I move—

In moving this motion I would like to say that I have in the past on many occasions given my reasons for having no confidence in the present Government. I believe that most of those reasons are more valid to-day than they ever were, but they have in fact been reinforced by what has happened in recent months and in recent years.

The situation to-day is one in which this Government has been in power for so long that we have reached the stage that they can no longer fall back on the excuse that unhappy situations are due to former governments; they must take full responsibility for the state of affairs in the Republic at the present time. Then, Sir, we approach this coming election with another development, which I think is a healthy one, and that is that this myth of a Cabinet of all the talents has been finally exploded. Nobody knows better than hon. members on the other side that they are approaching this election handicapped by their unpopularity and tarnished reputations of many of the members of their Cabinet.

When I look back over the period during which this Government has been in power, then I think one of the main reasons why I have no confidence in it at all is that it has been so wrong so often about so many things, so palpably wrong, so often that it has often had to retrace its steps and follow policies directly opposite to those which it had followed in the past. Sir, I could give many examples but I know you will remember with what scorn our immigration scheme was treated by that side of the House and you will know, Sir, how they somersaulted on that very policy. You will remember the high-handed manner in which they set aside our plans for developing and expanding the country’s transport system, an essential part in economic development for the country.

But you made that speech last year.

You know, Sir. when a member reaches the stage of childish interjections to which the hon. gentleman over there has sunk, it is difficult to take him seriously. But because of what has happened he has had to spend millions and he has not caught up yet.

He has only got to the Hex River tunnel now.

You will remember, Sir, that 18 years ago we had already started new courses in the field of social security; we had spoken of things like a national pension scheme; we were arranging for free health services; free hospitalization was present in many provinces. Hon. members opposite know to what embarrassments they have been exposed because of the reversal of those policies. You will remember, Sir, their criticism of the Orange River scheme. I remember the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs telling the people of South Africa that they would not go ahead with it, and now they have come not only with that scheme but with an expanded scheme and re-traced their steps once more. Sir, look at the situation in which we find ourselves to-day as a result of the failure to follow our lead in an attempt to improve bilingualism, the command of the second language amongst the various language groups in South Africa. We were experimenting with dual-medium schools and parallel-medium schools; they would have none of it, and to-day the position is that throughout South Africa there is tremendous worry on the part of parents, on the part of the Civil Service itself and on the part of teachers at the extremely low standard of bilingualism existing amongst our matriculation students.

You will remember, Sir, the indications given by hon. members opposite that it was their policy to reduce the number of Bantu in the White areas. They were going to sweep aside all the bad (according to them) United Party plans and they were going to reduce the number of Bantu in the White areas. They have been at it for 17 years. Not only has the number of Bantu in the White urban areas increased faster than the number of Europeans, but in the rural areas the number of Bantu has increased by 1.4 million and the number of Europeans has decreased. Sir, what a difference there is between those days and now. To-day we hear from the hon. the Prime Minister that he is not concerned about their presence or the increase in their numbers in our White areas as it does not amount to an actual violation of their policy. You know, Sir, this comes very near to a confession! I want to encourage the hon. gentleman. Is it not time he took the public into his confidence and told them once and for all that there is no hope now of ever reducing the number of Bantu in the White areas and no hope in the future either if he wants South Africa’s economic development to continue at the sort of tempo we have known in the last ten or 15 years.

Sir, what is happening at the present time? We are dependent for our development on Black labour. The United Party realized that. We planned for a greater South Africa. We realized that the opening of every new factory would mean additional non-White or Bantu labour in the White areas. We realized that we were inter-dependent economically. We realized also that inter-dependence had to be controlled. We had legislation on the Statute Book to control that inter-dependence in the economic sphere, to fill jobs and to prevent the growth of the numbers of vagrants and to establish a stable urban community of Bantu, which we realized was vital for our industries and which we wanted to be law-abiding and on our side in the maintenance of stable conditions in South Africa. Sir, they had other ideas. They said that the presence of these people in our industries was just a temporary phenomenon. In their imagination it was a danger to the future of South Africa. They said that once they had got rid of the United Party plans, of the relics of what we had done, the numbers of these people would be decreased. Well, they have had to swallow their words, every single one of them, in that regard. But they have kept South Africa back while they have been playing about and temporizing with policies which were quite useless to meet the needs of an expanding industrial state in the Southern Hemisphere here in South Africa. These are all cases where it has become absolutely obvious that the statements and the policies of the Government were entirely wrong.

But there is another group of cases where I believe that the policies they followed were just as wrong, but that has not yet become obvious to all the supporters of their party, although it has become obvious in many cases to the thinkers amongst them, and I believe soon it will become obvious to the overwhelming majority of the people of South Africa. I think the first example is the treatment by this Government of the Cape Coloured people, the sorry story of shilly-shallying, of no firm decision or consistency on that side of the House as to what the ultimate place of the Cape Coloured people was going to be amongst the various populations which make up the people of South Africa. We have seen all sorts of changes. One thread has run right through the various changes in their policy, and that is their complete inability to grasp the vital importance from the point of view of the future of South Africa of keeping the Cape Coloured people as a firm ally of the Western group in the Republic. Very few of the Coloured leaders have ever asked for complete equality, social and political. There was a vast group among them who had tremendous goodwill for the White population. There was a vast group amongst them on whom we had become accustomed to rely for support and whom we believed were with us. But what is the position to-day? They are drifting away from us, Sir. The gulf between us is becoming bigger and bigger. Hon. members opposite know it. They are no longer interested in Coloured elections. They have no hope when they put up a candidate. The danger exists that in their frustration they are going to ally themselves with extreme groups, which may be a danger to the stability of South Africa. I know that there are many good Nationalists who realize this already. They realize also that as far as the Prime Minister has a policy in respect of these people, it is motivated by nothing else but culde-sac thinking. No solution, no answer, is given.

I think the second example of policies which are being criticized and are no longer believed in by intellectuals on that side is the emphasis which this Government has placed upon the application of petty apartheid regulations, as opposed to getting down to finding a solution of the problem of human relations with which we are struggling here in the Republic. I do not propose this afternoon to recall the very many embarrassments to which the Government has been exposed as the result, of some of the unbelievable decisions and rulings they have made in that regard, but I do want to remind them of two things. The first one is that nothing has done more to harm South Africa’s good name overseas than the ridiculousnesses and the rulings given in regard to petty apartheid.

The second thing 1 want to remind hon. members opposite of is this. They are not dealing with ciphers; they are dealing with human beings, and the hurt they are creating and the damage they are doing may prove to be irretrievable and be to the incalculable loss of the future of the Republic of South Africa.

I think there is a third example. It is the obstinate refusal of this Government to work for real national unity in South Africa. You and I, Sir, remember the days very well when the Nationalist Party was a very exclusive body. Certain races were not allowed to join them. You and I remember the days, Sir, when they published a “konsepgrondwet” in which they made it quite clear that people who were not members of the “Boerenasie” would have second-class citizenship. [Interjections.] Sir, they do not like hearing about these things, but they are all written in a book. They cannot deny them. [Interjections.]

Order!

To-day there is a change, of course. Now they are paying lip-service to the ideal of national unity. Now we have the hon. the Prime Minister pleading for support from the English-speaking section of the population. Now there are two English-speaking members sitting in his Cabinet. They are the decoy ducks to try and attract the English votes. [Interjections.] We were told that this election was going to show how that support had grown for hon. members opposite. We were told that it was going to be demonstrated by our old friend, the Minister of Information. [Laughter.] He was going to stand in an essentially English-speaking seat and he was going to show the public of South Africa what support the Prime Minister had got from the English-speaking people of South Africa. But then there was a most interesting development, especially when the hon. gentleman was apparently invited by Simonstown and when Wynberg was talked about and also King William’s Town. But where does the hon. member land? The hon. member has come to his senses in the new seat of Caledon. [Laughter.] There sits my old friend the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. J. D. de Villiers). He and I know that seat probably far better than anybody else, and we both know that in that whole seat there are probably not more than 15 per cent of English-speaking names on the voters’ roll. What a wonderful test that is going to be! One wonders why the hon. gentleman did not stay in Vasco. The whole truth of the matter is that when the hon. the Prime Minister talks about national unity and when we talk about national unity, we talk about two different things. When the hon. the Prime Minister talks about national unity he means co-operation on terms, and the terms are full support for the policies of his party. When we talk about national unity we talk about having proper respect for the culture, the language and the history and the background of each language group. We talk about people who respect the cultural possessions “die kultuurgoedere”, of both sections as though they were our own. We talk about people who are South Africans first and party politicians second. That is the difference, Mr. Speaker. We cannot get them to that way of thinking. They have not yet embraced true national unity, and I do not believe they are prepared to do so even at this stage.

