing shortage; there was an economic slump and unemployment at times. We had Sharpeville and everything that went with it. We had the one constitutional crisis after the other. The world was hostile towards us and that hostility continued to increase. We became a Republic outside the Commonwealth. Things happened which would have shaken the very foundations of any other government except those of this Government. Just think of the predictions that were made, namely, that if we became a Republic outside the Commonwealth an economic catastrophe would hit us and we would be faced with insolvency. To-day, after 17 years of National Party regime, after all these difficulties, after we took the risk of becoming a Republic outside the Commonwealth, we have economic stability unparalleled in the history of South Africa. We are practically expanding too rapidly; we are growing steadily and consistently. We are not having a boom to-day and a depression to-morrow. One of the major achievements of this Government is the fact that we have full employment today; there is no unemployment whatsoever. There must be very deep-seated reasons for two such miracles, such a political miracle and such an economic miracle. To what are these things attributable? I attribute the political miracle, and coupled to that the economic miracle, in the first place, to the change in the image of the National Party. The National Party is no longer just the party of the Afrikaner in South Africa. It has indeed also become the party of the English-speaking section. But the most important point, as far as the National Party is concerned, is that it has, in the first place, become the symbol, the refuge and the hope not only of the White man in South Africa but of the White man on the entire Continent of Africa. But, what is more, the National Party has become the symbol of the maintenance of law and order and peace and quiet in South Africa and it has succeeded in that in spite of formidable opposition on the part of the United Party, in spite of formidable opposition on the part of the English-language Press, in spite of formidable opposition on the part of the revolutionary forces in South Africa, forces which the Government has so brilliantly succeeded in exterminating. I say we have had this political miracle particularly as a result of the fact that the National Party has become the symbol of good relationship with the Coloured races in this country and in Southern Africa.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout now wants to tell us that all our problems will be solved if only we did away with all discrimination; if we followed the road of multi-racialism; the road of “partnership”. Did it happen in the case of the Federation of Rhodesia? The Federation of Rhodesia went much further than the United Party say they are prepared to go. Read Sir Roy Welensky’s “400 Days” and you will see that he was always dashing his head against the policy of multi-racialism in the Federation of Rhodesia. The Federation has disintegrated and Sir Roy Welensky is perhaps the most tragic figure on the Continent of Africa to-day.

That is a totally different matter.

Why is that a different matter? Surely that is what they want here; they want multi-racialism in South Africa because they think that will satisfy world opinion; because they think that will satisfy the extreme Black nationalists. The only thing the Federation of Rhodesia has proved, and which Southern Rhodesia is still proving today, is that that policy simply does not work. It has failed all over the Continent of Africa. Why do hon. members of the Opposition think it will succeed here?

The policy of separate freedoms of this Government, as symbolized in the Transkeian policy, is fast gripping the imagination of the world and is beginning to convince the world of our good intentions towards these people and, which is much more important, it is beginning to prove to the world that this policy of separate freedoms of South Africa’s is the only policy to be followed in the peculiar position we have here. That is the only policy under which you can maintain law and order in Southern Africa. That is the only policy under which all the Southern Africa states can live in good neighbourliness at a time when we are faced with this difficult problem of human relations. [Interjections.] Of course, we are making headway along that road. What are the hard facts of the matter? Unlike the United Party this Government is offering the Bantu in South Africa and the Coloureds and Indians human, economic and political maturity (volwaardigheid). It says to them that they can achieve that but it does so in such a way that it cannot in any way spell danger to the human, economic and political maturity of the Whites. That is the only way in which you can do it. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is terribly scared of the consequences of the Transkeian policy. He says we shall have eight Dar-es-Salaams and that sort of thing. As I have said before if he is right in harbouring that fear then it is surely not a fear or a danger which flows from the policy of the National Party; then it is a danger which flows from the fact that we are children of Africa, because whether we are going to have the so-called Bantustans or not, we shall in any case have three independent protectorates here. One of these days we shall be the only independent White country in the entire Southern Africa. So that will remain a problem we shall have to live with and solve. But why do the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the United Party always view the negative side of the picture? Why must the Black people be hostile towards us? Where the Transkei, as well as other Bantu areas are gradually being emancipated, where we are gradually training them to assume the responsibilities of democracy, where we are building up a governing class within their ranks, where we are assisting them to establish a sound public service— because you can never maintain law and order and viability unless you have a sound, uncorruptible public service—where we are doing all these things, in other words, where we are in the process of uplifting and emancipating these people and not pushing independence down their throats, why will these people constitute a danger to us? What possible reason can they have to be hostile towards us? They have every reason to live in good neighbourliness with us and all the signs are there that that is happening. That is happening in the case of the Transkei and it is happening to an ever-increasing extent. We see the signs in Basutoland; we see the friendly attitude on the part of that Government. We are pleased that Jonathan won the election there, but I would not have been very concerned had one of the other parties won it. It would only have been necessary for us to exert our diplomacy, our political ingenuity and our economic power in order to co-operate with them as well and they too would simply have had to co-operate with us. We see that in Bechuanaland and we see it in Swaziland. We are, therefore, laying the foundation for a sound, economically, powerful, peace-loving Southern Africa with a policy of good neighbourliness. Is it not better to build on that basis than to accept a policy which has proved to be useless in the rest of Africa and completely catastrophic to the White man?

The hard fact of the matter is that this Session has been catastrophic to the Opposition. During the 20 years that I have been sitting in this House and in the Press Gallery I have never yet witnessed a more tragic performance on the part of any Opopsition party than that given by the United Party during this Session. I predict that they will become weaker and weaker . . .

That is cheap propaganda. ^*

. . . because it does not want to approach political matters in this country from the point of view of those things which are fundamental. The only thing it is trying to do is to prey on the mistakes of the Government. Of course the Government makes mistakes; of course things happen which we would rather not have seen happening; of course we find ourselves in difficult situations at times but that happens in every country and it happens under any government but you do not overthrow a government simply by exploiting its mistakes. You must offer something in the place of government policy and the fact of the matter is, whether the United Party want to admit it or not, that the people know what the United Party has to offer South Africa. They are offering to South Africa a policy which will simply lead to non-White or Black domination in South Africa. That is why the people are rejecting them and that is why the National Party is growing from strength to strength.

I am sure that the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) who has just sat down will not expect me to follow him in knocking down the skittles which he himself put up so that he could knock them down. He is the expert on that side of the House in that regard and I do not propose to waste the short time at my disposal in dealing with that type of speech.

I do want to touch on one point before I deal with certain other matters. I refer to a statement made by the Prime Minister in the course of his speech. He made the charge or the statement that we were prepared to creep to the bigger powers. Sir, I want to say that that is the last charge that can ever be laid by that side of the House against the United Party. We are no more likely to creep to them than we are to creep to the Government itself. If the hon. the Prime Minister wants any proof of that, I want to say that the difference between us is that we are prepared to defend the good name of South Africa anywhere in the world, as we have already proved in two world wars. One charge that can never be levelled against this side of the House is that we were prepared to creep to the enemy at a time when our country was in dire peril and when the flower of our country were on the battlefield across the waters endeavouring to provide safety for us. That charge certainly does not apply to this side of the House and I leave it to the Prime Minister to work out for himself where that charge can best be applied.

I want to turn to two matters affecting Defence in the short time at my disposal. In the first place I want to follow up the remarks made by my hon. Leader in regard to the statement which was published in the Cape Argus on 11 June that the hon. the Minister of Defence had decided to conduct an exhaustive inquiry into conditions in the Defence Force, with special attention being given to certain things as outlined by my hon. Leader, and to “any other matter which, in the opinion of the board, should be brought to the attention of the Minister”. Practically no limit at all is placed on the scope of the inquiry to be conducted by the committee. It has complete freedom to inquire into any aspect of the defences of the country. As the hon. the Minister himself has not thought it necessary to inform Parliament regarding the setting up of this inquiry and in view of the repeated demands from this side of the House over the last two or three years for such action, in view if the widespread record in Hansard of those demands, and of the evidence which was produced to support those demands, one would have thought that the hon. the Minister would have informed the House of his intentions to set up this committee before announcing it in the Press. The hon. the Minister himself is unfortunately absent this afternoon. I understand the reason for it; he is elsewhere attending to the business of the country and one accepts that, but I trust that our remarks will be conveyed to him in due course. But in view of the time during which this continuous training scheme has been in operation, coupled with the tremendous cost in manpower, money and natural resources and the demands made on the young men of this country who are conscripted for continuous training and also in view of the long delays in finally acceding to the official demand from this side of the House for such an inquiry and the mounting evidence which was available both to the Minister and the Government as to the necessity for such an investigation in the best interests of the country, I want to say on behalf of the official Opposition that, whilst we welcome this tardy realization of the need to face up to unpleasant facts, we regard the terms of this inquiry, as published in the Press, as one of the most damning indictments of this Government’s refusal to face up to facts, of this Government’s refusal to take adequate action to remedy weaknesses in the Defence organization, which one would have expected them to do before, both in view of the large expansion, which must bring trouble with it, and also of the ample evidence brought to their notice so many times before. I want to say also that in order to get the most effective results from this investigation we, on this side, believe that the inquiry should be held in public and that anyone desiring to submit evidence should have a full opportunity to do so. We believe that the chairman should be a person possessing extensive knowledge and wide experience of military conditions and requirements, but who is not at present a serving officer. Now that the Government has gone so far as to at last appoint a committee of inquiry, they must realize that service in the fighting forces—the Air Force, the Navy and the Army, particularly the Permanent Force—is not just a job; it is a way of life which is completely different from ordinary civilian life. It is a way of life with problems, demands and responsibilities far removed from those attaching to normal civilian life. Those men put their life in the balance as a guarantee for the security of their country. They live and work under conditions under which no civilian would desire to live. This is one of the penalties that they have to pay. In return for working under those conditions they demand a reward and conditions of service in keeping with the demands made upon these individuals themselves who accept that way of life in the service of their country. We also believe that, in order to allay the concern which undoubtedly exists, and which exists particularly as a result of the publicity given to certain unfavourable episodes in respect of which similar evidence was previously available to the Government, that the findings of this committee of inquiry should be made public; that not only should they be made public but that a copy of the committee’s report should be laid on the Table of the House. The Government have at long last been forced to act to meet the growing wave of criticism which is sweeping right throughout the country, criticism particularly from parents who have been ringing up Defence headquarters in Parliament Street and say that they are not prepared to let their sons go into Defence under the conditions such as those exposed in the Press. Sir, that does not build up the morale of the country. The regrettable conditions which have been exposed have harmed the morale of the force and morale amongst the parents, and it is going to take quite a long time to undo this harm.