Then there is a third reason why I have no confidence in this Government, and that is that they have neglected the interests of large sections of the population in a manner in which no one who has the vital interests of South Africa at heart would have dared to. The first group of people who have been neglected by this Government are the young South Africans of this generation whose education and technical and scientific training have been so grossly neglected by this Government. Sir. ours is a very rich country, a country with a most wonderful opportunity, but it is not so rich that it can afford not to make proper use of the human resources it has at its disposal. If you were business manager of South Africa, Sir, I have no doubt whatever that you would regard it as one of your first duties to see that we had an adequately trained young generation coming to the fore, and that we had an adequately trained labour force in South Africa. The neglect of our educational system and the neglect of technical training have been such that that is not the position at present. The boom has petered out, and undoubtedly one of the reasons why it has petered out has been due to the lack of trained personnel in South Africa. It is not surprising if we realize that, of our young White people between the ages of 17 and 19. 78 per cent do not pass their matriculation examination, and of those who do pass the matriculation examination 50 per cent gets an exemption certificate and not the university entrance examination. Why does it happen? It happens in many cases because the parents cannot afford to keep them at school, and so after matriculation there are many thousands of young people with outstanding intelligence quotients who do not go to the universities because they cannot afford it, who do not go to the technical colleges, in many cases because they do not exist and in other cases again because their parents cannot afford it, due to the smallness of the family budget. These are people who could be the core of our scientific and economic advance in South Africa in the 1960s and 1970s, instead of which, what are they? Bright young misfits in dull, unimportant, routine jobs. [Interjections.] Sir, I would never compliment the hon. gentleman opposite by suggesting that he was a misfit in the back bench of that party. [Laughter.] If the hon. member is referring to his side of the House I would agree with him. Some of the appointments both to the front bench and to the Cabinet have mystified not only me but the entire South Africa. We are missing those opportunities, Sir, because this Government has consistently failed to put first things first. It is not that it has not had the money; It has had the money, our money. There have been Budget surpluses throughout the years. Look at the hon. the Minister of Finance chuckling. He always manages to get Budget surpluses. He has had the money; he has not been short of it. What has happened? Why is it we are landing in the position now where we are losing so many good men to overseas firms? Our universities are not the spearheads of scientific education, as they ought to be.

They are overloaded.

I agree, but whose fault is it? It is the Government’s fault. I go further. This Government has neglected it, and whereas a country like Great Britain is spending 10.6 per cent of its national income on education. South Africa is spending 4.5 per cent. Indeed, the teacher-pupil relationship in South Africa is only half as good as it is in universities in the United Kingdom, and the per capita expenditure on students in South Africa is only half of what it is in the United Kingdom. And let me tell you, Sir, the United Kingdom is worried because of the fact that it is falling behind in the scientific and technical education of its people at present. If they are worried under those circumstances, what is the position in South Africa? The Minister of Economic Affairs addressed engineers at a dinner not long ago and he stressed how tragic it was that there should be a shortage of scientific and technical manpower which he said had an inhibiting effect on the development of our country. This is a most urgent matter, Sir. Where is the urgency on that side of the House? Where are the new technical colleges? Where are the new trade schools and the new opportunities for scientific research? It seems to me that the Government’s whole attitude was summed up by the Secretary for Inland Revenue, who attended an Assocom conference recently. This is what he said to the delegates, that his Department could not support an increase in tax rebates to parents of full-time students. He said the Government was not unmindful of the shortage of trained personnel, but the main function of the Income Tax Act was to provide revenue for the country. That is their attitude, Mr. Speaker. That is their attitude where one-third of the pupils who have passed the University Matriculation Examination in South Africa with first-class passes do not go on to university. One of the leading educationists says it is disturbing to see how many of them have had distinctions in science subjects like mathematics and the other sciences. That. Sir, in the present state and age here in the Republic of South Africa. That is why I say this Government has let the young people of South Africa down. But I go further, because I say it has let the old people down as well. There are two stages in a man’s life that are especially important. I refer namely to the training he receives as a young man, and the security of mind he has in old age. I believe, Sir, this must be one of the only countries in the world where an old age pension is still regarded as a charity and not a right. I believe that a Government that can spend the amount of money that this Government has spent, and still treat our old people in the manner it has done, does not deserve the trust of the public of South Africa. Why have we not got a national contributory pension scheme? We always hear from the hon. the Minister that he cannot afford it.

Health services in South Africa to-day, from the point of view of State aid, are probably worse than they were 18 years ago. There is no free hospitalization. There is no medical aid scheme. There is a crying shortage of nurses. There is an absolutely shocking shortage of hospital accommodation. There is no provision in South Africa yet for family allowances. We have the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development asking the young couples of South Africa to have an extra child to celebrate the Republic.

What is your contribution?

Mr. Speaker, I would never accuse the hon. gentleman of indelicacy. But I must say that, having made the appeal when he did, it seems to me he did not allow adequate time for anyone to make a legitimate contribution. [Laughter.] If one judges from the reception he got through the Press then I can only say, Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear he has misjudged the temper of the people. It is quite clear also that there are far more people interested in family allowances than either he or this Government ever appreciated. Immigration is important, but it is not sufficient. In this country the birth rate amongst the other races is nearly twice as high—in fact, much higher—than the birth rate amongst the Europeans. We find ourselves without family allowances, despite the appeals from this side of the House over the years.

I go further. I say that this Government has let the young people down, it has let the old people down, it has let the family man down, and it is letting the working man down as well, because it has not given him the training to take the new technical and other skilled jobs that are becoming available all over South Africa at the present time. We cannot sustain our prosperity at the present standard because of the shortage of trained personnel.

The hon. the Prime Minister made a confession himself not so long ago at one of his congresses. He said they had neglected scientific education in South Africa because they had been so preoccupied with constitutional affairs. What a confession, Mr. Speaker! What a confession! And now they are having to fall back more and more on a labour group whom the hon. the Prime Minister is very anxious to have declared foreigners. He wants them to be citizens of these foreign Bantustans he is going to create. And because it is against their policy to allow them to do what is called White man’s work, you are getting all sorts of subterfuges to hide the fact that they are doing work which in the past was done by Europeans.

I admire the hon. the Minister of Transport. He has come to an agreement, and he is doing it openly. But in many other areas what is happening? Factories are being removed to the border areas. The non-Europeans are doing White man’s work not subject to the protection of the rate for the job. They are making nonsense of job reservation! The hon. the Minister of Labour knows it. They are making nonsense of the policy of job reservation. Not only are they exposing these non-Europeans to possible exploitation by their employers, but all protection that the European had for his job or his standards is being undermined by the policy that they are following at the present time.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that I can go further this afternoon. I say that we have had no finer example of neglect of the interests of the public generally than the bungling and incompetence with which our economic affairs have been managed during the past year. You will remember, Sir, the solemn and gloomy warnings we had against the dangers of inflation from the hon. the Minister. And look at the blatant and crude inflationary acts we have had from the Government itself. So much so that they are even mentioned in the report of the Governor of the Reserve Bank.

Look at the concern of the hon. gentlemen in respect of the balance of payments position. Look how it has been allowed to balloon in the last year. Look, Sir, at the reception last year when I pleaded in this Parliament for wage and salary increases for civil servants and post office employees and others in the Government service. I was told by the hon. the Prime Minister that it was not that they were worse off but just that they desired more. Later on he associated these demands for higher wages with lack of patriotism. But no sooner did it become apparent that there was an election in the offing but what did we find? Wage increases all over South Africa! Largesses distributed to everybody! No machinery was established to ensure that what they were doing would not have inflationary effects. And what are the results going to be? The increases which they have had are going to be frittered away by the increased taxation which is going to be necessary and by the inflationary forces which they have ceased to keep under control.

Mr. Speaker, if ever there was a Government which neglected the true welfare of the people, it is this Government.

There is one section of the community which has suffered particularly under this Government, and that is the agricultural community, who are facing one of the most critical periods in their entire history. Tragically, until comparatively recently, there were no signs that this Government realized how serious the situation was, or what the effect would be upon South Africa as a whole. There was no indication whatsoever of urgent acts of any kind.

The fact of the matter is that for some time it was quite impossible to persuade hon. members opposite that the agricultural industry was not getting its fair share in the prosperity which the country was enjoying. It is no use our telling the hon. the Ministers of Agriculture that that was the position. They knew better. It was no use organized agriculture telling them that was the position. They knew better. It was no good organized agriculture passing resolutions unanimously at their conferences, asking for explanations from the hon. the Deputy Minister and others. They knew better. They were sure the situation was perfectly under control. The fact that several thousand farmers were leaving the land annually because they could not make a decent living, had no effect on them whatever. They continued with their price policies and their price manipulations which were very different from the sort of ideas which their predecessor in office, Mr. Stephen le Roux, had when he was Minister of Agriculture. That gentleman’s ideas were very simply what the old United Party idea was, namely, where you controlled prices the farmer was entitled to the costs of production plus a reasonable reward to himself. What do we hear now? Now we hear a great deal about supply and demand. For a long time they have ignored our appeals that regard be had to the risk factor in fixing prices in this regard. We have had manipulations of prices in order to affect the volume of production, particularly in the dairy industry. And with what results? Large sections of the farming community have completely lost faith in this Government and are seeking to occupy themselves in other types of agriculture not so closely controlled by the Government. That is what is happening.

But not only has that situation developed. I say without fear of being contradicted that soil conservation has been seriously and sadly neglected under this Government. Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that the position at the moment is that we have not the technical personnel operating to enable us to keep pace with the loss of soil going on at the present time in South Africa, let alone rehabilitate soil which has been damaged in the past. Do you realize, Sir, that over half the works planned between 1946 and 1964 has not been completed. Do you realize, too, that between the period 1960 and 1964 far less than half the number of works that have been planned have been completed.

Expenditure on soil conservation in the last five years has risen by a paltry R2.500.000. And that faced with this problem, a problem that is so serious! And as if that were not bad enough, when it comes to water affairs the emphasis throughout has been on big schemes. Far too little attention has been given to small irrigation works, to small conservation works, small dams, which once again have been recommended by the South African Agricultural Union as one of the greatest bastions of the ordinary farmer against drought conditions in South Africa.

We had a report from the hon. the Deputy Minister only last year as to the position in respect of soil erosion in South Africa. He painted a very sad picture. But who must take the responsibility, Mr. Speaker? This Government! This Government has been in power for 17 years. Now they are trying to blame the farmers. It is the neglect of the Government that has got us into this situation.

What provision has there been for the training of Bantu farm labour? What assistance has there been as regards the housing of farm labourers from this Government, which claims to be the friend of the farmers? What technical assistance have we had, apart from soil conservation and irrigation? Do you realize, Sir, that we have one extension officer for approximately every 750 farmers in South Africa? In little Rhodesia they have one for every 45 farmers. That is how we have been treated by this Government in respect of technical assistance. In fact, Sir, this is the background to the drought conditions in South Africa at the present time. Before the drought came we were faced with a sick industry. We were faced with a sick industry and no remedies from this Government. Talk of fewer farmers. Talk of eliminating the uneconomic unit. Talk of farm planning. So dissatisfied were the Government’s own followers that at the hon. the Prime Minister’s own congress they demanded from him the appointment of a commission to go into long-term agricultural policies in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister promised to consider that request. What has happened now? Now we find it has been shunted off on to the Agricultural Advisory Council. What a commentary on this Government’s treatment of agriculture! After 17 years in power its own supporters should come along and demand from the Prime Minister a commission to go into long-term planning of agriculture within the Republic of South Africa! I have said it was a sick industry.

And a sick Government!

It was a sick industry, and last year the drought began to make itself felt even more than in the previous two years. It was clear that production was falling. There were shortages of butter and cheese. We were having to import these commodities from overseas. We had to use some of the valuable foreign exchange of the hon. the Minister of Finance for that purpose. It was clear also that the drought was beginning to play a very serious part indeed. I said last year that a national catastrophe was upon us in respect of this matter. For that reason I raised it under the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote last year, because, Mr. Speaker, I could get no satisfactory replies from these Ministers of Agriculture. I could get no satisfactory replies from the hon. gentlemen. I raised it under the Prime Minister’s Vote as a matter of national importance because I felt it was already a national catastrophe. And what a reception I got! What a reception I got from hon. members opposite!

I was told by the hon. the Prime Minister that it would be a good thing if in future the Prime Minister’s Vote was used to discuss the real basic problems of this country. [Interjections.] Has there ever been a more basic problem than this drought? Look at the tragedy and carnage and destruction it has brought throughout South Africa. We have never had a bigger tragedy in South Africa, apart from wars.

And the Nationalist Government.

I think we are grateful to-day that our prayers have been answered and that rain has fallen throughout many parts of South Africa. I cannot—nor can anybody else—say whether that means that the drought has been broken. But whether it is broken or whether it is not broken, the fact remains that we are in the situation in which many of the farmers are already insolvent. The help that they have received has been too little and too late. In fact, if one goes into the matter, it seems that the Co-ops. and organized agriculture played a bigger role in trying to relieve the hardships of the farmers than the Government itself. And so we are still without any plans for rehabilitation. Despite this visit of 50 experts to the drought-stricken areas in the early part of January, many of whom. I suppose, relied upon the extension officers for their conclusions, despite all this we are still faced with the position that the hon. the Prime Minister has not departed from the attitude he took up last session. His attitude was this: What is the use of coming with plans for rehabilitation and reclamation until the drought was over?

The result has been a very simple one. The good and the honest farmer has lost hope. He has despaired of getting any help. In many cases he has left his farm and has sought other avenues of employment.

We have heard, Sir, there is going to be established a special agricultural finance department. Legislation is to be introduced to that effect.

Hear, hear!

I am glad the hon. member for Cradock says “hear, hear!” He knows as well as I do that there was a study group on this matter in 1958 and 1959. He knows the hon. the Minister has had the report in his possession for over four years. He knows what organized agriculture recommended. Why has there been all this delay? In fact, Sir, if you look at the situation it seems as though there was a complete failure to appreciate the seriousness of this drought on the part of the Government. There have been long delays in tackling the problem in a manner in which it should have been tackled.

Now we find ourselves in the position that the president of the Transvaal Agricultural Society, Mr. Biermann, says that millions of rand will have to be pumped into the industry.

The whole situation has been aggravated by the fact that this Government has failed to realize that droughts are endemic in South Africa. The result is that they refused even a proposal by the hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. Herman Bekker) some years ago to appoint a committee to go into the combating of droughts in South Africa. They have not used the good years to build up reserves for the bad years. They have been faced with a situation where we have been having this very serious drought, with a sick industry weakened by their price policies, with no proper preparation and planning for the future.

I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister to-day, as well as to other hon. gentlemen on that side, that unless they come forward with constructive policies, not only for the rehabilitation of the farming community, but for the reclamation of the soil and the re-establishment of our beef herds in South Africa, then the farmers are going to lose what little confidence they have got left in this Government at the present time.

Well, Sir, I know what is going to happen. The Prime Minister is going to turn to me and ask, “What do you suggest?” I have got used to that, Mr. Speaker. Because I have advised him on so many things. (Laughter.) The trouble is he does not take my advice. My reply to his question is very simple: He is the Government for the moment; he has technical and trained personnel in the civil service at his disposal. I want to say to him that I think it is a disgrace that he has not been able to come out...

[Inaudible.]

Order!

We continue to get interruptions from my old friend opposite. Of course, Sir, when one thinks back on his plan for labour in South Africa when he was in opposition, I think we must hand it to him as being the most superlative maker of promises that has ever sat in this House. And he has not carried them out! He is not even sharing the profits with the workers!

I would have thought that, in approaching this problem, there was a long-term aspect and a short-term aspect. And I would say that in regard to the long-term aspect there are certain measures which the United Party believes should be taken, should be put into operation. But I think the first of these is that there must be adequate technical assistance to the farmers, both in the economic sphere for financial rehabilitation, and in the technical sphere for reclamation of their soil, their grazing and their breeding herds in South Africa. I believe that means there must be proper provision for the rehabilitation of the soil, for the reclamation of grazing. That means, perhaps, the withdrawal of stock in certain areas and provision for their feeding away in order to allow the veld to recover.

There must also be proper attention paid to water conservation in the future, and the recognition of the fact that droughts are endemic in South Africa, and that preparations must always be in existence in order to withstand them when they come.

Then, Sir, there are the short-term steps which should be taken. I said before that I believe that this drought was a national disaster, a national calamity, and it must be tackled with vigour and in a realistic manner. I should like to see it tackled in the same sort of way that the settlement of ex-servicemen was tackled after the war in the various land settlements. I believe, Sir, that you will need a special agency for this, a special central agency with local committees in the various areas. I believe this agency should be called a drought relief agency, and farmers who have suffered as a result of the drought could make application. I believe that agency should be given wide powers. Wide powers not only to consolidate debts, but to take them over at low rates of interest and high rates of amortization. It should declare a moratorium on debts to the Government. In deserving cases it should write them off. I believe, in addition, that agency should have power to make cash loans for the rehabilitation of farmers, for the reclamation of soil, and the re-establishment of our breeding herds in South Africa.

I know this is going to cost money. I know it is going to be an expensive business. I think, Mr. Speaker, the test is whether this Government believes that a stable agricultural community in the Republic is an asset in itself, or whether it doesn’t. I may say that as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, so far as the United Party is concerned, we regard a stable agricultural community as a national asset, as vital to the future of this Republic, and we believe that money spent in re-establishing stability amongst our agricultural community will bring long-term dividends to the Republic of South Africa.

Now, Sir, I have dealt with the policies of this Government which have been so wrong, and I have dealt with policies which have caused their neglect of various sections of the population. I wish that were the whole story, Mr. Speaker. But it is not, because there are other policies which this Government is following which I regard as dangerous to the future of South Africa. They are dangerous because they threaten the safety of South Africa in that they threaten the existence of our Western civilization here and the White race as the bearers of that civilization.

You see, Sir, this Government, elected as it has been on repeated waves of racism and bigotry, has failed to realize what the first task of statesmanship is in the Republic of South Africa. That task is to establish healthy human relationships here in South Africa under White leadership. They do not see that this race problem really concerns men and women. That whether we like it or whether we don’t, we have to get on within the structure of this republican state in South Africa. We in the United Party believe that there in only one way in which this can be achieved. That is to reaffirm and maintain the leadership of the White group in this multi-racial country of ours on a basis of justice and on a basis of maintaining that position in the interests of all races, both White and non-White.

For how long?

The hon. member asks for how long? You know, Mr. Speaker, we have managed to maintain that position for 300 years! [Laughter.] We have not taken fright like hon. members on that side. We believe that if White leadership disappears you are going to see a deterioration in the economic sphere. You are going to see a deterioration of stability. You are going to see lower standards of civilization. We believe, Sir. that while the people can reject the hon. the Prime Minister for many reasons, there is one reason par excellence for which they should reject him. That is that he is not prepared to fight to retain White leadership over the whole of South Africa. He has not that conviction. He does not see things that way. And because he has not that conviction he has conceived this dangerous plan, this very dangerous plan, of dividing up the Bantu territories and creating sovereign independent states.

Now. Sir, our vision for the Bantu territories is a different one. We should like to see them develop economically. We should like to see them carry the maximum of the Bantu population. We see them as areas where the Bantu’s property rights and their own peculiar institutions will be protected. We see them with a measure of local self-government. We see them as reaching provincial status, and perhaps beyond. But we see them, Mr. Speaker, always as part of South Africa, and always under the control of the central Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. The Prime Minister has not got that vision. And because he has not got that vision he wants to act hastily. He wants to give power to people who. in many cases, are not ripe for it. He wants to surrender political authority, because he thinks that by surrendering political authority over parts of South Africa he will be enabled to maintain it in what remains to him, not realizing what dangers he is creating for the rest of South Africa.