I want to pass on to another aspect of Defence. About two weeks ago, in the course of his reply to the debate on his Vote, the hon. the Minister of Defence told Parliament that it had been decided that Lt.-Gen. Hiemstra was to be appointed Commandant-General in command of the Republic’s Defence Forces in succession to our present Commandant-General who is due to retire shortly, Commandant-General Grobbelaar. At the same time the hon. the Minister gave the House a review of the military career of the new Commandant-General. Sir, the official Opposition made it quite clear at that time that we regard the position of Commandant-General as being the most important and the most responsible of all posts held in the national security organization of the country. Sir, it is not too much to say that it is upon his experience, upon his personal leadership that in the end the survival of the Republic may very well depend. The Government is fully aware of the high value that we place on practical military experience and on a record of active service and leadership, qualities which command a high standard of confidence and which promote morale. Sir, throughout the history of our country, indeed throughout the history of the world, top-level military command, has demanded, in addition to personal experience, standards of personal conduct, and self-sacrifice in leadership unequalled in other spheres of life. Sir, national security must be placed before personal viewpoints. There is no place for conflicting loyalties and for demands imposed by membership of any sectional organization, no matter under what guise that organization may operate, and, above all, it demands complete self-subordination to the best interests of the military machine he commands and the security of the nation that he himself has sworn to defend. Sir, the Commandant-General’s qualifications are of paramount importance at any time, but they are even more important in war-time and under conditions of cold war and in an emergency such as our own country is facing today. As I say, the Government is fully aware of the high value that the Opposition places on these qualifications, particularly as far as the post of Commandant-General is concerned. We have made that point clear again and again across the floor of the House and we would be failing in our duty at this stage if we did not make it clear again that despite his personal explanation in the Sunday Press, which, itself was a very unusual procedure for a senior officer in the Defence Force to adopt, it is the Opposition’s considered opinion that the officer selected by the Government to succeed to the position of Commandant-General of the Republic’s defences, does not meet the high qualifications demanded by his high office, particularly when measured against the qualifications and attributes which I have already outlined. We do not share the point of view of the hon. the Minister of Defence that no other suitable officer with war experience is available. I will go further and say that it is a very old but still a very true saying and principle that you do not swop horses crossing the stream, and if ever we are crossing the stream of adversity we are doing so at the present time. You certainly do not swop horses when the stream is running deep and swift against you as it is running against our country at the present time. Sir, the hon. the Minister and the present Commandant-General have done a good job of work in building up our defences from the chaotic ruin which they both inherited as a result of Cabinet ineptitude and the hon. the Minister’s predecessor’s mismanagement and political bias during his term of office. The present Commandant-General has a distinguished war record, and he also has years of useful service ahead of him to apply his knowledge to the defences and the security of this country. Moreover, he has had the experience of having been associated intimately with the very intricate build-up of Defence to its present stage, and he has knowledge of it which would stand him in very good stead in continuing with the planning of which he himself has been the instigator. If, as the hon. the Minister says, that our choice of military leaders is restricted then surely there is no reason at this critical stage of our Defence build-up to throw away a leader who, under different difficult and often unnecessarily difficult conditions, has given proof both of his ability and of the fact that he has the essential qualifications of military leadership. Sir, exceptional times demand exceptional methods, and I cannot believe that it is beyond the power of the Government to find the exceptional means at this stage to retain the services of a man of experience who has the necessary qualifications, the knowledge and the confidence of the country and of the Defence Force. Sir, I believe that it is in the best interests of the Republic that the Government should give second thoughts to this appointment and I would urge the acting Minister of Defence to take the necessary steps in this connection. Sir, from its earliest days, both before and during the days of the two Northern Republics, before the days of their bitter struggle during their own war periods, South Africa has always taken pride in the fact that its military leaders were men of experience, men who in the face of tremendous odds never failed their country when duty called. We have examples, in the various international struggles which have taken place, of the very high place occupied by South African military leadership in the armies of the world, leaders who are at their best leading their comrades on the battlefields in defence of South Africa, leaders who won world respect and honour for our land. Mr. Speaker, to me and to many of us, certainly on this side of the House, it is a sad day that at a time like this when as never before the Republic requires just that type of military leadership, a South African Government has to inform Parliament and the country that its choice as Commandant-General is an officer who does not measure up to those standards, an officer who by his own choice took off his uniform and elected not to serve with his military comrades in defence of South Africa against Nazi and Fascist domination by Germany and Italy, not to share with them the dangers of the battlefield but to remain in civilian employment in South Africa. We believe that the people of South Africa should never forget that the military position in which we are finding ourselves to-day, the high price we are paying in money and lost development through the uneconomic dislocation of manpower diverted to re-build our defences, as well as the lack of senior officers of war experience, referred to by the Minister of Defence, is a direct result of the political witch-hunt that was carried out by this Government throughout the entire range of the Defence organization by the present Minister’s predecessor and his policy of refusing to work with what he called “any Smuts man”. The Minister attempted to turn the term “Smuts man”, a term of which one can justifiably be proud, into something disgraceful. The present Minister and his Commandant-General did everything they could do—I might almost say that they did everything they were permitted to do—to repair the damage that had been done. They might have done a great deal more if there had been a little less interference in certain quarters. I can say with truth that the Defence chickens hatched in the days of the ill-advised actions to which I have referred, are now coming home to roost, and their price to this country is a very high one indeed. South Africans, irrespective of their political affiliations, who are proud of their position as South Africans and who are prepared to stand together as South Africans against any outside interference, should never forget that what is at stake is their own security and indeed their survival. It is also the taxpayers’ money that is at stake. The largest single Vote in the Appropriation Bill that we are dealing with to-day is the Defence Vote. It is the taxpayers and the people of this country who have to pay the high price which is necessary in an effort to restore the security which was so recklessly squandered in those days. We on this side of the House would have preferred not to raise a matter of this kind affecting a serving officer in public debate across the floor of the House. It is distasteful to us to have to do it, no matter how much we disagree with the choice. The Government must remember that we have no alternative. The Government must remember that we in the Official Opposition have time and time again during the past three years asked for the setting up of parliamentary machinery which would have allowed questions of this nature to be discussed in the calmer atmosphere of the committee room and without the limelight of publicity. But that request has been refused time and time again by the Goevrnment, and therefore they must accept full responsibility for the fact that this matter is now being raised across the floor of the House. We take no blame for doing to. We would be failing in our duty as Official Opposition unless we did so and unless we did whatever we could to put the Defence train back on the right rails in order to ensure the security of this country.

I doubt whether any hon. member of this House has done his country such a great disservice in recent years as the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has just done.

Disgraceful.

Sir, what shocks me is that it is the hon. member for Simonstown who does this sort of thing. I have a very high regard for the hon. member’s integrity and his moderation. I have always regarded him as a person who makes a study of Defence matters, but who does so with the object of serving South Africa. And what did he do here to-day? He went out of his way to throw suspicion upon the newly appointed Commandant-General of the Defence Force in the eyes of the public and in the eyes of the Defence Force. In other words, he went out of his way to shock the confidence of every member of the Defence Force in his Commandant-General. I think it is scandalous. And why does he do it? One of the reasons which he advances is that the newly appointed Commandant-General does not meet the high demands which the head of the Defence Force is required to meet. One of the requirements which he mentoined was “that the Commandant-General must have practical military experience and combat service”. I was always under the impression that the hon. member was a student of military affairs, but it is perfectly clear that his knowledge is only superficial, and that he knows very little about it. Sir, this same party which is to-day crawling to the outside world and to other powers, particularly the United States, does not even know that the most powerful State in the world has departed from the practice of insisting that officers at the head of their Defence Force must necessarily be officers with war experience. The United States, which they hold in such high esteem, has departed from that procedure. Let me just outline the position to show what has been done by the United States in this connection. I have a report here which reads as follows—

In other words, here they appointed a person who has had no war experience. I quote further—

All these posts are amongst the highest in the Defence Force of the United States of America—

He has no war experience either, and yet this hon. member lays down the requirement, on behalf of his party, that the Commandant-General of our Defence Force must necessarily have had war experience. As I have said, the biggest power in the world has departed from that practice. It is not necessary for the head of the Defence Force to have war experience only; he must have many other qualities. Does the hon. member want to tell me that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because he had a few months’ war experience and spent the rest of his time in a prisoner-of-war camp, is qualified to be Commandant-General of the Permanent Force on the ground of his war experience?

He is more suitable than you are.

I have no ambitions in that direction; my hon. friend may rest assured of that. What does the hon. member mean by that interjection? Does he mean that I am afraid? I would gladly take him along with me on a big-game hunting expedition and see what his reactions are! Sir, there are very few of them who have actually proved their great heroism. They prove it by means of words. What is the hon. member’s war experience? He remained on the home front, although his party was in favour of the war effort. Do not let us start throwing stones, because hon. members over there, who have such a great deal to say, are very vulnerable.

I come back to what was done here by the hon. member for Simonstown, on behalf of his party, in publicly attacking General Hiemstra in the way in which he did here. We are convinced that General Hiemstra has the confidence of the members of the Force. Hon. members on the other side, in support of their opposition to General Hiemstra’s appointment, advanced the reason that he had refused to wear the red tab and to go and fight up North. But members of the Force had a free choice. General Hiemstra was convinced at the time that it would be the wrong thing to go up North. General Smuts said that members of the Force had an absolutely free choice. There was no coercion. No disciplinary measures (were taken to force any soldier to go up North. It was left to his free choice.

What would have happened if every soldier had adopted that attitude?

If every soldier had adopted that attitude, South Africa would not have been in the mess in which she found herself after the war. Do not let us talk about that; let us rather discuss this particular case. Here we have a case where an officer was prepared, on the strength of his convictions, in spite of all his comrades, in spite of all his associations with the Defence Force, in spite of all the scorn which he had to endure as an officer in the Defence Force of a Government which had decided to take part in the war, to adhere to his principles and to say, on the strength of his convictions: “I am not prepared to go.” I think he should be admired for it. The fact that he refused does not make him a worse officer or a worse commandant-general. I say that, if that is the attitude of hon. members opposite, they have done more to undermine the morale of the Defence Force than anybody has ever done before, because it is tantamount to undermining discipline to throw suspicion on the Commandant-General of the Defence Force. Hon. members opposite have tried here to-day to make him suspect in the eyes of the people of South Africa. I am convinced that both the members of the Defence Force and the public have the fullest confidence in General Hiemstra. Moreover, I am convinced that he is one of the most able commandant-generals we have ever had. I am also convinced that, if a war should break out, which we fervently hope will never happen, he will prove to be a worthy leader of our Defence Force.

Will he fight?

Sir, I regard that question as an insult. It is scandalous on the part of the hon. member to dare to ask such a question.

What did he do before? Did he fight?

It was not out of fear that he did not go and fight, which might have been the reason in the case of that hon. member.

I was not afraid.

Where were you?

He hid away in the Transkei.

Mr. Speaker, if hon. members will calm down a little, I will proceed; my time is limited. The hon. member for Simonstown also referred to the appointment of this commission by my colleague. He says that there are so many things which are wrong in the Defence Force, and he talks about “that damning indictment of this Government’s refusal to realize defects in the Defence Force”. Sir, I deny that there is very much wrong with the Defence Force. I think that is a further insult; I think it is just another charge which is entirely without substance. Things always go wrong in any organization; no organization is perfect. But I definitely deny that there is anything seriously wrong in the Defence Force. It is true that there have been certain incidents in connection with the training of ballotees. That is true and these incidents will be investigated. This sort of thing should not be allowed to happen and that is why my colleague took the necessary steps, but I definitely deny that there are serious defects and that there is something seriously wrong in the Defence Force.

You are completely out of touch.

Sir. before my time expirtes I want to say a few words in connection with an allegation made here by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman), and I should like to hear what the attitude of the Opposition is in this connection. I want an unambiguous reply from the Opposition. If they do not reply, then I take it they agree with the statement made by him. I refer to what he said in connection with the 5-day working week. Sir, these are the people who are the great champions of the workers! They have repeatedly told us during this Session that the workers are being neglected, that they are not being given their due rights and that the Government is refusing to give them an increase in wages. They are the champions of the workers! The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) made a very remarkable statement here; he said that “South Africa cannot afford the luxury of a five-day week”. He is opposed to a five-day week and he says that we should work harder. When I told him by way of interjection that the productivity of the workers had not been affected he denied it. He said that the Government had set the example in introducing what is an entirely wrong principle, the principle of a five-day working week. Sir, the hon. member is an important member of the United Party; he is one of their speakers on financial subjects. I take it therefore that he speaks on behalf of the United Party, and I must assume therefore that the United Party is opposed to a five-day working week.

Let us hear!

I am perfectly sure that their silence proves that they agree with that statement.

You know that that is not so.

Did the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) hear that interjection by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant)? He says that he repudiates the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South); he does not agree with him at all.

That is your interpretation.

What is the attitude of the United Party? Does the hon. member for Turffontein speak on behalf of the party, or does the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) speak on behalf of the party? The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) says that they are definitely opposed to a five-day working week because he says that we must work harder and not less. He says that the Government made the mistake of setting the example by introducing a five-day working week in the Public Service and in the Railway Service. I take it that the attitude of the United Party is that the Government did the wrong thing in introducing a five-day working week in the Public Service and in the Railway Service. I must also assume that that is their policy; that they adhere to it. Sir, that is their policy in spite of the fact that productivity has been maintained at the same level. The workers are working the same number of hours per week but they are working five days instead of six. Their productivity remains the same but the United Party says that the Government made a mistake in introducing a five-day working week for the workers. Sir. the workers are going to be told that that is their attitude.

Mr. Speaker, the greatest service which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) rendered the National Party was to join the United Party. I do not think that the National Party has a better propagandist than the hon. member for Bezuidenhout As I said to the Leader of the Opposition by way of interjection, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has given us thousands of votes for the next election. He has given us thousands of votes and he has given the next election to us on a platter. I think the fact that the hon. member joined the United Party is the best thing that could ever have happened. I just want to emphasize a few points, as has already been done by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). The hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that compulsory apartheid must disappear. That simply means, of course, that all legislation which provides for separation, because that amounts to compulsory apartheid, must disappear. That was what the hon. member said and he was speaking on behalf of the United Party. My hon. friend over there made a mistake when he said that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was speaking on his own behalf. Oh no, he has now been promoted; he is one of their leaders. He is the chairman of their Colour Group. We must assume therefore that what he says is the policy of his party and not his own policy and he says that compulsory apartheid must disappear. Every measure which is designed to bring about apartheid introduces compulsory apartheid because it forces people to make use of separate facilities. In other words, the policy of the United Party to-day is that compulsory apartheid must disappear.

You are quoting my words out of their context; I said that there were certain essential measures . . .

The hon. member did not say that. He is already beginning to retreat. The hon. member is very anxious to become a leader, and because he gets a little publicity in the English-language newspapers he imagines that he is already a leader. He is only the deputy leader of that party.

His second proposition was this: Equal citizenship for the Coloureds. I want to ask him to define “equal citizenship”, but I am sure he will not have the courage to do so. Sir, what is the simple meaning of equal citizenship? It means equality in all spheres.

Dr. Verwoerd and the Minister of Foreign Affairs said the same thing.

Dr. Verwoerd did not say it; that is untrue. Equal citizenship simply means equality in all spheres. How can you be a citizen with equal rights if you are still discriminated against, in other words, if you still have to comply with certain qualifications before you are allowed to vote? How can you be a citizen with equal rights if you are a Coloured in the Transvaal and you are not allowed to vote? How can it be equal citizenship if, as the hon. member says, the Coloureds have to vote as a separate group and have their own representatives in this Parliament? Mr. Speaker, I do not want to accuse the hon. member of political hypocrisy, but it is a despicable thing for anybody to be guilty of political hypocrisy. The hon. member or his leader must define equal citizenship when we come to the third reading and tell us what they mean by it. It can mean only one thing and that is complete equality. Throw the two things together, and what is the position then? All compulsory apartheid measures must disappear and compulsory apartheid must be replaced by a policy of equal citizenship, Sir, unless hon. members of the United Party repudiate that hon. member my accusation against them is that they stand for complete equality between Whites and non-Whites.

People take no notice of your stories.

They do take notice of them; look what happens to the United Party at every election.

He has already had to flee from his seat.

Yes, and look at the way in which he had to get his seat—through a bluff. Sir, these things are noted by the public and that is why the United Party is losing so much ground. The statement made here by the hon. member is going to be proclaimed far and wide because here we have it on record. Unless hon. members opposite repudiate it, then the policy of the United Party, as announced by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, is complete equality, because compulsory apartheid is to disappear and it is to be replaced by a policy of equal citizenship. The hon. member also says that the Government stands for domination but that the United Party stands for co-operation. Let us take the three things together—co-operation, equal citizenship and the disappearance of compulsory apartheid. What interpretation can be placed on it other than that it means complete equality in every respect? Sir, that is the only interpretation which any reasonable person can place upon it. That is the policy of the United Party. Mr. Speaker, I referred to political hypocrisy I am not accusing the hon. member of it; I am merely saying what political hypocrisy is; I am merely defining it. He says that we stand for domination and that they stand for co-operation. He says that they are the champions and the protectors of the Whites in South Africa; they, as Whites, want to govern the whole of South Africa for all time to come, and the Coloureds and the Bantu simply have to yield, but that is not discrimination and domination! Oh no! Sir, the least one can expect from hon. members opposite is political honesty. That is what one is entitled to expect but that expectation is never realized.

As I have said, I do not really want to take much notice of him, but the hon. member has become such a good propagandist for us that I merely want to emphasize what he said so that the public can realize the full implications of what he said.

Sir, the last point in regard to which he attacked the Government was the fact that the request of the Dutch mission which had asked for permission to see Luthuli had been refused and that that mission was no longer going to visit this country. The hon. member says that this is another indication of our bad handling of diplomatic and international affairs. Sir, the Prime Minister accused the United Party of being prepared to crawl to the big powers. Here we have further proof of it. In other words, when people in a foreign country want to visit your country and they put forward certain demands and say to the Government, “We will only come if you comply with our demand that we (the Hollanders) be allowed to see Luthuli,” the hon. member wants the Government to say, “Oh yes, certainly, you can come on your terms; we will comply with your demands.” Mr. Speaker, the little Black states in Africa have much more self-respect than many hon. members opposite. Black states such as Kenya, Tanganyika and others which are entirely dependent, economically and financially, on the powerful United States, are still prepared, when their dignity is affected, to take a stand in order to maintain their self-respect. Tanganyika went so far as to send two American diplomats out of the country, in spite of the fact that she is entirely dependent on America. But these hon. members have no self-respect; they have no patriotism. They are prepared to crawl in order to win the goodwill of the big countries in the world.

No.

That is so, and the incidents mentioned here today by the hon. the Prime Minister prove it. It is proved by what the hon. member over there said in connection with the Dutch mission. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, here we have a mission which puts forward the demand to the Government to be allowed to see a person who has been banished, a person who is the leader of the A.N.C., an organization which has been proved to be a communist organization, and when the Government refuses to accede to that demand the hon. member comes along and says that the Government is doing the wrong thing. Sir, have they no self-respect? Have they no respect for their own country? Are they not concerned about the status and the prestige of South Africa? That is why they have been rejected by the public of South Africa and that is why they will be rejected even more decisively than ever before at the next election by the people of this country.

I don’t propose replying to the cheap political debating points which the hon. Minister of Transport has tried to score against my friend here, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). But I want to react to certain of the statements he made in trying to justify this appointment of the Commandant-General. I feel sorry for this Minister because he is trying to help a colleague who is not here and in trying to defend that which is indefensible and to justify that which is not justifiable.

The hon. Minister said that my colleague from Simonstown (Mr. Gay) did South Africa a disservice by raising this matter at all. Does he expect us to keep quiet when this Government commits one blunder after the other? Must we keep quiet when they make appointments which we know are not in the interests of South Africa? [Interjections.] No, Sir. all the Minister’s condemnations will not silence us. We will not be intimidated. We admit that it is most unpleasant to raise a subject like this across the floor of this House but this Government has given us no opportunity to do so otherwise. We have no other way of bringing this to the notice of the country. I want to say that we are not ashamed of it; we are simply doing our duty. I personally make no apologies for supporting the hon. member for Simonstown 100 per cent in what he has said.

The hon. Minister told us about the Chiefs of Staff in the United States who have had no war service. That may be correct. Sir, but he did not tell us whether those Chiefs of Staff refused to do their duty when they had to do it. The Minister was on very weak ground when he tried to point out that my hon. Leader, who had only had a couple of months’ service, was not fit for the post of Commandant-General. I want to tell him that my Leader is not a candidate for that post. There are others who are very well qualified for that post.

South Africa is to-day spending more money on defence than at any time in its history, either in war time or peace time. In addition to that a very large portion of our manpower is tied up in our defence organization. Yet, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Simonstown, we on this side of the House are not at all happy about the state of affairs of our Defence Force at the present time.

A few weeks ago the Minister of Defence admitted that there was a very serious shortage of manpower in the Permanent Force. The Permanent Force is the foundation of the Defence Force. In South Africa the bulk of our Defence Force is the Citizen Force. The Permanent Force is the foundation of the whole set-up. In time of war the whole of the military, air and naval forces are built on and around the Permanent Force. The establishment tables of the Permanent Force in peace time is the absolute minimum for the efficient training, maintenance and general administration of the force.

According to figures supplied by the Minister there is an officer shortage of approximately 20 per cent and a 30 per cent shortage of senior N.C.O.s and men of whom a very large portion are technicians. It is very difficult to conceive how it will be possible, with such a shortage of key personnel, to maintain the costly and complicated equipment already purchased and on hand. Much more equipment is still being purchased as we go along.

Nor can we understand how the training of the Permanent Force, the Citizen Force and the ballotees can be carried out efficiently when enough qualified instructors are not available. From time to time we get many complaints from all quarters of time being wasted or of time not being properly occupied in training. We are not satisfied, Sir, that the Defence Forces are in the state of preparedness in which the Minister believes they are. We are not satisfied that the equipment on hand can be put to the proper and maximum use if needed nor are we satisfied that the forces will be able to keep up a reasonable effort for any length of time.

There is also the question of bribery and corruption in the procurement of equipment. Cases have been before the courts and there has been a judicial inquiry into these alleged irregularities. The information about these cases given to the House by the Minister was inadequate and totally unsatisfactory. We are not sure, Sir, that this evil has been completely stamped out. My colleague from Simonstown mentioned an inquiry about which we read in the Press. Judging from what appeared in the Press that inquiry was what one could almost term a “domestic inquiry”. We want that inquiry to go very much further. We feel that the Government should institute an independent investigation into the state of efficiency and readiness of the Defence Force to cope with the demands which may be made upon it. I want to repeat: We want an independent investigation into the state of efficiency and readiness and not only into the domestic side. South Africa was caught completely unprepared for war during the last war, despite assurances to the contrary and we cannot allow that to happen again.

We are also worried because South Africa has got no allies. We do not belong to a single treaty organization for mutual help or co-operation. We stand alone, and more and more of the Western nations which should be on our side, are even going so far as to refuse to sell us the necessary arms and equipment we need. We must realize that we cannot stand alone in these uncertain times.

Fortunately, the morale of the forces is high. The Minister, ably assisted by the retiring Commandant-General, did a very good job in restoring the morale from the depths into which it was flung by his predecessor and the previous Commandant-Generals. We are, however, very disturbed to hear of the Government’s intentions about this new appointment of Lieutenant-General Hiemstra.

Coward!

I want to say to hon. members on the other side . . .

On a point of order, may the hon. member there refer to the hon. member as a coward?

Order! Did the hon. member for Cradock use that expression?

I was saying that it was cowardly to attack a man who cannot be here to defend himself.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “coward”.

I withdraw.

I want to say here and now that I am not attacking an individual. I am attacking the Government for acting irresponsibly, recklessly and making a very bad appointment. It is common knowledge that this officer was trained in South Africa and overseas to serve South Africa when in need, and it is very well known that he refused to carry out that duty when called upon to do so. Instead he elected to be transferred to a post in the Civil Service for the duration of the war and continued to serve in that post until brought back into the South African Air Force by the previous Minister of Defence, Mr. Erasmus. He came back eight years after the war, and he was given a rank higher than he had before he left the Service. Since then, of course, his promotion has been phenomenal.

In an interview with a Sunday paper, to which my colleague has already referred, this officer tried to justify his appointment, which, as was mentioned by the hon. member, is a most unprecedented action by a serving officer, an unheard of thing, by saying that he was sorry that he missed the war, but that “it was a matter of personal conviction, and I had to live with my conscience”. However, after the war his conscience allowed him once again to wear the uniform he discarded earlier.

What is wrong with that?

Neither did his conscience allow him to join any of the organizations formed by people who felt like him, to further their ideals, and I am thinking in particular of the Ossewa-Brandwag. For medical reasons this officer could not go to Korea. The Minister of Defence is of the opinion that there is nothing wrong in appointing someone to this important post who has had no war experience. He maintains that in the future there will not be officers of that kind. Of course that is correct. In the near future, there will not be anybody with war experience. But at the moment the Minister of Defence has available a large number of very capable senior officers with very fine war records indeed, officers of whom South Africa can be justly proud. I think that it is wrong that a man who never commanded, even in peace time, an active unit larger than an air force training flight, should be appointed to this responsible post. What does the Government think the other senior officers of the Defence Force feel about this appointment? Can they really respect a man who did not do his duty when his comrades sacrificed themselves on the battlefields? Can this gentleman be held up as an example to the youth who are now being trained and who may be called upon to defend South Africa in the field? Can he set an example to them? What must the parents of these boys think of trusting their boys to a man who refused to do his bit when called upon to do so? How must these thousands of fathers, mothers, brothers, wives and children of those who suffered and sacrificed themselves on the battlefield feel about this appointment? I hope that the Government will reconsider this appointment. They should consider the damage to the morale and the esprit de corps in the Defence Force as a whole.

You have got a personal grievance.

I feel that the Government should take into account the ill-feeling, resentment and antagonism which will be generated by this appointment. At this critical stage the Defence Force of the Republic cannot afford this set-back. The members of the Defence Force who are battling against tremendous odds, should not have to shoulder this additional burden. I hope that, in view of these very real and serious considerations, the feeling of dismay and frustration and despair amongst the senior officers of the Defence Force which will inevitably result from this appointment will be avoided, and that the Government will reconsider this appointment. The interest of South Africa and its security, which should be the prime consideration when an appointment like this is made, was certainly overlooked in this case. I say again that, in my opinion, this officer is most unsuitable for this post. I think once again the Government will be guilty of a major blunder if they carry on with their idea in this connection. Once again they will show irresponsibility and recklessness with regard to the security of South Africa.

It is a sad day for Defence when a former officer of the Defence Force gets up and. under the protection which a seat in this House offers him, attacks an officer of high standing in the Defence Force. It is a tragedy that he is so brave as to attack a former colleague of his in the Defence Force under the protection of the privilege he enjoys here. But, Mr. Speaker, it is symptomatic of the party to which he belongs to attack, in their frustration, anybody who in any way comes within their range. It is symptomatic but in bad taste and I regard the conduct of a former officer to attack an officer of the standing of Lt.-Gen. Hiemstra from a safe position in his bench as reprehensible. There are those of us who preferred not to go and fight and we have never yet been sorry that we did not go and fight. There is South African blood on the rocks of Abyssinia and those people have to-day dragged us before a world court. Many South Africans have unnecessarily offered their lives in the sandy deserts of North Africa. Those countries in which South Africans have given their blood are to-day besmirching South Africa before world bodies. What did the South African fight for? Did they go and fight to establish this new “international norm”? Did we go and fight in order to establish new international norms in which there is no room for the South Africa? Was that why we went to fight? No, those of us who did not go and fight are not sorry. And it does not behove the hon. member to attack an officer in the way he has done, viz. from the safe position which this House accords him. Sir, when our country waged war against the communists, against the real enemy of our country, Lt.-Gen. Hiemstra immediately offered his services. The hon. member knows it. He knows that he offered his services to go to Korea when he occupied a position overseas and he also knows that his services were refused. It is not a question of courage and the hon. member knows that very well. But the Opposition is again trying to do South Africa a disservice. It is typical of what they are doing in other respects as well. When they try to attack this side of the House they not only try to hurt the Government but they usually drag in the good name of South Africa as well. This is an attempt to lower the status of the Defence Force of South Africa in the eyes of the world. This is another attempt to derogate from the good name of South Africa and to couple it with an attack on this side of the House. That is typical of the frustration hon. members are suffering from. It is a pity that a former officer has been selected to do so, an officer who has revealed the terrific sense of frustration he is suffering from. It is a tragedy that we should have to conduct this type of debate in this House when Defence should be the one subject on which we should agree in South Africa. Sir, we ought to agree in regard to Defence as in regard to no other matter because, as the hon. member for Simonstown has rightly said, we are involved in a cold war; we are witnessing military upheavals in the world in which South Africa may become involved and it is a tragedy that, in those circumstances, minor matters of dispute should be exaggerated out of all proportion in this House. The hon. member for North-East Rand says we have no allies. He says we are alone in South Africa. Apart from the military propaganda in this connection I deny emphatically that that is the position and surely the hon. member knows that that is not the position. Surely the hon. member knows that we in South Africa, as party to the Simonstown agreement, have been entrusted with much greater defence responsibilities in respect of the coastal routes of South Africa than ever before. Surely the hon. member knows that Britain has thought it fit to withdraw her ships from the South Atlantic base and that the South African Fleet is progressively taking that responsibility over. If anything with military implications should happen to-day Britain would immediately, without any hesitation, send naval units to this base. The hon. member knows it. Why suggest to the world that we are standing alone; that we are without allies? What is he trying to achieve by that? Surely he knows that is not so. I can mention numbers of other allies. There are numbers of practical manifestations of the military friendship South Africa enjoys and surely he is aware of them.