He is asking the Black people to pay a terrible price for what he is doing. Because, Sir, he is sentencing them, a large number of them, to be regarded for all time as foreigners in the land of their birth, in the land in which they work, and in the land in which they will die. But he is also sentencing the White people to pay a big price for his policies, because first of all we shall have the pressing danger in our midst all the time of Black men working in the White areas, Black men who, the Prime Minister says, have a first loyalty to independent Black states on our frontiers and not to the Republic of South Africa. He goes further, Sir. He is creating neighbours who are going to be unhappy because they are going to envy the wealth of the Republic of South Africa. They are going to be dangerous because they envy that wealth and inevitably they are going to demand more. Already they are demanding more. Already the first Prime Minister of the first embryo Bantustan has been demanding more publicly. He has already demanded freehold rights for his people in the native townships. He has already said that they must not return to the reserves until they get a greater share of the land. I know that he was made to squirm over Radio South Africa but he stuck to most of his demands and he repeated them a month later at Grahamstown, and he was supported by his brother George who made similar complaints. Do hon. members opposite not realize the sort of resentment that is going to build up? Do they not realize that these people may turn elsewhere for help to try to improve their position both economically and in the political sphere? It is happening. Sir. I warned the hon. the Prime Minister in the past that he would not be able to control the timetable of development once he had promised them independence. There have been many little bits of evidence to show that I was correct, and what has happened now? Now we have a motion moved at a meeting of one of the Bantu political parties at which their representative has been delegated to demand independence for the Transkei by the 5 May 1967.

Next year.

That motion was carried amidst scenes of tremendous acclamation. That is what they want by 5 May 1967.

Not 1978.

I pointed out to the hon. the Prime Minister in the past the dangers of these countries becoming bridgeheads, powers hostile to the Republic of South Africa. I pointed out the danger of their becoming Cubas in South Africa, and I pointed out the danger of the situation of the have-not states in juxtaposition to the have-states and the sort of tensions that may arise and the danger of communist states getting an influence in those independent, sovereign Bantustans.

Your alternative is a multi-racial Parliament.

The hon. the Minister of Transport is simply terrified of sitting near a Black man or consulting with a Black man but his Prime Minister is going to form a Commonwealth and sit round a table with a lot of Black Prime Ministers. What is going to happen. Sir? Before the hon. the Minister of Transport is much older he will suffer the fate of many others; he will be chucked out of that Commonwealth by the majority of Black states. They will form alliances against him and he will find himself running his Railways without Black labour, and then we will see the sort of situation in which he has landed us!

Sir, I was saying that there were dangers of communist infiltration. Once before in this House I drew the attention of hon. members to the activities of the Chinese communists in Africa. It was only two years ago. The number of their diplomatic missions has now been stepped up from six to 16 in the past four years. The amount of money they gave out in 1964 was R67,000,000 as against R98.000,000 over the previous ten years. Although they are making many mistakes there is no doubt that their influence is being extended. You tell me, Sir. what is to stop them trying to get a foothold in the Prime Minister’s proposed sovereign independent Bantustans within the borders of the Republic of South Africa? You know Sir, what always interests me is the thinking of the hon. the Prime Minister. During the recess he made a very interesting speech at De Aar.

He speaks first and thinks afterwards.

In the course of that speech he spoke to his supporters on the situation in South West Africa and took up the attitude that South Africa would fight to the death over South West Africa. This is what he said—

Hear, hear!

Hon. gentlemen opposite say “hear, hear”: so do I, but what is the Prime Minister’s attitude in respect of these Bantustans? Is there not a danger that every single one of those Bantustans may become a Cuba like South West Africa? The hon. gentleman says that he will fight to the death over South West Africa. What is the situation in respect of his Bantustans? Is he going to give them sovereign independence but nevertheless try to retain control? What sort of friendly relation is he going to have? Sir, he sees it so clearly in respect of South West Africa but in respect of his own Bantustans he seems to have a mental blockage; he is quite incapable of realizing that that danger can arise there, otherwise he would not go on with this policy.

Sir, I have pointed out the dangers of a policy of this kind. I have pointed out the dangerous situation in which the Prime Minister has landed himself in as a result of the promises made by him, and it is against this background that I want to deal with the Rhodesian situation. I want to start by reminding the hon. the Prime Minister of an excerpt which I read to him once before in this House, an excerpt from a book by Guy van Eeden only a year or two ago in his book, “Die Vuur Brand Nader”. He finishes off with this rather striking passage—

You quoted that last year too.

I want to emphasize that in dealing with this subject. I am dealing with it from the point of view of “South Africa first”, and I am dealing with it from the point of view of “South Africa Only”. Sir we are faced with the accomplished fact of U.D.T. and therefore I do not intend expressing my opinion on the merits or demerits of the situation. [Interjections.] Sir, hon. members opposite seem to be very nervous about this subject. I do not blame them. They have no policy in this matter. I want to emphasize that I am dealing with this matter from the point of view of South Africa and I say that, faced as we are with an accomplished fact, I want to express no opinions and pass no judgment on the merits or demerits of this situation. I must say I would have preferred to see the dialogue continue longer but it was not our decision: the deed has been done. Faced with that situation, we felt that we could not but express our sympathy with our Rhodesian neighbours in this time of trial; we felt also that it was to be hoped that Government policy would be such that there could be a bipartisan approach. Thirdly, we suggested that in the circumstances de facto recognition of the present Government in Rhodesia was inevitable sooner or later, and we felt that it would be wiser for it to be sooner rather than later. The hon. the Prime Minister dubbed this as irresponsible. Sir, when he makes a charge of that kind, one wonders just what he meant because, you see, recognition de facto, which can be express or implied, enables the recognizing State to acknowledge the external fact of political power, to protect its own interests, its trade and its citizens, without condoning irregularities or illegalities in the emergence of the de facto government, and in turbulent Africa and Asia we have seen many examples of de facto recognition of rebel governments by the West in recent years—and very strange examples they have been! De facto recognition is normally of a provisional or temporary nature and it can be withdrawn on several grounds which do not apply in the case of de jure recognition of another State.

I have said that recognition can be expressed or implied. It is implied from a number of actions such as receiving agents officially from the state in question; such as retaining diplomatic relations with the state in question; such as treating with the new state as such. I must point out that some authorities say that the matter is essentially one of intention though the older authorities do not say that. But, Sir, faced with these tests, where does the hon. the Prime Minister stand at the moment? If he has not given de facto recognition impliedly it seems to me he has come very close to it indeed. It seems to me that he is teetering on the verge, whether he likes it or not. When I suggest that he should come into the open he says that I am irresponsible. The Prime Minister’s attitude has been that this is a domestic dispute in which he will not interfere. But is it still a domestic dispute when the first thing which Great Britain did was to report it to the Security Council; when the British Prime Minister has called upon the United Nations Organization and has called for the support of the nations of the world to impose trade sanctions upon Rhodesia by way of embargoes and trade boycotts, is it still a domestic issue? Sir. the Prime Minister quite rightly, I think, has refused to be associated with these boycotts and embargoes. He has indicated that he will continue business as usual with both Rhodesia and Great Britain. Does “business as usual” mean the exclusion of unusual help in the present circumstances? Does he rule out unusual assistance? It seems to me that the cardinal question with which the Prime Minister is faced, the cardinal question with which South Africa is faced, is something which was recognized by some speakers in the House of Commons and that is whether we are prepared to stand by and see the Rhodesians forced to their knees and chaos created in a state in which law and order is being maintained at the present time and which, so far as I know. is the only state in Africa in which the police normally still go unarmed. Sir, I know that Rhodesia is very important to Great Britain and to the United States of America I want to say that they have my sympathies in the difficult position in which they find themselves in dealing with this matter at UNO and other international bodies, but the importance of this matter to Great Britain and the U.S.A, pales into insignificance when you look at the importance of what happens in Rhodesia to the Republic of South Africa. It could immediately and vitally affect the security of the Republic. Hon. members opposite do not appreciate that. May I therefore read to them the statement of the Suid-Afrikaanse Buro van Rasse-aangeleenthede, which so far as I know has always been a darling of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Here is what they say—

That, Sir, is a statement by SABRA on 18 January. I believe that this shows a clear insight by Afrikaner intellectuals. I wonder whether the hon. the Prime Minister shares their insight? In asking that question I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you have ever thought what the situation would be if civilized government came to an end in Rhodesia and if we have the sort of situation developing there that you have seen in so many of the emergent African states? Do you realize, Sir, that you would have militant nationalism across the river from Messina? Do you realize that both Angola and Mozambique would be out-flanked and would be weakened? Do you realize that we would be in the position against which General Smuts warned so often, that the frontiers of the West will have been rolled back to the Limpopo River? Sir, when I say these things I am vividly reminded of a speech within the precincts of this building by a former Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Macmillan.

His winds-of-change speech.

Yes, he dealt with the winds of change, but he dealt with something else which, because it came from him with his winds-of-change ideas, interested me so much. This is what he said—

Sir, does the Prime Minister’s policy remain one of non-intervention or neutrality, and is he going to remain inactive while the dangers for South Africa grow? It seems to me that the situation is becoming too serious for him to go on sitting on the side-line. It seems to me that the time has come for South Africa to use her influence with her trading partners, Britain and Rhodesia—and that influence could be very considerable—to bring about a re-opening of the dialogue between the two countries. You see, Sir, I believe that our interests are so vitally concerned that we cannot allow matters to deteriorate further. Chaos in Rhodesia would have disastrous repercussions in South Africa, and chaos in Rhodesia will follow if the Rhodesians are forced to their knees. I believe that we are justified in taking risks to avoid chaos over the border, to protect our own interests and to maintain our civilized way of life. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon that the people of South Africa will never forgive him if he sits idly by while civilized government and stability are destroyed in Rhodesia as they have been in so many African states—despite the best intentions of the Colonial powers concerned and of the democratic governments vested with power in those states—on the withdrawal of those colonial powers.