I want to deal with another matter which hon. members opposite raise regularly and that is that we should have a Defence Council on which members of the Opposition will also serve. I want to know whether the hon. gentlemen opposite have said anything this afternoon to strengthen the confidence of this side of the House to let them serve with us on a Defence Council?

Does the hon. member mean a Defence Council under the Defence Act or a Select Committee on Defence consisting of members of this House?

I am talking about a committee as the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) and the hon. member for North-East Rand have been pleading for and I am now asking whether those two hon. gentlemen have in any way inspired this side of the House with confidence to appoint people with their views on military matters on such a committee thinking that they would thereby serve South Africa? You have the hon. member for North-East Rand, in the first place, who is obviously harbouring a grievance, somebody who can obviously only view things from a personal point of view, somebody who cannot view promotions in the Defence Force objectively without dragging in his own grievances. Will we be serving the Defence Force by appointing a Select Committee on Defence of that nature? It is a tragedy that we should have an appeal from that type of person to appoint a council of this nature. During the course of the debate this afternoon they have proved how futile and useless such a committee would be.

I want to deal briefly with a few of the points the hon. the Minister has already mentioned in connection with the commission of inquiry and I want to associate myself with those who have expressed their regret about the few things which have happened, these isolated happenings in connection with the training which are generally regretted. When we study the history of our Defence Force, without in any way trying to find justification for individual cases, cases which I do not want to and cannot discuss because they are sub judice, it is clear that the Defence Force has been built up during the past four years as never before in the history of the South African Defence Force. In that short space of time it was unavoidable that promotions and appointments would be made of persons who would, in the ordinary course of events, not have been promoted at such a fast tempo. That was unavoidable. Last year the hon. the Minister of Defence tabled a White Paper in respect of the expansion which had taken place in the Defence Force and it was clear from that that the Permanent Force had more than doubled over that period of four years since 1962. The number of bailotees taken in for Citizen Force training has increased from 2,000 in 1961 to more than 16,000 this year, i.e. eight times as many in the space of four years. It is clear from that that had you not appointed persons whom you would not normally have regarded as sufficiently experienced, it would have been impossible to expand the structure of such a fast-growing Defence Force. The result has been that officers have been appointed and promoted to positions to which they would not normally have been promoted with the result that certain unfortunate things have happened. However, the terms of reference of this commission ought to reassure completely those who are undergoing training and those who have children undergoing training as well as the country that things will be put right. I want to mention a few of the terms of reference for the sake of the record. Firstly, the commission has to investigate the system of allocation; secondly, the method of training, including the training of officers and N.C.O.s. What I regard as of particular importance are the following two terms of reference, namely, an investigation into the human relationships and the handling of people. Sir, a thorough investigation is to be conducted into the human relationships which exist in the Defence Force. Problems have arisen from human relationships in the past and this commission is specifically going to investigate those human relationships.

The following is the maintenance of discipline and the method of punishment in the Defence Force. I again want to emphasize, without trying to justify anything that may have happened in the Defence Force, that there are a number of young bailotees in South Africa who do not want to undergo training. There are very few members in this House who do not from time to time get requests from people to assist them in getting exemption. Thank Heaven they constitute a small minority but there are a small number of people who are inherently averse to undergoing training in South Africa and when you get those young men in the Defence Force you are faced with problems. The hon. member for North-East Rand, who was an officer in the Defence Force, will agree with me that these men create problems for us and that they sometimes make things impossible for their officers and N.C.O.s. Many of our problems flow from these cases. On the other hand, as I have already pointed out, we have officers who have not been able to acquire an adequate knowledge of human nature because the knowledge of human nature which you require in the case of military training can only be acquired over years of experience. These two factors together give rise to the unfortunate happenings we have had.

I want to conclude by appealing to the hon. the Minister completely to ignore the reprehensible attacks that have been made on General Hiemstra. We have an officers corps in South Africa of the highest standing and quality. You have the general staff officers, the heads of staff of the various Defence Force units, you have the staff corps, you have the senior officers in our Defence Force whom it has been my privilege to meet. I can assure you, Sir, that they speak in the highest terms of General Hiemstra. Secondly, they look forward to a period of very fruitful co-operation. Everyone with whom I have spoken, who does not have a personal grievance like the hon. member for North-East Rand, has spoken in laudatory terms and with the highest appreciation of the human relationship which exists in the higher eschelons of the Defence Force. They have the highest regard for the military results obtained by General Hiemstra when he studied in Britain. To summarize: In June 1949 he was appointed as South Africa’s first military attaché to the South African Embassy in Stockholm. When the Korean War broke out General Hiemstra volunteered his services to go to Korea but his services were refused. In 1952 he took a staff service course at the South African Air Force college and came first in the final results. In May 1953, he was appointed Adjutant-General of the Defence Force with the rank of Colonel. Towards the end of the next year he left for Britain to take a year’s course at the Imperial Defence College which is the highest military training institution in the Commonwealth. He played an important part there in making the course a success, a course which entailed, inter alia, a study tour of four weeks through Canada and the United States of America. Do you know, Sir, that he obtained the highest marks that have ever been obtained in that course at that Staff college?

Sir, we cannot cling to obsolete ideas of warfare. If South Africa should become involved in a war and, as the hon. Minister has said, we pray that that will never happen, but if we were to become involved in a war, then surely we shall not wage a war similar to the last World War. Of what value will the military knowledge, gained 20 years ago, be in the case of a future war? No, Sir, if we again have to fight a war, it will probably be a guerilla war. If we were to have a war inside South Africa, it will be a guerrilla war, and if we have to fight a territorial war, it will be a guerrilla war, and hon. members know it. Totally new principles apply in that case. We heard the announcement only this morning that America had established a new type of division, a division that can be conveyed by air, a division that will have to act in guerilla warfare. The principles on which a war is waged to-day have changed completely. Our entire understanding of warfare is totally different from the old ideas. Sir, we need people who are not tied to obsolete methods inherited from previous wars and old-fashioned. We need new ideas in our Defence Force, and the dangers must be seen in the right perspective. We need independence of thought if we want our Defence Force to be ready for combat and of the highest possible quality. On behalf of this side of the House, I want to state very clearly that we have full confidence in the proposed Commandant-General; that has the qualifications I have mentioned and that we confidently leave the safety of South Africa in his hands and in the hands of the Defence Force of South Africa.

I want, this afternoon, to deal with two matters, the one supplementary to the other. Firstly, I would like to deal with a question of planning, and I am sure the hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not reply to the points that he has raised.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the 1963 session, the present Minister of Community Development undertook, on an occasion such as this, the debate on the Appropriation Bill, to halt certain of his plans for the South Coast of Natal. Now a lot of water has run down the river since those days and much planning has gone ahead. The other day the hon. member for Zululand dealt with the planning of Zululand. What I would like to deal with for a few minutes this afternoon, Sir, is the development of the coastline, more particularly with regard to our water resources. I make no apology for dealing with our water resources in this House. I believe that the only available free water in any quantity at all is now on the East Coast of Natal, that is including Zululand. Sir, I want to say at once that the planning which has taken place through the medium of the provincial regional planning commission deals with an area from Tongaat in the north down through Durban to as far as Umkomaas in the south. That has been pretty well planned, I understand. A committee was established there some year or so ago, the work has been pretty well done, and the main broad outlines of the plan have been completed. I come back to that in a moment. Outside of that area, the area which in its main principles has been planned, we stand virtually to-day with no facts upon which to try and plan the future. I stress again, and I am going to continue to emphasize that the whole of the development of that area, and I believe the future industrial development of South Africa, will be based upon the water supplies in that area, simply because our industries must have water and our water supplies virtually are committed at the present time apart from those two areas on the North and on the South Coast, water which to-day is not only running to waste, but we also find that our rivers are being sanded up, erosion is taking place at a fantastic rate, and so far as I am able to judge, the difficulty now is a real practical one that the Minister’s planning cannot go over the border into scheduled Native areas. He can exercise all his powers in White areas, in Coloured areas, Indian areas, but he cannot go into the Native areas. So we have got this extraordinary position arising now that rivers that run down through the Native areas, where erosion and sanding up is taking place, the water supply is being drained off and killed at its source before it reaches the areas which are White, Coloured or Asiatic and upon which the whole of our future development must be based. That does not come under the Minister of Planning, it comes under the Minister of Bantu Affairs. It does not even come under the Minister of Water Affairs. Recently I asked the Minister of Bantu Administration whether he would do something to deal with the water supply to the north of the planned area, that is from Tongaat to the Portuguese border. The first thing is to get an assessment of the water, how much water is there, and can one preserve the water that is there? Can one do anything about it? Can we do anything to see that adequate authority is execised in the Bantu areas, on the inland side, the areas from which the rivers spring and sponge and come down to the coast, to see that the fountains and the sponge areas, and not only the sources but the drainage areas, the catchment areas along the rivers are not destroyed as they are being destroyed not year by year, but month by month. When you have a drought such as we have had, and we get any rains before the vegetation starts to grow again, I can tell you the result is simply going to be appaling and millions of tons of soil will be washed away from those bare velds which are now completely eroded as a result of the drought with the plants eaten out by the roots by Bantu cattle, goats and so forth—nothing to stop the whole of that soil being washed down into river beds. This is of vital importance to us, because I repeat that the Bantu areas will now have big Native towns. I have a writing from the Minister’s department that five Native towns to start with are to be established, each one to cater for 30,000 Bantu, to be established on the inside, that is on the west, on the upriver side, on the rivers which come down to the White areas. What hope is there going to be to establish industries on the rivers down there, where, I repeat, you have the only free water that is left in South Africa. When you come down to the Transkei, the rivers are committed to the Government of the Transkei. We can’t deal with those rivers any longer, and it is only those Native rivers running to-day through Natal and Zululand which can provide us with water supplies needed for future industrial development in South Africa. This is not a question or irrigation; it is unsuitable for irrigation, but towns will be springing up there to provide the labour for the industries that are expected to be established along the lower reaches of the river. You can have all the labour in the world and it is no use if there is no water, and those industries will never come to fruition.

I should like to say this to the Minister in regard to the area which is practically planned, i.e. from Tongaat down to the Umkomaas. I speak here for my colleague, the hon member for Umlazi. We were asked a year ago to agree to the proclamation of Amanzimtoti as a White area by the Minister of Community Development. We opposed it at the time because we did not want to have piecemeal planning. In view of the fact that the planning has reached such a stage to-day that the main points have been fixed, we have no objection if the Minister of Planning wants to go to his colleague now and say there is no further objection to it, and I release the Minister of Community Development from the promise he made to me at the end of 1963 which was that he would not indulge in that individual planning any longer. The conditions we wanted to see there have been met and we have no objection whatever if the Minister wants to go ahead with Amanzimtoti, which is within what is now called the Durban complex as far as the development of industries is concerned.

This question then brings to the fore the relationship between the Bantu and ourselves, and that is the second point I want to make this afternoon. I postulate as a cardinal principle of policy in South Africa, irrespective of what government may be in power, that it should be the policy of the Government to see that we do not finish up with an alignment of Whites on one side of the line and the non-Whites on the other side, the Whites confronted by the non-Whites. I cannot conceive of anything more fatal to our future than to have a confrontation of that kind, particularly if the Bantu are not to stand alone but other non-Whites are to be with them. I submit it should be the basic principle of all Government policy to see that we do not finish up confronting one another across a line of hostility. Then what do we do with the Native who to-day is called the “loyal Native”?

What is a loyal Native?

The loyal Native is a man, a Native—I hate this word Bantu, which is the plural; it should be Muntu—who has stood loyally with us and helped us in our commerce and industry and on our farms and in our work, and even in the army in time of war. He has stood by the White man since 1906, at the time of the Bombato Rebellion. From that date onwards we have lived in peace and harmony with these people. We have had no cause for complaint whatever. They are among the most loyal and law-abiding citizens in the whole of South Africa, and they would like to continue so, but what are they faced with to-day? What is the position of the loyal Native to-day who says: I hear the Government wants to compel me to accept Bantu Authorities; I do not want to accept them?

As a matter of fact, he has one already.

There is one in the Transkei, as far as I know, created by an Act of this Parliament. I want to say in passing that that one is held together by White police and White officials and Proclamation 400. Withdraw the White officials and the White police and withdraw Proclamation 400 and the Transkei will not last 12 months. And if hon. members doubt it. let them do just that, or let them have a free election.

Was not the last one free?

Let them have a free election and see how many candidates who support the Government’s policy will be returned. They cannot win any by-elections there. But I am dealing now with Natal and Zululand and I am talking about the loyal Bantu in those areas, who have asked us what they are to do. They say they do not want to go the way of the Transkei; they are used to White magistrates and White police. But what would we do without the Bantu police we have to-day? Where would law and order be in South Africa then? You would not be able to enforce a single law in the Republic if you did not have the Bantu Police Force. So when the time comes, in terms of the Government’s avowed intention, those Native police, no doubt, will be told to return to their homelands. We have been told that in the White areas the Bantu will be told to return to their homelands where they can find their own salvation and enjoy their own rights and privileges, and where they will have their own Government. Is that also the message to the Bantu police? We have police stations to-day in Zululand which are manned entirely by Zulus. There is not a White policeman in those police stations. They will all be citizens of a foreign state. Are we going to man our police stations with foreigners? I have listened to the Prime Minister talking about the need for us to defend our own and how jealous we must be of our own rights, etc., yet the very Government which talks like that will take foreign citizens and put them in charge of our police station. What is going to be the position if we have trouble from the north? Hon. members know what is threatening. If we take our own Bantu policemen and tell them to go back to their homelands, then where are we? Never has it been more clearly shown that the White man and the Black man must work and live in harmony with one joint purpose in view than when we deal with the police. I defy any hon. member opposite to contradict me, because they know it is true. There is not one who will say that those Native policemen must be sent away because they are sojourners here.

What is wrong with the fact that they are here?

They are all tacitly admitting it. I say this is the principle we should aim at, but instead of that the Government’s policy is deliberately driving a wedge between them and ourselves. It is the Government’s policy that all the Bantu are to go back to their homelands. Are they making an exception of the Bantu policeman who must stay here and look after us? We on this side stand for the preservation of White leadership over the whole of the Republic and into that pattern fits the whole of the Bantu population, whether they are working for themselves in their own homelands or whether they are working for us. Wherever they are, they are helping to build up that single economy which is our basic principle. Those Bantu are wanted, but we should make it clear, and I say again that it will be an evil day when the policy of this Government is so far advanced that the Bantu are forced into the position of saving: We are no longer wanted by the White people of South Africa; we are forced to go back to our homelands.

I referred earlier on to the water supply, and I want to come back to it for a moment. What is going to happen to the water supplies on the eastern coast, which all run through Bantu homelands? The Tugela is a magnificent example of it. For more than two-thirds of its length it runs through a Bantu area. Are we in terms of Government policy to hand our water supplies over to independent Bantu states? Where are they striking the most promising signs of oil today? In the Bantu areas. Here again it is the policy of the Government to give free, independent status to those Bantu areas. That is something which will not only wreck the economy of South Africa, but will cause that confrontation I referred to. If all the nations to the north of us could ever pray for the fulfilment of their wildest dreams, it is that the Government of South Africa carries out its policy of creating independent Bantustans. Surely nothing will assist the Afro-Asian nations more than to have that policy carried to fruition. I say it will be completely fatal and that this Government, before it is too late, should retrace its steps and adopt a policy where we will have everybody under White leadership and under a common flag in the Republic of South Africa.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) gave the impression that he was quarrelling with this side of the House about Bantu police and water, but I think the real persons he was quarrelling with were the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the independent who took Umkomaas. I think he just wants to say something to regain the confidence of Natal and, on the other hand, in order to prevent clashing with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, he selects the police and says Government policy should be tested against that.

I want to return to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has said to-day. He said the U.P. did not claim that their policy would satisfy the world outside. When the Leader of the Opposition spoke this afternoon he said: “The outside world trusts us.” He says the outside world trusts them but the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says the U.P. cannot satisfy the outside world. I am not saying they are contradicting each other but it does seem to me as if the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not accepting what the Leader of the Opposition has said. But I take it that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout does not speak with very great authority on behalf of the U.P. in connection with this matter. I am still accepting the words of the Leader of the Opposition that the world outside trusts the U.P. We have discussed this matter on a previous occasion. Who is the outside world to whom the leader is referring? I repeat: Is it the world outside as represented at UNO? Is that the world outside which trusts the U.P.? If not, who is it? If he says it is UNO I want to tell him that the so-called expert committee of UNO has passed a resolution in which they totally reject the policy of the United Party, together with that of the Progressive Party. This world body, vis-à-vis, its committee rejects the policy of the U.P. On what grounds does the Leader of the Opposition say the world outside trusts the U.P.? They persist in these vague statements in order to create the impression in the world that if the U.P. were to come into power it would be accommodating and meet the demands of the world outside otherwise they cannot make this claim. Last year when the Security Council passed a resolution the following was said in the Star —

I now want to know this from the Leader of the Opposition: Is he prepared to change the policy of South Africa in such a way that it will comply with those demands and whether that is the reason why he claims that the world trusts the United Party?

What demands?

The demands of the Security Council. I shall tell him what those demands are and then he can tell me whether he agrees with them. In January 1964 Professor Gwendolen Carter was the main speaker at the congress of the Institute of Race Relations, of which people like the hon. member for Pinetown is a member, a member of the management of the Institute, and this was what she said—

These are the demands that were made, the minimum requirements, because she says they must “at least” consult leaders like Mandela, Luthuli, Sobukwe, UNO and the Committee of Nine at Addis Abeba. I want to know from the United Party whether they are prepared to comply with those requirements? And if not on what grounds do they claim that the world outside trusts them.

History proves that.

On what grounds did the apartheid committee of UNO specifically reject the policy of the United Party? Let the hon. member for Turffontein tell me whether they will satisfy the world outside if they are not prepared to allow the Slovo’s, the Goldreichs and the Solly Sachses to return to South Africa?

That is a ridiculous question.

No, it is not ridiculous to say that the United Party enjoys the confidence of the world provided it is prepared to do these things. I want to quote other things which are tied up with this entire fight against the National Party which have been said by people in South Africa, people like Professor Edgar Brookes of the Natal University who is a former president of the Institute of Race Relations. Last year he said the following at a congress which was held by the World Council of Churches and the Institute of Race Relations at Mindola—

Then he emphasizes the fact that the grounds for force already exist in South Africa and, on the strength of that, he pleads with those foreigners to concern themselves with and to interfere in South Africa. I am waiting for anybody on the Opposition side to say one word against these statements. I go so far as to say that the role the Institute of Race Relations is playing in South Africa is very similar to the role which the Reform Committee played at the end of the last century. It is preparing people in South Africa to resort to force, if not physical then mental force, and I am still waiting for the United Party to dissociate itself from that. But the United Party know that if they dissociate themselves from these utterances against the Government it would be stated publicly: We have no confidence in you. If the United Party claims that the world outside trusts them it is because they have never yet repudiated these people and because they are standing with those people in a long fighting line of opposition against the Government. We are not the only people who say that. The United Party know in their heart of hearts that the road it is travelling is the same road as that travelled by the Progressive Party and the Liberal Party. When we tell them that they will not accept it but I want to read what the Cape Times said in 1962—

I am pointing out that the Progressive Party, in their proposals for a non-racial franchise, do not differ from the Liberals and that the United Party, in its insistence on adequate representation for all our peoples in this Parliament, are not so far removed from the Progressive Party. They are on the same road and what was written in the Cape Times and what I have just said was confirmed by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), who I take it, spoke with authority, when he wrote the following in the Cape Argus in 1962 in connection with this question of the confidence of the world outside—

Hear, hear!

Very well, can the hon. member for Yeoville give me one example of legislation which is unnecessary to maintain Western civilization.

The Church Clause.

I challenge the hon. member to tell me what the Church Clause is?

It empowers the Minister, at the request of certain people, to prohibit people from attending church. [Interjections.]

He knows as he is sitting there that the laws they say they are going to repeal have nothing to do with Western civilization. It has to do with the insistence of the Liberals. They said they would repeal the Group Areas Act and those laws dealing with separate universities, race classification and that they would go into and change the Suppression of Communism Act. Those are the laws they want to repeal, laws that were introduced not to maintain Western civilization, but to ensure the safety of the White man’s position in South Africa, to apply apartheid and to place the non-White nations of South Africa on a basis of independent development. Those are the laws they want to repeal. They want the idea of uni-racialism to be rampant in South Africa as it was rampant in all the old colonial areas. It has nothing to do with Western civilization. As the hon. member for Yeoville rightly says there the United Party believe that they will gain the confidence and approval of the world outside on one condition, namely, if they went in the direct opposite direction to that followed by the National Party; and if they went in the direct opposite direction to that followed by the National Party they have to follow the Progressive Party and the Liberal Party. That is the unavoidable road on which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is dragging the United Party to-day. He cannot get away from that. By saying “we are giving satisfaction to the world; we are instilling the outside world with confidence” he is creating the hope in the minds of the enemies of South Africa in the world outside that the United Party will assist in bringing that about in South Africa which the enemies of South Africa want to have brought about here; that is what he is achieving with that. Mr. Speaker, hope is not something which you merely entertain passively; before long people try to materialize that hope by promoting everything that may make that hope a reality. Judging from utterances here in South Africa and things that are published overseas, one gets the impression that foreign ambassadors and other foreigners here are already in that frame of mind. Some of the utterances by these people very clearly give one the impression that they regard the Opposition as the people who will help them to bring about those changes in South Africa which the enemies of South Africa want; changes that will lead to one man, one vote. If the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to give them the hope that they will get a system of one man, one vote in South Africa he will gain the confidence of those people but in no other way whatsoever. I want to say this very clearly, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the first time the United Party has said that. The Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly soft-soaped our overseas enemies. When he spoke at Windhoek last year he said the following—

I say that is a scandalous remark with due respect to the Leader of the Opposition. That was a scandalous remark unworthy of him, unworthy of this House and unworthy of any Opposition party in South Africa. I reject it with contempt and in rejecting it I accuse the Leader of the Opposition of speaking the langauge of South Africa’s enemies. Because he is prepared to speak the language of South Africa’s enemies he can get up here and say the world outside trusts the United Party. That is the only reason. That shows you what the attitude of the United Party is towards South Africa, Sir. As the hon. the Prime Minister put it to-day the United Party is prepared to crawl before the world outside. They are prepared to say the most insulting things about South Africa, about the Whites in South Africa; they are prepared to crawl in the hope that the world outside will help them to come into power in South Africa.

I am afraid I shall not be able to follow on much my hon. friend who has just sat down has said. By saying that he must not think that I want to slight him. The reason is simply that I want to deal with another matter but before doing so I just want to tell him that this side of the House is as proud of the honour of the South African nation and just as determined in its attitude towards the rest of the world as that side of the House can ever be.

Why do you so often speak with our enemies then?

My hon. friend also asked to which friends we referred when we spoke about “international friends”. We are speaking of those international friends who have traditionally been the friends of South Africa and of the Western way of life in South Africa, countries like America, England, Holland, Germany, France, Australia and Canada, countries which, when we were in power under the late General Smuts and when the non-Whites at UNO also continually attacked South Africa, always stood by South Africa and always voted with South Africa. What we want is that we should act in such a way in South Africa that those people will once again support South Africa. I trust that if the National Party remains in power long enough, they will acquire the necessary wisdom once again to get those countries on the side of South Africa.

I want to discuss a matter to-day which I think we can discuss completely outside party politics. It is nevertheless a very serious matter. As I go along hon. members will realize that this matter I want to submit to the House can influence our future here in South Africa, particularly the future of the White section in South Africa. The sooner we give attention to it the better it will be for our future.

Some time ago we discussed the standard and the use of Afrikaans in this House with reference to a motion by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker). We could, at the time, just as easily have substituted the word “English” for “Afrikaans”, because there is no doubt about it that we shall have to give our serious attention to the teaching of both these languages. I want to discuss this subject in a broader sense to-day and refer to a more serious aspect of it.

Large-scale immigration is to-day the policy of both sides of the House and we are grateful that that is so. We on this side of the House are proud of the fact that, based on conviction and, on the other hand, fortunately, as a result of a recent change of heart, that has already been our policy for years. Be that as it may, we are all convinced to-day that a large-scale movement from the United Kingdom and from the Continent of Europe is the sine quo non for the maintenance of the way of life and leadership of the White man in South Africa, in the Republic and at the southern tip of Africa. Like hon. members on the Government side we on this side of the House are only too conscious of the serious difficulties which accompany large-scale immigration, particularly as far as the problem of adjustment is concerned. That is why I am pleased that the hon. Deputy Minister of Education and the Minister of Planning are here to-day. These problems of adjustment do not only affect the immigrant who comes here; they also affect those old national groups which have been living in South Africa for generations. I do not think there is anybody on either that or this side of the House who will not agree with me when I say that the fact that thousands of immigrants from practically every corner of the world are being thrown together with us here in South Africa will have a serious effect on our way of life. As far as the immigrant is concerned he will have to change his way of life if he wants to be happy in South Africa and if he wants to adapt himself to new circumstances; we for our part will have to make concessions in order to make the immigrant happy in South Africa. But the way of life of the new South African, his approach to life, the way he views world affairs, his approach to culture, his approach to religion and a legion of other matters must surely exercise a great influence in future on the inhabitants of our country itself.

We, and I think hon. members opposite as well, have for a considerable time already been giving our serious attention to this matter, particularly in respect of the future of English and Afrikaans in the new South Africa which we, together with the new South Africans, are building up. The question which arises is this: What must we do or what can we do, for example, to ensure that Afrikaans retains its position alongside English and that the standard of both English and Afrikaans is maintained? Let us be practical and realistic about this matter. The new South African has no or little love for or knowledge of Afrikaans as a language and even if he does not come from an English-speaking country most of them already know a little English or accept English as an international language.

You will be surprised to know how many know Afrikaans.