I want to say also to the hon. the Prime Minister that I believe he is misjudging the temper of the people of whom he happens to be Prime Minister at the present time, if that is his attitude, because I think they realize what is at stake even if he does not. I think at the back of it all is the fear amongst them that if what is being done to Rhodesia to-day succeeds, attempts may be made to do the same sort of thing to South Africa to-morrow. Sir, this attitude of the Government towards Rhodesia does not surprise those who know them. Their policy has always been one of inaction, of weakness, of lack of planning. They have no consistent plans for South Africa except the concept of independent Bantustans, a concept which is going to weaken South Africa and undermine our security. Because they have no consistent planning, they can oppose immigration to-day and support it to-morrow; they can condemn the Orange River scheme the one day and enlarge it the next day; they can regard increases in salaries as inflationary and unpatriotic and then the next day throw out largesse to influence voters with the coming of an election. It seems to me, Sir, that their policies have been nothing but ad hoc fumbling. I believe the people of South Africa are getting sick and tired of it. They realize that this Government has no plan for the future of South Africa. I believe that they will turn to the United Party which sees South Africa as a whole, which is planning South Africa with insight, with vision and foresight, and with the real interest of the people of South Africa as the yardstick by which those policies are to be carried out.

Mr. Speaker, it has almost become tiresome to listen to the same speech by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but I must compliment him on having succeeded at last in putting his points a little more forcibly than he usually does. I think I cannot put the position more clearly than it was done by one of his own newspapers when it exhorted him to adopt a new attitude. I want to read out what was said by the Sunday Express, a newspaper which supports the United Party. This is what that newspaper wrote quite recently—

That is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to be and tried to do to-day, but all he actually did was, as usual, to put up certain puppets and then proceed to knock them over. What he did not do was to put forward a positive alternative policy, which is what he should do if he is really desirous of forming an alternative government. It is the easiest thing on earth to put forward a large number of generalities and then to be sarcastic about the attitude of those who have to deal with these matters in actual practice. It is the easiest thing on earth; it is a mere exercise; it means absolutely nothing. If the hon. gentleman in moving a motion of no confidence in the Government believes that that is the attitude in the country, let alone in this House, then he is very much mistaken. He knows as well as his Press does, he knows from the opinions expressed in many newspapers throughout the country which support him, that they all believe that public confidence in the Government and in the country is so great that there is no doubt that this Government will be returned to power with an increased majority.

We also thought the same thing in 1948, but we were wrong.

Yes, hon. members opposite misjudged their strength in 1948. because they were out of touch with the people of the country. We on the other hand, and not only we but newspapers supporting the United Party, know what the feeling in the country is. We will talk about this again after 30 March, and I will then remind the hon. gentleman of the remarks which he has just made.

Do not tempt Providence!

What is a fact is that the newspapers supporting hon. members opposite are trying to use this clear expression of confidence in the Government as the basis of a new argument, an argument they use to attack the Government or at least to attract certain voters to their ranks. They suggest to them that we are on the way to a one-party State, and that because overwhelming support of the Government may lead to a one-party State the voters should therefore not vote for the Government, even if they believe in the Government’s policies. They should rather support the Opposition just to make sure that there will be some kind of opposition in this House, however weak, however lacking in policy—just ensure that there is an Opposition! They are also told that this is necessary if the democratic process is to continue to operate. They no longer appeal to the people to vote for certain principles. No, the voters are asked just to vote for an Opposition, to make sure that there will be somebody to oppose, even if that opposition can only mouth the generalities which we have heard here to-day. What is the reason for this? This attitude on their part flows directly from appeals made to dissatisfied English South Africans in the Press supporting the United Party….

Appeals made in the Burger, yes.

It is quite clear, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows, that there is English speaking support for South Africa….

For South Africa? That is very generous of you.

There is belief amongst the English-speaking people of South Africa that we are honestly in favour of national unity, and the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to wax sarcastic over this, does not detract from the fact that many English-speaking people in South Africa have lost all confidence in the United Party, in spite of the fact that they supported them until quite recently. I wish to emphasize that, in spite of the attempts of the Leader of the Opposition to wean away English-speaking support from this Government by trying to indicate that we have been dishonest in our appeals to them and that we have been dishonest in our desire in this new Republic to face the future together as one nation, he will find that they have more belief in both our policies and our honesty than he pretends he has.

Mr. Speaker. I wish to deal with a number of the arguments put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, some of them in the course of this debate and others in public speeches outside. In doing so I will state my own attitude. I will also deal with the Rhodesian situation in due course, which is the only new element in the whole of his speech requiring special consideration.

It is quite untrue, of course, that the Government is holding an early election in order to avoid embarrassment on certain issues. There are some of these issues which were not mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition to-day but I wish to refer to them in passing so as to make perfectly clear what our thinking is on these specific issues.

It has been suggested that we seek an early election because we wish to avoid embarrassment on the verdict on South West Africa, when it will be given later in the year, and also on developments within the United Nations affecting South Africa. I wish to state quite categorically that the very contrary is the truth and that whichever way the verdict goes South Africa can only rely on this Government to see it safely through. [Hear, hear!] Whether the verdict is given before 30 March or thereafter, South Africa cannot, on the position taken up until recently by the United Party, believe that it can face with safety any future under any verdict under the guidance of such a group of people and leaders who have been so weak-kneed throughout.

I have already stated quite clearly outside when discussing UN, that there is no doubt whatever that this Government would take the Republic of South Africa out of the United Nations in the event of our not being allowed to vote. [Hear, hear!] There is therefore also no embarrassment that we could have to meet in this connection, as I have stated before. We are prepared to co-operate with the United Nations in spite of the problems and difficulties we have to face, in spite of the unpleasantness we have experienced throughout all these years, but we are not prepared to suffer for South Africa a major indignity which has already been threatened.

All because of your policy.

No, not because of our policy, but because of the stand we are taking for South Africa, unlike the United Party. If the United Party thinks it can, by putting its policy forward, appease UN, it would have to sell South Africa, and that is precisely the reason why I have just said that South Africa knows that the only Government on which it can rely in these strenuous times is the present one.

It is, furthermore, quite untrue that we wish to expedite the election because we anticipate a climax in Rhodesia. That has also been said. I will deal with the Rhodesian situation a little later on, but at this stage I state quite categorically that this accusation of seeking to speed the election because we anticipate a climax in Rhodesia is not in accordance with my estimation of the situation at all. Time will show us what will happen. If I have to judge the situation in Rhodesia, the attitude of the people and the resistance they will put up, by what we would do in South Africa under precisely similar circumstances—if our way of life were threatened; if there were an attempt to remove the supremacy of the White man here, even in the course of time; if we were subjected to sanctions or embargoes or boycotts; and if we had to put up a struggle for survival, in which we would have to fight to conquer or to die—then I am quite convinced that the Rhodesians in their own circumstances will show no less determination. Therefore, I do not expect a speedy climax, and I have no reason to speed up the election because of that.

The third point was that we wished to avoid embarrassment because, otherwise, we had to present the Budget, and we feared the danger of inflation. We do not seek to avoid the presentation of the Budget. The troubles which exist are known to everybody. South Africans understand the state of their economy thoroughly. We are not a nation of people who do not know what is happening. We all know that we are facing certain problems of prosperity. We know of the difficulties that arose when the boom developed too much, when we had to retard it to a certain extent—but not to let the boom die down—in order to allow it to continue, and to continue for a very long time. The problems of prosperity have to be met. We also know about the drought and the terrible effects it has had. Everybody has the fullest sympathy with the farmer and knows his problems, which must be overcome. Everybody is, however, prepared to make a sacrifice to support his compatriots. Everyone realizes what a basic industry agriculture is and that now of all times when a country like ours can become isolated in certain circumstances—[interjections]—the production of food is most important. Everybody in the country is prepared to face the facts, and we will provide the necessary support for our farmers. There is no reason whatsoever why we should not be prepared to present a Budget. [Interjections.] I have said that this kind of criticism has been levelled outside the House, and one can understand why! [Interjections.]

Order!

I will deal with Rhodesia’s situation later. We have no fear in facing the situation.

The point was also made that we are seeking to avoid dealing timeously with the problems due to the drought. If there is anything that this Government is most willing to do, it is to deal with the farmers’ problems with the utmost sympathy, as I hope to show a little later.

Since when?

There are, on the other hand, some very good reasons for an early election. In the first place it is in the interest of the country to hold the election in an atmosphere of tranquillity, at a time when we are quite sure—everybody in this country and in this House—that the course of South Africa will run peacefully. Those are the circumstances in which the electorate can calmly decide which Government it should have for the next five years. [Interjections.] Nobody can judge too far ahead what the situation in the world will be, particularly in Rhodesia….

And in October?

I believe that there will also still be tranquillity in October. I sincerely hope so. As far as South Africa is concerned, I hope the atmosphere will remain tranquil. In the outside world changes may, however, take place suddenly and unexpectedly which may affect other countries. Therefore, seeing that we have tranquillity now, this is the right time to hold an election. Furthermore, I think it is right towards the Government and also towards the Opposition to hold the election before the emotional experience which will undoubtedly be created when we celebrate the fifth year of the existence of the Republic. We do not want to have an advantage over the Opposition. [Laughter.] We were fully aware of the fears, that they had until recently expressed, that the celebration would be used by us to their detriment. They said so in public. The United Party said so on various occasions.

Never.

The United Party Opposition knows that it has done nothing towards bringing to South Africa the freedom which the Republic enjoys and that they did nothing to eliminate South Africa’s membership of the Commonwealth. They opposed, whenever they could, both these steps which have proved so salutary for South Africa. It is, therefore, quite understandable that they should fear an election shortly after the emotionally charged celebrations of the establishment of the Republic. I think they should thank us instead of attacking us for holding the elections before rather than after the celebrations, although they now realize that it will not make much difference because their past is too well known.

Another reason why the election should take place now is the expectation which has been aroused by continual Press speculation over months. Such speculation always gives rise to uncertainty, and economic development usually does not take place at the same pace when there is uncertainty of any kind. Therefore the sooner we get done with these elections and can enter on a new five-year plan, the better it will be for the country.

Apart from all this, I rather expect that the United Party Opposition will be glad to be in session during the months of August to October, when apparently some of these occurrences, about which they have so much to say, may be expected, e.g. when the verdict will be presented, possibly, and when UN might take steps. Surely members of the Opposition should be glad to be here, in session, then. They will have the opportunity to discuss the situation, although they cannot expect to handle it as the Government because the country will not trust them to do so.

Now I wish to deal immediately with the policy towards Rhodesia. I wish to do so by looking at this matter from various angles. In the first place, I wish to deal with the accusation which has been made that we believe the White Rhodesians to be expendable. What a dastardly thing to say!

Who said that?

An article in the Cape Argus, dated 21 January 1966: “Why the Government wants an Early Election”, by Mr. S. J. Marais Steyn, M.P., says—

[Interjections.]

Order!

What a dastardly thing to say! It is quite true that we have said very little as a Government about our feelings towards the Rhodesians in their predicament, because in many matters it is fact that “least said, soonest mended”. The whole situation is most delicate and dangerous for all who are or may become implicated, and so it was wise to say as little as possible. But I am forced on this occasion, by such expressions of opinion as we have heard and the clear indication of what kind of propaganda is going to be made during the next election throughout the country, to say what our feelings are. Then our stand will be understood.

In the first place, I can say quite clearly that nobody could be more sympathetic towards those people, White people, whose position is threatened than the members of this Government. [Hear, hear! ] Throughout the years when the Opposition has been attacking us when we defended the White man in Africa … [Interjection.] Whether it was in South Africa or in Kenya or in Rhodesia, when we pointed out the dangers we were facing, we were always certain to be attacked by the Opposition. When Mr. Macmillan was here and I had to put up a case for the White man of Africa, on whose side were the Opposition? Therefore it must be understood that we. who differ from the constitutional system that the United Party defends, and from that which existed in the Federation between the Rhodesias and Nyasa-land, and still exists in Rhodesia, because they are constitutions based on partnership, showed thereby that we are prepared to go even further in defence of the White man’s rights than they are and were. Would we believe that the White man of Rhodesia is expendable when that is our basic policy? When we fought for the White man. whatever attacks were made on us at UN. we were not supported by the Opposition. How can we then take up an attitude now of our immediate White neighbours being expendable? Would we not be aware of all the dangers if the White man’s rule were replaced?

What are you doing about it?

Would we not be aware of the advantage to South Africa if a solution to this problem could be found in which the White man retained his supremacy, we who were always the foremost fighters for the supremacy of the White man? How dare anyone try to impress upon the public of South Africa that we believe such people to be expendable?

What about the Transkei?

I say quite unambiguously that we believe that majority rule there, which means Black rule over Whites in Rhodesia, will lead to destruction and chaos. We think it would have been wise for all the Western nations concerned to realize that, and to realize that it would not only mean the destruction of the economy and chaos to the White people of Rhodesia, but also to the Blacks. The very people for whom they wish to put in their oar would perhaps suffer most. They are the masses; they are the closest to hunger and dangers.

May I ask a question?

I will give the hon. member an opportunity when I have completed my whole argument. I hope that the Opposition will realize that this is not only true of the immediate future, so that the differences can be solved by saying that there will not immediately be a situation of one man, one vote, and no immediate majority rule, but only at some undefined future time. It is irrelevant to my argument that this future might be a bit closer than even the British Government would wish to have, as happened in Kenya and elsewhere. That is why I say that in the case of Rhodesia we feel as Sir Alec Home evidently felt when very recently at the Economic Club of New York he referred to the experiences of the other states in Africa, quite clearly to warn against what could be caused in Rhodesia. I do not generally talk about other people’s business—I am now being forced to do so to a certain extent—but the British Government’s attitude so far has been beyond our comprehension. They did not understand the situation as we see it. That can be understood to a certain extent in view of their general outlook. They have to deal with a situation which is theirs, and not ours, but surely we may say that many of the facts and realities have been brought to their attention, and they should have been impressed by them. The lessons of Africa must be properly learnt by the Western nations. We had hoped that it would not be in the hard way. We had hoped that when the situation became more involved, considerations of blood and of kith and kin would have prevailed. Nobody regrets, therefore, more than we do what has taken place there. But that is an expression of opinion on what is not in fact our business. In past times we also did nothing in spite of our belief, on this side of the House, and long before U.D.I., that the policies (British policies, I must admit) followed in Rhodesia would ultimately lead to tragedy. We said so; but because it was the business of another state we always added that it was not for us to interfere or to do anything about it. If we wanted to safeguard ourselves we should have interfered long ago, not now. Because the members of the Opposition believed in partnership—they also believed in Federation—they believed in policies which have failed. I suppose they have a feeling of guilt, and that that is why they have over-acted in this situation. They have not done anyone a favour by speaking as they did. But we cannot just talk about these things; a government has to act. So, whatever our feelings and thoughts might have been, we had to take into consideration in what way South Africa’s interests could best be served at a stage when decisions had to be taken. And decisions will have to be taken at each stage of a developing situation.

I shall now discuss this matter from the angle of South Africa’s interests. It was clearly in South Africa’s interests not to be dragged into the conflict if avoidable or as long as avoidable. It was clearly in our interests to try to have the conflict restricted to those directly implicated, the U.K. and Rhodesia. It was clearly in our interests and those of others to try to make it possible for the solution to be found by these two alone, amongst themselves, an attitude which was also taken, even in the UN. by England. They told the others that in spite of their approaches they looked upon this as a matter for the U.K. and Rhodesia alone. That is the first point.

The second is that it was clearly in South Africa’s interests not to make enemies unnecessarily. I want to remind hon. members at this stage that the one point of attack by the Leader of the Opposition continually is that we estrange possible friends, and that we should not do so but should be more statesmanlike.

And now the Leader of the Opposition, who does not want us to estrange those with whom we are friends, was prepared to deliberately slap the United Kingdom in the face in order, as far as I can see. to gain electioneering advantages. [Interjections.] The Leader of the Opposition was prepared not only to force the United Kingdom into a position which would have been anything but friendly, but also to add to the enmity of the African states or the remainder of the Commonwealth, as you wish. He was also prepared to make the position of the U.S.A., which has been supporting the United Kingdom, more difficult with regard to South Africa. This Leader of the Opposition is keen to tell us not to make enemies while he himself is prepared to make as many as he can!

It is in South Africa’s interests to uphold the principles on which its whole international fight has been fought. These principles on which its defence throughout the years, from General Smuts onwards, has been based, have been clearly and often stated. One is that we do not allow interference in our own matters, and if we do not allow such interference then we should not interfere in those of others. The moment we interfere, we would sacrifice our own principles. We have no right to demand non-interference in our own affairs if we, especially when our interests are in the picture, are prepared to interfere in those of others.

The second major principle of our policy is this: Since we have been threatened over and over again with, and to a certain extent have experienced, boycotts and sanctions, we have taken up the clear attitude that under no circumstances, neither under pressure nor under force, will we participate in either boycotts or sanctions.

We had to uphold this major principle, and in fact did so, despite whatever pressure was brought to bear upon us. Naturally, in upholding such a principle, one has to uphold it equally towards all. I have been attacked for saying that we would be prepared to send coal to Zambia if coal were ordered. But this is a symbol, a clear cut symbol, of our preparedness to uphold this principle towards all sides. You cannot say that you will not participate in boycotts or sanctions while you are prepared not to accept orders from a particular nation and to that extent to boycott such a nation, nor can you allow yourself to be forced into participation in boycotts or sanctions in respect of any one nation. You cannot make exceptions. We were fully consistent in upholding this fundamental principle on which we shall have to stake our own claims in future in the event of others trying to attack us in such ways.

Are you prepared to send petrol to Rhodesia too?

If the hon. gentleman will kindly wait, I will deal with all points one by one as I am accustomed to do.

I should now like to deal with the point raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, again to-day, that we should have given the Rhodesian Government de facto recognition. The hon. member should be fully aware, and if he is not, he should be, that under international law or custom there is no necessity, in a situation which has not yet solved itself, to accord either de facto or de jure recognition. A nation is permitted to, and can, continue existing relations with another without any statement whatsoever on recognition until the matter has come to a point at which it is prepared to decide one way or another. In this Rhodesian situation. where both nations concerned are our friends and trading partners, it was the only wise attitude to take in order to be able to continue existing relations, to continue trading and to continue contacts while waiting for the whole matter to be settled. We adopted this wise course instead of. just for some foolish reason of demonstration, according some form of recognition. Recognition is not necessary, it was just not done; and South Africa has been left in the position of remaining unimplicated in this situation.

The hon. gentleman also some time ago suggested mediation or deliberate aid, but such mediation or aid would have meant participation in the discussions and decisions; it would lead to taking sides. You cannot be a mediator or try to help one or the other without helping the one more than the other, without being more either on the one or on the other side. You cannot just sit in judgment. A mediator has to try and achieve some form of compromise. With both our points of view, as expressed by himself and by me, what kind of mediator between the parties in the dispute would he or I have been?