As a result of this he selects the English-medium schools for the education of his children and I do not hold that against him; it is a right that he exercises but I merely mention it as a fact. It is estimated that in the Transvaal between 60 per cent and 70 per cent of the school-going childen of immigrants, the new South Africans, attend English-medium schools, and in Natal—here I have a telegram before me—practically 100 per cent. I repeat that I do not object to that; it is a right they have to do so.

Under our existing educational system—this brings me to the crux of the matter—under the existing educational system of the Nationalist Party. rightly or wrongly—I am not going to criticize that now: I have already done so in the past—most of the children of our new South Africans do not or will not have the opportunity of making practical acquaintance either with the Afrikaner or with his way of life or with the language and culture of the Afrikaner.

But both languages are taught in the schools.

They are indeed taught Afrikaans and English as subjects at school . . .

As you and I were.

No, not as you and I were.

Of course.

The child of the immigrant does learn Afrikaans as a subject but he acquires no practical knowledge of Afrikaans and Afrikaans, consequently, does not assume any practical value as far as he is concerned. Afrikaans, consequently, remains something foreign to the child of the new South African because when he gets outside the school he once again hears English only, a language which everybody can at least understand and speak. We on this side of the House, as the party which has pre-eminently stood faithfully by the Constitution and the desire to form one nation with two languages and two cultures, on an equal basis, and as our joint property, must give our serious attention to this new trend in the history of the formation of our nation. We simply have to devise ways and means, together with hon. members opposite, of preventing either Afrikaans or English, the two official languages, suffering as a result of our immigration policy or as a result of neglect on the part of the State or neglect on the part of private undertakings.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I therefore want to make a few suggestions for your serious consideration without discussing them in detail.

The attention of this House and that of the electorate must once again be drawn to that unsound policy which leads to the kraaling off of our children in separate kraals, in separate schools where things which are of national importance are practically ignored, and I say this with due respect. In other words, we must once again point out to the people and convince ourselves of the fact that there is only one way in which we can educate our children in South Africa. We must give the old inhabitants and the new South Africans who come here the opportunity of getting together so that they can realize that they ought to stand together as one nation and that, they must become fully bilingual, a pre-requisite which we on this side of the House regard as the corner stone in the building of a nation in the Republic.

If we deny the Afrikaner child—I say this with all the seriousness at my command—and the new South Africans that privilege in school and at university we must not be surprised to find that it will be Afrikaans that will suffer because of the new circumstances that have been brought about by immigration.

That won’t happen.

It is no good telling me it won’t happen. It is something about which you ought to be as concerned as I am. We must once again point out, therefore, that, although the Uniited Party accepts the principle of parental choice and does not want to depart from it, we nevertheless believe that it ought to be possible at the advanced stages to educate all the children of the old inhabitants and of the new South Africans in the dual medium or parallel medium school, thereby ensuring that everybody, including the new South Africans, will develop a state of mind which will lead to it that they will accept both English and Afrikaans as their own. In other words, a real national spirit should be developed in the child at school so that he will have the opportunity of growing up and developing into a South African who regards both languages and both cultures as his own and accepts them as his tradition. This child, imbued with a real South African spirit and outlook will, when he has finished his school career, when he has become a full-fledged citizen of the State, constitute the guarantee that the interests of neither English nor Afrikaans will be neglected. In other words, the future of both Afrikaans and English must be ensured at school. All we have to do is to ensure that Afrikaans, alongside English, becomes the property of the new South African.

Secondly, the political parties must once again, through the medium of the Press and through the medium of this House, make a friendly appeal to all responsible bodies, such as private schools, technical colleges, provincial authorities, business undertakings, etc., to do justice to both official languages. Boycotts or drastic action are unnecessary if we do our duty in this House or as political parties. I have, for instance, noticed at some shows that advertisements appear in one language only. I think that if we as a House of Assembly were to make an appeal to those bodies the matter would be put right.

The parties and the State can make an appeal to all the universities to see to it that justice is done to both Afrikaans and English and that a true South African spirit prevails on all occasions. It must also be accepted policy to give special financial recognition to those universities which specially concentrate on and strive at complete bilingualism, particularly the training of completely bilingual teachers. In order to encourage complete bilingualism we can, as was done in Natal at the time when I was associated with education there— I do not know whether that is still the position to-day—give special recognition in the form of an increase in salary to those teachers who can teach in both languages. That system worked wonderfully well in Natal. I maintain that most of the schools in Natal which followed that system produced the largest number of bilingual citizens and officials in South Africa.

The State can establish organizations. There are hon. members opposite, like the hon. Ministers of Finance and Posts and Telegraphs who, together with me, know something about that. Organizations can be established to promote bilingualism. Those organizations can follow either the parallel medium or the single medium principle. I have experience of that and know that that serves the purpose.

I also refer to the possibility of evening classes for these people. It is no good waiting till the day after to-morrow. These are urgent matters, and we want the new South Africans to grow up into South Africans. The sooner we do it the better. It can, of course, also be done through the medium of the technical colleges. Mr. Speaker, you know the continuation classes as well as I do. They did excellent work in making people fully bilingual. The evening classes and special classes which can be introduced for these people must be financed by the Government. In other words, the Government must carry financial responsibility for it.

The political parties and this House must once again state unequivocally that in all circumstances they will accord the two languages equal rights and that they will maintain that principle. We must give the people a clear lead and tell them that we accept both English and Afrikaans as our own, and that we shall protect both, not only protect but nurture.

I feel I cannot conclude without making a further suggestion. That is why I am pleased that the hon. Deputy Minister of Education and some of the other Ministers are present. I want to suggest that we should even go further than I have just suggested. I am convinced that, had this side sat on that side, knowing what can happen as a result of the thousands of people who are flocking here from all parts of the world, people who are not all coming to South Africa from related countries, would already have made a start to try to canalize the problems and to solve them by establishing a portfolio of Cultural Affairs. In view of the many thousands of people flocking to South Africa, I think it is absolutely essential that we start thinking along different lines from the lines along which we have been thinking in the past. What I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is nothing new. It is something which is known in the world. My hon. friends opposite will know that in France, for example, they have a Minister of Cultural Affairs who has done excellent work. The sooner we establish such a ministry in this country, in the new circumstances, the better. It can perhaps fall under the Minister of Education. But no matter how it is organized, we must call into being a portfolio which will give attention to these new problems. If we do that, a third language movement or boycott movements will not be necessary. I know what I am talking about when I refer to language movements. I was concerned with them for years, and I do not want a repetition of that bitterness, that disunity and that struggle. To prevent a repetition of that struggle in South Africa, I make an urgent appeal to the Government to devise plans, to evolve a system, whereby we shall not only make the people who come to South Africa happy, but whereby we shall prevent their presence here creating a situation in which we shall again taste the bitter fruits we tasted in the past. The responsibility rests on the shoulders of my hon. friends over there and, if you do not assume that responsibility, you must not, at a later stage, say that either Afrikaans or English has suffered or that, as I heard it said outside this House when the United Party was in power: “You are bringing these people in to overwhelm and to plough the Afrikaner under.”

Those are your words.

No, they are not my words; they come from that side.

They come from Deneys Reitz.

I said that, if we did the right thing, which I am again suggesting to-day, Afrikaans would never be ploughed under. The only way in which to prevent it is not to keep our children in separate camps, but to throw them together from a tender age, so that they will grow up in the knowledge that Afrikaans and English belong to them, that it is their property which they must love, and which, as I have already said, they must nurture. It is for that reason that I am pleased that I have had the opportunity, at this late hour, of making this suggestion.

May I ask the hon. member what he wrote about mother-tongue education years ago?

But the hon. member was principal of a school. Surely in a parallel-medium school you can always use the mother-tongue as a means of instruction. When did I say that that should not happen?

Read what you wrote.

What I wrote was that the child should be taught in its mother-tongue in the lower standards; but surely he can also get that in the parallel-medium school and, when he reaches the advanced classes, he will be capable of receiving his education in both languages. Ask Greytown and Ladysmith in Natal what benefit they have gained from dual-medium classes, the dual-medium school system? That is what I am pleading for. Then we need not be afraid of either Afrikaans or English suffering.

I merely rise to express my appreciation to Mr. A. J. Botes, the Postmaster-General, who will terminate his term of office in the Post Office later this year, in order to take over the control of another undertaking which is of great importance to South Africa.

Mr. Botes entered the service of the Post Office on 1 February 1920, and was appointed Postmaster-General in 1958, after a wonderful career. During that time he has served with great distinction, not only the Post Office, but our country and the Public Service as a whole in various fields and in various capacities.

During the term of office of Mr. Botes the Post Office went through a period of great development. Under his efficient guidance a great variety of important projects were successfully concluded, such as the large-scale automization of the telephone service, the automization of the telegraph service, the development of micro-wave communication, the expansion of the tele-communication services between the Republic and the world outside, getting greater independence for the Post Office as far as its staff, its transport, its finance, its buildings are concerned, and in connection with the initial arrangements for the proposed under-water cable to Europe, which will also link up with other world systems.

During his 45 years of service, Mr. Botes has distinguished himself as a conscientious official who has at all times performed his duty with untiring zeal and perseverance. He can look back proudly to-day to many milestones in his career. I want to assure him of our sincere appreciation of the outstanding service he has rendered South Africa.

I also want to avail myself of this opportunity of wishing Mr. Botes everything of the best in his new undertaking. He has been appointed Chairman and chief executive officer of the South Atlantic Cable Company, which has been established as a private company by the Industrial Development Corporation to undertake the task of laying and operating the under-water cable to Europe.

As far as this project is concerned, I just want to mention that, in order to benefit from the experience and knowledge gained by vested interests for the efficient working and operation of the cable, it has been decided to allocate a not-inconsiderable number of capital shares to world-known overseas undertakings. It is estimated that the South African cable will come into operation towards the middle of 1968. It will provide South Africa with a high quality telephone and telex-communication service to all countries in Europe and in other parts of the world. The most modern technical developments will be followed, and it will have a greater carrying capacity than any existing under-water cable in the world. Most of the channels will be let to the South African Post Office, but it is also the intention to co-operate with other cable companies so as to utilize the cable to its maximum capacity.

The South Atlantic Cable Company is at the moment considering entering agreements regarding the surveying of the route of the cable, its manufacture and its laying. The total costs will be determined by these calculations and agreements, but the costs are expected to be approximately R50,000,000, as I have already said.

First of all may I, on behalf of this side of the House, associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and say that we appreciate the services rendered to the country by Mr. Botes. We have always found him a very approachable man, the right man in the right job, and we wish him every success. I agree heartily with what the hon. Minister has said in regard to his record and we identify ourselves with the tribute he has paid Mr. Botes this afternoon.

This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, we listened once more to a dissertation by the hon. the Prime Minister in which he devoted a large part of his time to looking into the future in regard to this country and also in examining the past in regard to politics and the attitudes of the parties, who participate in the political life of the Republic. He gave a considerable amount of his time to the Coloured people, and once more, to my great regret and sorrow, he has endorsed what he has said before, namely, that a Coloured person is a second-class citizen, will always be a second-class citizen and never can expect to be anything else than a second-class citizen. Mr. Speaker, I deplore that attitude on behalf of the Coloured community and say that there is nothing that causes the Coloured man more distress and there is nothing that depresses him more and saddens him more than that attitude—that he and his children have nothing to look forward to except to be second-class citizens in the country of their birth. They belong here, they are with us, and unlike other groups they have no homelands; they are with us here, mainly in the Western Province, their lives are entwined with ours, they are bound up with us, they are integrated with us. When I listened to hon. members speaking on the other side about integration, one would think that this was going to be something new, something that might happen next week, that we suddenly would begin to integrate, whereas the whole backbone, the sinews of our industry, all industries in this country depend entirely on the labour and the sweat of the Black man and the Coloured man. I am speaking now particularly on behalf of the Coloured man. The Coloured man is indispensable, because if he were not with us, and his services were not available to us, this country could never enjoy the development of which we hear so much, and in which he shares so little. He gets very little. Hon. members on that side of the House have referred to the Coloured man in disparaging terms. I think it will be opportune and fitting this afternoon if I were to say what his aims and ambitions are. I want to ask this House to look into the future through the eyes of the Coloured man and I want hon. members to ask themselves what they, if they were Coloured, would expect to receive in this country, the land of their birth, from the people here, who are set over them by the Government. Let me say that the Coloured man expects a fair share of the country’s wealth and opportunities, with adequate wages. He expects an education, not in any way inferior to that offered to any other group of persons. He expects access to universities whose degrees will be recognized throughout the world. He rejects job reservation completely and he can never accept it. He is quite prepared to take his place at any bench and in any trade, profession, calling or industry on his merits, and to earn what should be paid to him, and would be paid to him, if we would only treat him fairly. If we treat him fairly, we need not fear his competition. He is a good worker, he is industrious and he could be, if taught correctly, very thrifty. Lastly, although he has no say, or very little say, in connection with the establishment of group areas under the camouflaged name to-day of “planning”, let me place it on record that he rejects the compulsion in the whole scheme. He knows quite well, that there is not very much he can do about it, but the fact remains that he rejects it. I go further and say this: The hon. the Prime Minister, in the sort of Utopia that he sketched to-day, said that there would come a time when the Coloured community would have their own Prime Minister, who would come and sit at his desk and would talk to him about the problems of the Coloured community. I cannot understand how in this modern age we can have such wishful thinking, when we are dealing with practical people, human beings, because if that is carried to its logical conclusion, the Prime Minister with his independent Bantustans, seven in number, and with an Indian Council and its prime minister, and a Coloured prime minister, plus himself is going to be a sort of South African Republic Commonwealth of Groups. What a silly and extremely dangerous proposition. I believe that the time has come that the image we heard so much about to-day of the Nationalist Party being broken down, should be examined, because I believe that the image that the Nationalist Party has created for itself, and as it appears to the outside world, as well as in this country, is one of arrogance and intolerance and of pride. Those three things are bad and evil. The time has come for a change in thinking. Although I speak for a group which is in a minority, and whose representatives are few in number, I do appeal to hon. members in the majority party to realize that the time for playing the fool with people is over, and that they must realize that our best allies, our best friends, are within our own borders and that the Coloured Community is the biggest asset we have—one that could be, and wants to be, and has always been our staunchest friend. On their behalf I make an appeal, hoping that some, on that side of the House, will realize the wisdom of what I am saying and the folly of what the Government is doing.