Would he have been acceptable to the United Kingdom?

You cannot in such a case give aid without participating in the decisions, and in whatever happens afterwards you will either be on the one or on the other side. But, apart from that, what self-respecting nation would allow you to interfere in its business? Both Rhodesia and the United Kingdom are self-respecting nations, and do you think either of them would have wished for interference on the part of South Africa in what is a decision for them to take?

All these arguments make it quite clear that it was not in South Africa’s interest to have done otherwise than the Government has in fact done. Let me now look at the matter from another angle. The United Party is spreading the impression that the South African attitude means nothing to Rhodesia. It has been implied over and over again even in these last few minutes. Is it true? I need not go into details, but anyone will realize that maintaining regular relations, especially economic relations, with a neighbouring state means everything to a state which is isolated, as Rhodesia is to-day. South Africa would be acting fully within its rights if it refused to participate in any form of boycott or the application of sanctions. Everybody, including the Government of Great Britain, knows that such an attitude is of great value to Rhodesia. They adopted the realistic attitude. I am glad to say that they appreciated that South Africa found itself in a special sort of situation. Being a neighbour, having traded on a large scale throughout the years, and not wishing to become implicated in the constitutional quarrel which has arisen, South Africa, it is realized, is in a special position.

It is also realized that South Africa will stand by its principles. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is accepted as a fact that as a realistic result of the South African attitude South Africa is of great value to Rhodesia. By not having become implicated in this quarrel, and not having interfered in any way, it was inevitable that South Africa would be of great value to Rhodesia. We must remain of great value to that country if we continue present policy. Is it not of great value for Rhodesia to have this open door whilst other doors are being closed or have been closed? It cannot be said that nothing is being done by the Government of the Republic regarding the dangers which might flow from the situation across the border. By looking after our own interests in the way we do, great advantages are incidentally granted Rhodesia.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is quite wrong to attack us as has been done to-day. It has been suggested that we are inimical to Rhodesia, and that what we have done means nothing. I must say that this sort of argument that has been advanced here to-day by the other side can only be intended to attract the electorate of South Africa, which naturally has deep feelings for the White man in Rhodesia. The Opposition wanted to capitalize on this theme, and with that in view they were prepared to jeopardize the position of Rhodesia. After the clear statements which I have been forced to make, in order to avoid misunderstanding, I realize that certain dangers might arise because of these statements. If danger should materialize, I lay the blame for it at the door of the Opposition. What sort of friends of Rhodesia have we here, people who are prepared to jeopardize Rhodesia in order to gain an electioneering advantage! What kind of friends are these?

Mr. Speaker, what more would the Opposition have done than has been done by the Government of South Africa? Would they have led South Africa herself into a state of siege? Would South Africa in finding herself fighting boycotts and sanctions be a more valuable neighbour to Rhodesia than she is at present? Is it a sign of weakness to remain within our rights, even under pressure, if the correct stand we are taking also has advantages for our neighbour? Is that weakness, Mr. Speaker, or is it wisdom and strength?

I now come to the question of petrol and oil supplies for Rhodesia. Here we continue to follow—and I implied as much in my New Year’s message—the fundamental principle we have laid down, namely that we do not in any way or form participate in boycotts or sanctions. If there are producers or traders who have oil or petrol to sell, whether to this country or to the Portuguese or Basutoland, Rhodesia or Zambia, then it is their business, and we do not interfere. We do not prevent them from selling. If we tried to prevent them, we would be participating in a boycott.

Hear, hear!

It is up to the oil companies and others to decide whether they have such products to sell. But I must add this: the South African Government has certain interests at stake in Rhodesia herself. We participate in their transport needs. For instance we operate the South African Airways there. We will see to it that our own interests are fully protected and served. We will provide for the needs of our own transport organizations. We will also furnish our ambassadors or representatives or our officials there with fuel they need. That is our business. The Government, and the South African Airways and South African firms are fully within their rights to ensure that their own operations can continue undisturbed.

Recently I saw in the newspapers—although I wish to say that we have not been approached yet—suggestions that there should be gifts of these commodities to Rhodesia. There again it is not for the Government to interfere, because, Sir, if we did not permit gifts to leave this country, no matter what kind of gifts they might be, whether sugar or butter or petrol or oil, we would then be applying a boycott. We are not prepared to apply a boycott. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, when such gifts of petrol or oil are made, the situation does not call for Government interference. Acting on the lines I have indicated, we would remain within our rights. Our attitude is clear and unambiguous.

But let us look at this matter from yet another angle, from Rhodesia’s angle. Let us see what Rhodesia judges best for herself. Perhaps it is more than amusing to note that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows better than the Prime Minister of Rhodesia what is best for Rhodesia! [Laughter.] The Prime Minister of Rhodesia has on two public occasions quite clearly stated that the South African Government’s attitude in this matter is wholly and fully correct. He said he had no objections whatsoever to the stand South Africa had taken. This is understandable, because he at least is wise enough to know that a South Africa in partnership with him would be of much less value. The open door which he has at present might then be shut on both countries. I do not think such a thing should happen, because it would be to the disadvantage of the Western world as a whole. I believe and hope that if we ourselves are able to act wisely, others will act similarly towards us. The Prime Minister of Rhodesia is wise enough to realize this, while the Leader of the Opposition quite candidly is not.

Even apart from this aspect, one can understand the Rhodesian Prime Minister’s approval of our stand because our stand means that he and his country remain free from interference by a stronger partner, which would not be the case should we be involved together. If we became involved on Rhodesia’s side, we would surely have to participate in any decisions that would have to be made. Surely. Sir, we would expect to influence decisions from the point of view of South Africa’s interests? If our interests clashed with those of Rhodesia, would she not then be dragged along by us? What country which would become the junior partner would not seek to avoid involvement of that kind? We would. In fact, we did seek to avoid Commonwealth dictates in the recent past. We can, therefore, understand that Rhodesia cannot allow herself to become involved with a partner stronger than herself, a partner whose lead she might be forced to follow against her wish under certain circumstances. She naturally wishes to maintain a position where she can take her own decisions in her own interests alone, and she is perfectly correct in doing so.

Apart from that aspect, I also ask hon. members to consider what Rhodesia’s position would be if all the attacks made upon South Africa throughout the years were now also held against her by those who attack her at present? Her colour policies are different to ours. In that sphere she should have an advantage over us in that, theoretically and constitutionally at least, her views are much closer to the British and United States view than ours are. Why, then, should Rhodesia allow herself to be attacked as if she also were a supporter of the apartheid policy, to call it by that name?

Indeed, from the point of view of Rhodesia, the Leader of the Opposition was a tempter who would have led that country into great difficulties. If the hon. Leader of the Opposition were in power, he would already have increased Rhodesia’s troubles.

I now wish to deal with this matter from still another angle, namely from the angle of the various points of view existing within the United Party itself, because, Mr. Speaker, there are clear differences of opinion within the United Party on this matter. In the Press which supports the United Party it has repeatedly been stated by many—and here I exclude the Sunday Times— that they agree with the stand taken by the Government. Recently the M.P.C. for Rondebosch, the Secretary of the Party, writing under the heading, “The United Party View”, also took a stand as close to ours as anything can be. I have his article here with me. He wrote the following, inter alia—

I agree with that sentiment, as does the hon. Leader of the Opposition. He goes on—

[Inaudible.]

Listen to what follows. He goes on to say—

There are two provisos. Both statements are the opposite of what the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) said! And now I am interested in one thing, Mr. Speaker, namely; Which is the evil genius prodding the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? Is it the hon. member for Yeoville or is it the Sunday Times? [Laughter.] What is the controlling group in the United Party trying to do to South Africa? Do they want to damage the country solely for election purposes, or have they given up all hope and now desire chaos in both South Africa and Rhodesia? [Interjections.] Would they like to see both countries squashed and with black dictatorships under communist influence, as in other African states? If South Africa were involved—which we could not have avoided had we taken the steps desired by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—South Africa would have been involved in a life and death struggle—as I said before—to conquer or to die. Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition wish South Africa this fate because of sheer jealousy of the Government? Can the United Party leader really sink to such depths?

Mr. Speaker, we shall withstand such electioneering tricks. We shall continue stage by stage to do what is best for South Africa, and both for the White man of Africa and the Black man, who still needs the White man in the whole of Africa. That is all, as far as the Rhodesian issue is concerned.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition also attacked the Government because of its alleged mismanagement of South Africa’s economy. When one looks at what is happening in South Africa to-day, it is quite clear that over the last years we have enjoyed a measure of prosperity never experienced before. The boom experienced in the country’s development over the past number of years has brought South Africa to a stage of development never reached before, and the pace has quickened as never before. At the present moment confidence in South Africa is continually being expressed by every overseas as well as internal investor.

As they did before 1948 too. Then the rate of development dropped.

Oh, did it drop? Was it the fault of the Government of that time? [Interjections.]

Order!

The facts are that in spite of all the prophecies of the Opposition throughout these 17 years, the economic upsurge did come, in many instances because of Government inspiration. It continued at a rapid pace, and it is still continuing. The Government is acting wisely in controlling it so that it will still continue far into the future.

There is confidence in South Africa, confidence which has remained undiminished. No generalities by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, such as we have heard here to-day, will convince anybody that the Government has mismanaged the South African economy. On the contrary: Everybody is relying upon this Government remaining in power to ensure that our development may continue. Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should move more amongst the people in charge of large business undertakings and industries. Then he will find himself better informed.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition also said the election was timed so as to derive benefit from the recent wage increases and salary increments to civil servants and others, and before price increases and rising costs might nullify the extra emoluments. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have a funny Opposition. Only last year, during the session, scarcely a year ago, they were arguing in favour of wage increases. They knew that the result could be inflationary to a certain extent.