We talk about friends in the outside world and we do our best to offend them. I do not want to traverse that ground. We have had far too many tragic examples, where our image as a country has been tarnished, where our reputation has been brought into disrepute, by the actions of members of the Government and not by the words of any other persons within our boundaries. It is a strange thing, Mr. Speaker, that we are falling out with the Americans, we are falling out with Britain, with Holland. I heard a very apt remark only this afternoon, that we are not only losing our friends, we are losing our ancestors.

Mr. Speaker, the question of gaining friends is, I think, a process which should be started right here in this country. I believe that the way the Government is going along, frightening people into believing that the National Party is the only party that can do anything, is fatal and extremely dangerous. We get talk about “White South Africa” and when we ask “Where are the boundaries?” so that we can put up the wheels and start shooting through the .spokes, nobody knows. I say in all sincerity, that the time is long overdue when we ought to take stock of ourselves, because I believe that unless we do that, we are heading for disaster. We have had various debates in this House during this Session. I just want to list one or two things which injure and hurt the Coloured community and in which Government speakers take such pride. Who has discriminated against the Coloured community? None other than the Government itself. They have taken away his home at a price which does not give him good value; they have kept them out of jobs, thrown them out of cinemas and theatres; they have even excluded them from football grounds and sporting tracks and city halls and buses and trams and beaches. Then we are told that these people can develop, as the Minister of Coloured Affairs said, and that the sky is the limit within their own sphere, the point is that he does not see the sky; he sees black clouds. That kind of talk means nothing; it is merely sweet words. It is my privilege to visit every town in the platteland with a Coloured community. One only has to see the conditions to realize, that those people, if they are expected to develop among themselves with the sky as the limit, cannot do the impossible. What do we do? We chase them out of the business areas of all the towns. He is not permitted to trade there. He must confine himself to trading in his own area. He has to compete in his little retail store, which is the only one he can conduct, with the big chain stores with White capital. The big White trader in the urban area has customers, Whites, Blacks, Coloureds and Indians and Yellow people, but the Coloured man’s sphere is restricted, yet hon. members opposite try to tell him that the sky is the limit. And if he happens to be a professional man, he cannot have his office or his surgery in the White area and he may not work in hospitals, unless the facilities are there for his own particular group, and that only applies to one or two cities in the country, so there he is limited again and he is discriminated against. How can we expect these people to be happy and satisfied, when everything we do is in the nature of an insult and we treat them as inferior people? I say quite frankly that in the hard life of politics we should at least remember that they have feelings and ambitions and families and problems the same as you and I have. I believe that the only answer in this country to the problems with which we are faced, is to treat these people as people, and to take heed of what the Leader of the Opposititon has said, from time to time, and to realize that unless we get together and talk to these people and consult with them, we will get nowhere. I wonder how many hon. members realize what it means to a Coloured man who applies for a passport and it is refused, and he is compelled to wait for weeks and months with no answer, and eventually when the answer does come he is still refused and he goes on appeal and it is still refused, and when one inquires whether or not it was refused for security reasons the answer is no. So what other reason can there be for refusing a passport to a Coloured man to go overseas on a holiday or even to take a course at a university ? There are many of them. Why do we do these things? Is that the way to make friends? I want to say that the Government is rapidly losing the goodwill of the Coloured people, which is there in abundance; it is there for the asking and would be given freely if we would just treat them a little differently. I believe that the future of this country will be best in the hands of the Opposition and not of the Government, because as the years have gone by we have had nothing but law following upon law, like a man with an unsafe wall around a dam. plastering cracks. One day the whole thing will collapse. We have had an experience last week where legislation was again introduced to try and deal with circumstances which had arisen and which I do not wish to discuss now. Decisions have been taken. But what is the necessity? Why do we have to have this enormous Defence Force? Why this great emphasis on the need for Police? Why do people need all this care and attention? Why must we have all these security measures? Surely there must be something wrong in the system if the people in the country are susceptible to influences which we all agree should be suppressed. I believe the remedy is not in the provision of more laws. The remedy is in a different approach. I want to repeat what I said earlier in a similar debate. I say to the Prime Minister that the time has come, and it is long overdue, and I think a large number of people in this country expect it, that he should accept with good grace the fact that his policy has failed, because his policy has failed. The fact that White people are voting more and more for the Nationalists is proof positive that his policy has failed; because the only way the Government can exist is to frighten the White voters into their camp. But, I believe the day is not far distant when all those thousands of people, who are not sharing in the prosperity, will sweep the Government out. The Government can never maintain itself on the type of legislation which is suppression. I see the Minister of Coloured Affairs is in the House. I will conclude my speech by addressing my last remarks to him.

The Minister of Coloured Affairs is trying in his own way to exclude Coloured people from the political life of the country. Whether he succeeds or not time will tell, but the fact remains that the time will come when the White people in this country will realize the gross injustice and the unfairness with which the Minister is treating the political life of the Coloured community, trying to dictate to them what they should do and whom they should vote for, and how they should go about things. I say to him in conclusion, that he just dare not let any of these elected persons on his Councils fight an election and put Nationalist candidates in the field to sponsor and support Government policy, because they will be wiped out; annihilated.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) is the member who made the interjection “Why not?” when the Prime Minister said the logical consequence of the policy of the United Party was complete integration. This speech he has just made is the logical continuation of his interjection. I take it from what he has said that it is the policy of the United Party to make the Coloureds equal citizens of the State in every respect and that according to the policy they have expounded here there will be no discrimination in any respect. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition shakes his head. Am I then to accept that the hon. the leader repudiates what the hon. member has just said? Now he does not shake his head, neither up or down, nor from side to side !

In the few minutes at my disposal I want to deal with a few of the specific points that have been raised. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) said that on the Loan Account for 1965/6 an additional amount of R 14,000,000 is being spent, over and above what was mentioned in the Budget speech. But of course. The whole object of the Additional Estimates is to incorporate the Budget proposals, and the matters mentioned there, comprising this amount of R 14,000,000, are e.g. the R9,000,000 which we said in the Budget speech must be voted for the International Monetary Fund. There is also the R 1,000,000 which we said had to go to the Hotel Board. There is the Rl,000,000 which we said had to go to the Transkei Development Corporation. All these matters have been mentioned in the Budget speech and in the accompanying legislation. That is the whole object of the Additional Estimates. And then the hon. member made a second surprising discovery. He says it is wonderful that we now have expenditure amounting to an extra R 14,000,000, and that it just so happens that the revenue according to the latest Estimates is also R14,000,000 more, and he now sees a connection between these two things. But the revenue indicated in my Budget speech was the revenue estimated on the basis of the present taxation. The hon. member has obviously forgotten that a tax was imposed on companies, and it is that taxation which is now included in these new Revenue Estimates. Again it is just a logical consequence of what I said in the Budget speech and what has since been accepted by this House. There is nothing sinister or peculiar in the whole matter.

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hope-well) wanted to know what the surplus was for 1964-5. Final figures are not available yet and the latest Estimate we have is R 143,000,000. That means that it is R13,000,000 more than the figure mentioned in the Budget speech, because we then by way of virement provided R20,000,000 for the Special Defence Equipment Account, which we were not supposed to do and which we have now remedied in the Finance Bill.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned I was dealing with a few specific points which had been raised during the course of the debate. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hope-well) put certain questions to me in regard to the Schumann Report. I have already said on a previous occasion that this is a very comprehensive report, that it affects various Departments, that I have referred the matter to various Departments, and that they will in the course of time inform me what attitude they adopt towards this report and its recommendations. Thereafter the Government will probably issue a White Paper in which it will indicate what it is prepared to do and in what respects it cannot accept this report.

In regard to the surplus of R 13,000,000, I want to repeat that this amount will be transferred to the Taxation Reserve Account.

Now I want to deal with the criticism voiced in regard to the financial position. Sir, I think I am stating the position correctly when I say that the criticism expressed here has come as the result of the prosperity we experienced in the Republic. It is a wonderful history of prosperity. Nobody—and I include the professional prophets—would ever have thought that during the past year we would have been able to have an increase of over 10 per cent in our gross national product. And what is so noteworthy is the fact that we had this prosperity not as the result of any foreign stimulus, either by way of capital or by way of devaluation. What has also struck me is that this prosperity went hand in hand with a very high measure of price stability. It resulted in this country experiencing “actual” prosperity. We did not only have this prosperity on paper; the prosperity was not only on paper. I do not think we have always realized how great this prosperity has been. It is natural that prosperity of such a nature should have an influence on the whole of the national economy. The economy can only absorb a certain degree of prosperity, and if the prosperity goes over that mark difficulty is experienced either in regard to capital or in regard to labour or in connection with the balance of payments. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and a few other hon. members asked what steps the Government had actually taken in respect of the manpower shortage. But I wonder whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition "has ever considered that if we had unlimited manpower we would have landed in balance of payments difficulties earlier? Sir, the manpower shortage in fact acted as the automatic brake.

But surely you planned this prosperity?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition should rather talk about matters he knows something about.

How little you know!

That point has already been emphasized by the Stellenbosch Bureau. The Bureau said that the labour shortage was an automatic brake on prosperity which is so great that the country really cannot absorb it. And now we realize that it was a blessing in disguise, because if this shortage had not been experienced I am convinced our balance of payments difficulties would have been much greater to-day. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition again in all seriousness rather to talk about something he knows something about, because judging by his interjection he does not know much about this subject. To come back, I say it is surprising that we experienced this flood of prosperity under those circumstances. It is in fact an achievement by our South African economy that in spite of unfavourable factors it could develop so soundly. I shall revert in a moment to the balance of payments and its effect on our reserves.

I think the hon. member for Constantia was very ill-advised to compare the taxation relief in this country with that in the U.S.A. One of the respects in which taxation was alleviated in the U.S.A. has reference to their corporation tax. That relief was designed to reduce their corporation tax from 52 per cent to 48 per cent over a number of years. What is the position in South Africa? Here the companies’ tax is only 30 per cent, which was increased to 3H per cent this year. The two are simply not comparable. If a country has such high taxation, it is, of course, desirable to grant relief. But in view of the fact that we in South Africa are in this fortunate position, a position which has been maintained notwithstanding the prosperity experienced in the country, this is no less than a great achievement.

A few other hon. members spoke about bank credit for farmers. Well, to some extent I anticipated what they said. Evidently they did not pay much attention to my introductory remarks in regard to the whole question of credit. Divergent opinions were expressed here. Some hon. members opposite said that my credit-restricting measures were too strict. Other hon. members again accused me of having taken the necessary steps too late. They said that I should have acted earlier. They intimated that I should have adopted these drastic measures—and they are not so very drastic either—earlier. As I have said, I already explained the position in respect of bank credit to farmers. We envisage no curtailment of bank credit for farmers. All we desire is a more moderate expansion of credit. We do not want this extravagant credit we have had during the past few months because these extraordinary credit facilities resulted in our experiencing balance of payments difficulties. I said that we should have a selective application by the banks of the credit restrictions we imposed, and they received such instructions from me. Under no circumstances must credit be given for the purchasing of consumers’ goods or for speculative purposes. We said, however, that credit should be granted for production purposes, particularly where it did not create import problems and where it is designed to increase the exports of the country. The hon. member for East London (North) complained because farmers had landed in trouble and could not get credit through the usual channels. Well, in this Budget provision was also made for those farmers. An amount of R 15,000,000 was made available to them under various Votes to enable them to obtain credit, credit which they could not receive from the banks. That amount was divided, inter alia, among State Advances, the Department of Lands, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, the Department of Water Affairs and also the boring services Loan Estimates. A total amount of R 15,000,000 was set aside to be used to rehabilitate farmers who were not creditworthy enough to be granted credit through the ordinary channels.

Criticism was also voiced here to the effect that not everybody has shared in the prosperity. Inter alia, it was alleged that salary and wage earners do not share in the prosperity. Well, I just want to refer to figures which my colleague, the Minister of Economic Affairs gave earlier this Session. Those figures indicate what adaptations have been made in respect of salaries in the Public Service and elsewhere during recent years. But apart from increased salaries, there were also appreciable improvements in respect of the conditions of work of public servants and other wage earners. What some hon. members lose sight of is the fact that due to this prosperity the unemployment figure also decreased appreciably. In fact, this figure decreased to such an extent that we are to-day really experiencing a labour shortage. The number of unemployed has shrunk to a minimum. Due to the labour shortage, wages have gradually increased because employers compete with one another for the limited number of workers. That automatically leads to an increase in wages. Consequently I do not think there are many people with knowledge of this matter who will say to-day that salary and wage earners have not shared in the prosperity also.

It was also alleged here that our farmers did not share in the prosperity. I should like to refer hon. members to an article written by Dr. Nel published in Agricon, the quarterly issued by the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. It is a scientific article. The data in it are not based on wild allegations such as were made by hon. members opposite. Dr. Nel is at present employed in the Treasury and he has made a study of the whole subject. The title of his article is “Die Landbousektor se Deelname in die Suid-Afrikaanse Ekonomiese Groei en Welvaart”. This is a documented article and in it Dr. Nel comes to the following conclusion on the basis of official figures he obtained from the Bureau of Census and Statistics (translation)—

I put this opinion, a scientific opinion, one which is based on figures, against the wild allegations made by hon. members of the Opposition.

It was also alleged that the poor man has not shared in the prosperity. It is true that I did not hear much said on this subject in this debate, but it has been mentioned from time to time that the pensioners did not share in the prosperity. I have figures here which compare the per capita real increase in the income of pensioners and the per capita real national income. I find that between 1947-8 to 1962-3 the real pension of old-age pensioners increased from R169 to R288. That is an average annual increase of 3.6 per cent. In the same period the real per capita income at real prices increased from R222 to R305, which represents an annual increase of 2.1 per cent. Hon. members will therefore note that increased pensions over these 17 years more than kept pace with the average increase in the national income as a whole. That includes everybody—men, women and children. I am therefore convinced that this part of the amendment moved by the Opposition has no ground to rest on at all.

I now want to deal with another point which was also mentioned here and which was particularly emphasized by the hon. member for Constantia. He alleged that the position in which we find ourselves to-day is the result of too much spending on the part of the State. Well, I want to remind hon. members that when the economy was sluggish, the State jumped in and started large State works. The hon. the Leader spoke about “stop-and-go”, but a large State work cannot be stopped forthwith. It must run its course. It was therefore not possible suddenly to stop works which had been commenced since 1961. I have already pointed out that the Government has pruned to the bone. The Cabinet has pruned requests by the various Departments by as much as R93,000,000. Nevertheless, the hon. member said expenditure is too high.

He referred to a few instances in this regard, in particular. He referred, for example, to the expenditure incurred by the Defence Department. I now want to ask the hon. member in all seriousness: Does he want us to reduce our expenditure in this regard? Are we to reduce it in spite of all the threats being made against South Africa? Is it not absolutely necessary for South Africa to be armed to the teeth so as to be able to ward off any possible aggression? In the final result that is surely the best guarantee for peace. A strong, well-armed, prepared Defence Force is the best way of avoiding attacks being made against us. That is why we gave the highest priority to it.

The hon. member spoke about self-sufficiency. Again I ask him whether we should have stopped our efforts to have the largest possible measure of self-sufficiency in South Africa, particularly in view of the threats of boycotts and sanctions against the Republic? Surely we could not do so. The Government had to take the lead—strongly supported by private industry—in strengthening our position, and I do not think anyone, including hon. members of the Opposition, will expect to-day that we should negative the good work we have done in this respect.

Then there is the infrastructure on which the whole of the economic progress must rest. There is a backlog in the infrastructure as the result of the tremendous development in our economy. We find it, inter alia, in transport and communications. Those have not kept pace with the tremendous development in the country. Fortunately we have now been granted a pause, an opportunity to strengthen the infrastructure which is vitally important to the further development of our economy. When we were discussing the Estimates of Expenditure, the hon. member had the opportunity of saying that he was opposed to these things, but he did not make use of that opportunity. Therefore I shallenge him or any other hon. member who is still going to speak to say which of these items of State expenditure on the Loan Account should be curtailed. Let any hon. member opposite tell us that, and we will know what reply to give him.

Hon. members have not assisted us much in regard to the problems which they say have arisen. What little criticism there was not constructive. If the Government had done what the hon. members of the Opposition said last year we should do and what they again said we should do this year, we would have experienced a balance of payments crisis long ago. Last year, for example, they asked that we should inject an additional R50,000,000 to strengthen the purchasing power of the public. This year, when we were in Committee of Ways and Means in regard to the income tax proposals, they again asked us to inject R22,500,000 to be spent by the public. Sir, you can imagine how serious the difficulties we are already facing to-day in regard to our balance of payments would have been if we had accepted the advice of hon. members opposite.

Now they say that the State should enter into a salary and wage war with the private sector. What will be the effect of that? Surely we cannot compete with the private sector in that regard. No Government has yet been able to afford it. In so far as salaries and wages are concerned, the Prime Minister stated the position very clearly and therefore it is not necessary for me to go into the matter any further. Adaptations are continuously being made. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has already indicated what improvements in conditions of service have been made during recent years. This process has not been stopped but is still continuing. What we object to is the idea that the Government should now enter into a fight with the private sector in regard to salaries and wages. Where wage increases can be justified, the Government will not be loth to grant them, either in the form of higher salaries or in the form of improved conditions of service.

These now are the matters in regard to which criticism has been voiced by hon. members opposite, but I am afraid that their criticism has not assisted us much. If I had followed their advice, they would have helped me from the frying-pan into the fire.

There is a further point of general criticism which was raised by various members opposite, like the hon. members for Pinetown, Constantia, and Port Elizabeth (South). They alleged that my anticipation and timing in regard to the wave of prosperity was very poor indeed and that this was the main reason for the inflationary conditions we are experiencing at the moment and which are affecting the ordinary man so seriously. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman), for example, said that timeous steps had not been taken to combat the inflation. But at the same time he spoke about the “strangulation of business” by the steps now being taken! I do not see how he can bring these two statements into line. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) again spoke about the “credit curb”, which according to him was applied too late. Evidently hon. members are not aware of the fact that already in November 1963 I made a speech warning against inflation. At that time already I pointed out that after the encouragement we had given to the economy of the country we had reached the stage where we should take our foot off the accelerator although we need not apply the brakes yet. I said that the development was too fast. I said that in November 1963 already. And the outstanding characteristic of my Budget in 1964 was that the emphasis had shifted away from stimulation; the object was to keep matters more neutral.

But what did the Opposition do in 1964? Those people who now allege that I did not take steps timeously pleaded in 1964 for additional expenditure on social services, for increased food subsidies, for taxation concessions, etc., expenditure which altogether would have amounted to approximately R50,000,000. They are now the people who accuse me today of not having foreseen these difficulties. But the Lord help us if I had acceded to the requests of the Opposition at that time!

But it is not only in the sphere of fiscal policy that we mark time. The Reserve Bank also instituted monetary measures, and not in March of this year for the first time as the hon. member seems to allege. If he looks at the quarterly publication issued by the Bank in December last year he will see that steps were taken last year already. The screw was gradually tightened and in March this year we took the latest steps. The whole object of my Budget this year was to curb the inflationary tendencies without unnecessarily hampering the economy.

The Government was therefore at all times in close touch with our economy and it is difficult to see what more it could have done to combat inflation. Sir, you must remember that in our economy private initiative plays the main role, and because that is so there will always be fluctuations. In addition, the Government will not be able to eliminate these fluctuations without interfering with the economy to a greater extent. The task of the Government should be to guide the development of the economy into the right direction. Therefore in 1961 and in 1962-3 we tried to stimulate the economy, which was then sluggish. That is why in 1964 we adopted measures to mark time, and in 1965 we have tried to apply the brake a little. It is not a question of “stop-go”, as the Leader of the Opposition alleges, because it was particularly in order to avoid something like that that these measures were adopted. It was in order to avoid it that these fiscal and monetary measures were adopted from time to time—in the beginning to stimulate our economy and later to apply the brake to some extent.

I think I have now dealt with the main points of general criticism. There are, however, still a few matters which should be mentioned. The hon. member for East London (City) showed that he had not time for the credit restrictions which were instituted. The hon. member for Pinetown, on the other hand, says that I was tardy in applying these restrictions. As against that, the hon. member for East London (City) says that I should not have applied them at all. He suggested another plan, namely that luxury articles should be prevented from entering the country. He was not being original; we thought of that ourselves. Do you know what the position is, Sir? If we had prohibited all luxury articles from entering the country, that would only have been 1 per cent of our imports. It would have had no real effect. It would have spoilt our image overseas economically, and we rejected that proposal. Now I can also tell the hon. member that on many of these luxury articles he mentioned, like expensive motor cars, we get up to 100 per cent. I read in the Press the other day of a motor-car costing R24,000 which had been imported. I then asked the Secretary for Customs and Excise how much he had collected on it, and he told me it w?,s R12,000! I may tell the hon. member that we are considering further increases in the tariffs on luxury articles, but it will have no effect on this large deficit we have, because it is less than 1 per cent.

Now I just want to say something about what I think is almost the greatest achievement of our economy, in regard to our reserves. I know there is some anxiety. The hon. member for Pinetown asked me how low our reserves would fall. That is, of course, a question to which nobody can give a reply. But I want to tell him that the reserves are not an ornament one keeps in a display cabinet; they are there to be used. It is something which is there to be used when one is in temporary difficulties. I can also tell the hon. member that our balance of payments was attacked from two sides this year. On the one hand it was affected by the extraordinary increase in imports. In 1964 the imports were 50 per cent higher than they were in 1962. That means that the increase in imports over this period of two years amounted to R546,000,000. That, of course, imposed a burden on our reserves. In 1964 alone it was R293,000,000 more than in the previous year. What is the reason for these high imports? It is due largely to the importation of capital goods which are required for the development of our economy. They cannot bear fruit immediately. It is an investment for the future, and therefore we should be able to pay for them, and that is why one has reserves. This year we expect that our steel imports alone will amount to over R61,000,000. But we were also attacked from the other side, namely by the drought. I do not know whether hon. members realize the effect of the drought on our reserves and our balance of payments. If we had exported the maize this year which we expected we would—it was approximately 30,000,000 bags in January this year—we would have had R80,000,000 more in our current account to our credit, and our reserves would have increased by R80,000,000. We lost that as the result of the adverse climatic conditions. Our wool cheque this year was R28,000,000 less than the previous season. It is not only that we were able to export less, but as the result of the drought we also had to import more. During this season, for example, we had to import dairy products to an amount of R8,500,000. In the case of sugar, which we generally export, we shall probably have to import about R7,000,000’s worth in 1965-6. You can therefore see, Sir, under what tremendous pressure our reserves were as the result of these things. We can do very little in respect of the drought this year, but we can in fact take steps against excessive imports, and we have already taken those steps.

In regard to the exports of primary products, I hope that the position will be better next year. I think, however, that we can all be proud of the fact that under these circumstances our reserves are still as high as they are. There was the double strain of the drought and the increased imports. I may tell hon. members that there is no reason for concern. Our reserves are not the only needs at our disposal. There are foreign loans, which we have not drawn yet, amounting to over R20,000,000. That is on our revolving credit. Then there is still, I think, another R5,000,000. Other foreign loans are envisaged. These must all be added here. Many countries add their gold drawings from the International Monetary Fund to their reserve. We have a gold drawing there of approximately R27,000,000, and after we pay this R9,000,000 shown in the Estimates it will be R35,000,000. I therefore do not think that there is any reason for concern. There is only reason to be grateful because of the fact that in spite of this double strain on our reserves, they are still what they are.

Then I just want to say a word to my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition. He devoted the first quarter of an hour of his speech to revealing the sins of the Government. Somebody has calculated that in his speech of about an hour he dealt with 26 subjects. That means approximately two minutes per subject! Hon. members can judge of his superficiality by these figures. How can a person make a point in two minutes? He is like the hit-and-run motorist. He hits a man and just drives on. Before one can take his number he has already hit the next man. I just want to tell the hon. member that if the Government is really as bad as he pretends, the Opposition must be really deplorable because in all these years they have steadily retrogressed as against this poor Government! Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not realize that by belittling the Government he is belittling the Opposition? Even with this poor Government, according to him, the Opposition is still retrogressing. At one stage he became lyrical when he said: “We do not want any interference from outside; we will kick this Government out without interference from outside”. I am afraid. Sir, that South Africa’s enemies have long since given up any hope that the Opposition will oust this Government. I think South Africa’s friends have not even begun to be afraid of it! Those are very brave words, but they are meaningless.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition a little while ago spoke about the image of the United Party. That is quite an interesting subject. He said that it should be changed. I do not know whether it should not be created. When I look at the image of the United Party in the eyes of the ordinary citizen of the country . . .

It is a very good one.

... it seems to me to be so colourless, so formless, so negative. It just is not there. It reminds me of the little boy who had to make a drawing. He then handed in a blank piece of paper. When the teacher asked him where his drawing was, he said: “This is a drawing of an aeroplane out of sight”! I think that what we have here is a policy which is out of sight. If I have to judge by the attempts of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition here to-day and those of the United Party in general, although they have no image, I think .they at least have a slogan, and that slogan which they continually try to implement is not “My country, right or wrong”, but “Seldom my country, right or wrong” in any international matter. The hon. member proved it again this afternoon. The Government is never right; if there is any international situation, he always chooses the other side.

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

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—71: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coertzee. B.; Cruy-wagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; De Vil-liers, J. D.; Dönges, T. E.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Haak, J. F. W.*, Henning, J. M.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter. H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Malan, A. L; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Odell, H. G. O.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; 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.; Steyn, F. S.; Treurnicht. N. F.; Van den Berg, G. P.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.: Van der Ahee, H. H.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Spuy, J. P.; Van der Walt, B. J.; Van Eden, F. J.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.

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

NOES—48: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J, M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; 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: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a second time.