We would take proper steps to guard against it.

Oh yes, they always have proper steps but they can never formulate them; they always talk in generalities. They were, however, prepared to plead for increased wages and they unjustifiably said that we wanted to freeze wages, a statement which was not true and which has often been denied, because even at that time—we could not disclose it at the time—we were working on ways and means of reconstructing the whole salary structure in the Civil Service, including the salary structure of the services. It was not just a question of salary increases; it was a reconstruction of the whole structure with which we wished to deal. It has since proved a very wise and good reconstruction. We were working on that, and we therefore denied most emphatically that we said anything about freezing wages. We said that we would grant wage increases when the time was ripe and the time would be ripe …

Before the election.

… when it could be spread over a period when the dangers of inflation would be gradually decreasing. That is exactly what is happening now. The effect of these increases will be spread throughout the current year and to a very large extent, as far as inflation is concerned, any remaining effect can be combated by the other measures and steps which are being taken.

The hon. gentleman now wishes to frighten those who have received these advantages—and he does so, of course, for election purposes— by saying that these increases in wages and salaries will be nullified by price increases. On the other hand when he deals with the farmers he tells them that the prices of their products are too low or, in other words, that all food prices should be increased. Opposition members are always on the side of the person whose vote they seek to win at that particular moment. If food subsidies to cushion the increase had to be financed, they would tell the public, as they have already done, that we are going to impose additional taxes which, in turn, will also nullify the wage increases! This type of argument is disgusting. The Government will watch price increases, and if certain price increases have to come, then these wage increases will at least make them more bearable.

*I now want to proceed to another point. In the first place I want to ask the United Party: What kind of an election do they intend fighting? Do they intend fighting a clean election. or are they not interested in a clean election? I am asking the question because there are rumours that the United Party are preparing themselves for a smear campaign. As a matter of fact, I have a case here which I consider to be part of a smear campaign, and I want to deal with that case as a symptom of something which I hoped would be avoided in our political life. I am referring to certain propaganda which is of such a nature that I think the honour of the Leader of the Opposition himself is at stake if he allows it to be made. I am referring to propaganda made against me personally, quite unjustly, in connection with the so-called conquered territory in the Orange Free State. I am referring specifically to the fact that this propaganda appeared in a newspaper which I usually do not see, but which was sent to me. I intend to read out fairly extensive portions so that my argument will be understood. This propaganda appeared in Ons Land on 17 December 1965.

That is their official paper.

I should like to read out only a few extracts, but I shall have to quote fairly extensively. [Translation.]

And then a little further on—

It was not maize, but maize and kaffircorn—

… that are being sacrificed to Basutoland

… Although the Leader of the Opposition said that he approved of the gift, it has now become a “sacrifice”—

Then we are told of a certain letter which was intercepted by the police and which was alleged to have been circulated by a member of the Basutoland Privy Council—it does not say an enemy of Chief Jonathan—a letter which they said contained dynamite. The article then goes on to deal with the letter—

I should like hon. members to note that it is put in those terms here, because of the contrast with the way in which it is put subsequently—

… contained inter alia the following: “You promised …

This was alleged to be a letter from Jonathan to Commissioner—General Papenfus—

Then the comment is taken up again—

Where those areas are I do not know! —

Note what follows here now after all the “ifs”—

No mention is made of the fact that it was his opponent—

Hon. members will subsequently find out why that was done—

In this case. too. hon. members will subsequently hear what the reason was—

Take note, all the “ifs” have now been set aside. Then, further along, the article continues—

Here mention is made of negotiation which would allegedly take place between Jonathan and myself if they obtained permission from Britain. And then the following is stated—

Of course. Jonathan asked the British for the right to negotiate directly with the Prime Minister of South Africa. He mistakenly mentioned “various matters” in public which he wanted to discuss, but this was not one of them. Furthermore, it does not follow at all that I would discuss or not discuss that matter or other matters with him. I said nothing, but it is self-evident that I must meet White and non-White prime ministers of neighbouring states or of other states in the world when they are concerned with matters which are of importance to South Africa as well. I shall meet him and I shall meet them for discussions. But that has nothing to do with this story; this is merely a further attempt to stir up suspicion in connection with that interview that was to take place in regard to the fundamental matter mentioned in this so-called letter. And then it continues—

Shame!

Then it goes on—

What this “letter” is in fact, is a forgery that was published at the time of the Basutoland election by the Basuto Congress Party, a communist-financed party, in an attempt to win the election against Jonathan. Jonathan has denied the truth of it: Commissioner-General Papenfus has denied the truth of it. When the election was over they nevertheless tried to spread these false stories to South Africa, and the police seized the copies of this false letter. Now this forged letter by a pro-communist party in a Basutoland election is being used by the United Party in an election in the Republic of South Africa.

Shame!

And the author of the whole of this article is the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan). who sits in this Parliament.

Shame!

I now want to declare most emphatically not only that this is a forged letter emanating from the Basuto Congress Party, a party which is supported by communist funds (according to information which has already become available), but also that not one single statement contained in this is true concerning me personally or concerning my intentions. The first time I saw what was being said about me was when I saw this letter. I never gave the slightest indication or had the slightest intention of conducting any negotiations in connection with the so-called Conquered Territory of the Free State. It is an absolute untruth, and I find it disgraceful that propaganda can be made in this way by means of something which anyone who has any common sense, anyone who believes in the decency of his fellow-citizens in the country, ought to know cannot be true. Surely something like that could not be true!

I shall now deal directly with the Leader of the Opposition. Because I have to use parliamentary language when sneaking in Parliament and cannot express myself in descriptive terms in saying what I think of this type of propaganda, I want to ask him this: Is he going to allow this type of propaganda to be made in his official paper, by an official propagandist of his, a Member of Parliament under his leadership? If he is going to allow that, then I say we can believe any rumour about smear campaigns against individuals which the United Party allegedly wants to conduct at the forthcoming election. He will damage his own prestige if he allows that type of thing. Just imagine: These two Oppositions co-operating at two elections to use the same forged letter for making propaganda to win an election!

I now want to deal with other matters. South Africa is approaching an election. In that election the electorate has to decide, and it will decide on the basis of certain matters which are quite fundamental, and on the basis of other matters which are of great importance. They can already give their decision on the basis of the fundamental matters alone. One such matter is the continued existence of the nation, and whether the nation is going to continue in existence or not is going to be determined in two fields in particular. One is the colour policy. If the colour policy of the country is wrong, everybody is endangered, as the White man in other parts of Africa has been endangered. The second is whether the State has the ability to maintain itself internationally and internally and to maintain its standpoint. The test must first be made in those two fields. We have to ask: what are the policies of the different parties in the economic and other fields, but first we have to ask ourselves: the policy of which of the two parties will afford substantial security for White control in South Africa?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to argue to-day that he would succeed in ensuring White survival and control by means of his policy. His policy is very clear; it signifies the acceptance of the whole of South Africa as one mixed fatherland. In this one mixed fatherland, which he says he wants to keep undivided, he must necessarily act in association with both Whites and non-Whites, not only in the economic sphere, not only in the social sphere, but above all in the political sphere. He is prepared to do that. He and his party have, in the course of time, given various descriptions of his policy in terms of which that would happen. At one time they described it as political integration.

Never!

They did in fact accept political integration. They said at a later stage—perhaps they did so from the outset, but I do not think so—that they did not want “one man one vote”, but that they wanted a form of political integration. They still want that, because the subsequent way in which they formulated their policy was that it was one of partnership. Partnership is a form of integration. Whether one wants to make the Black man one’s junior or senior partner does not alter the fact that one wants partnership. The partnership advocated by them was one which they based on the idea of partnership which was inherent in British colonial policy. They expected to apply that partnership here in the way in which it was first applied to Kenya in terms of the colonial policy, that is to say, a junior partnership. At that time, that is to say, when all that was demanded for the Black man was a junior partnership, with which he would allegedly be satisfied for 100 years, the Opposition presented the situation in Kenya as offering a solution as against our apartheid policy. Then, however, that junior partnership avenged itself and became a partnership with the Black man as the senior partner, and subsequently absolute rule by the Black man, with the White man being kicked out. Then the Opposition flinched, but fundamentally their policy still remains one of partnership in South Africa. In terms of the United Party policy of partnership, however, the course of events in Kenya will become the course of events in South Africa.

They have also said that their policy is one of adopting a middle course. A middle course between what? Between absolute rule by the White man and absolute by the Black man. In other words, the middle course must be to have joint rule by the two together. Surely it cannot be anything else. However, they have also described their policy as being one of race federation, and a race federation also means partnership. It also means integration. It means joint rule by the Blacks and the Whites, even though the Leader of the Opposition tries to be the head of the integration party, while the Bantu are the legs. It remains integration in one body. How are they going to rule that one fatherland, with one people, with one loyalty? By means of one central government, one central parliament in which both Blacks and Whites will be represented.

If the Coloured people are represented here, does it amount to integration?

Of course it contains an element of integration, but it is something totally different from the complete integration towards which the United Party wants to move. Surely the United Party is saying unambiguously how it is going to allow the Bantu, the Coloured people and the Indians into the parliament of its race federation? There need be no uncertainty in the minds of the people about the difference between the policies of the two parties. The one party wants to accept the realities of life, namely that the Bantu have certain areas of their own and the Whites other areas. Just as in Europe, just as in South America, just as in Asia and just as in the rest of Africa, where different nations which had their own territories which they occupied, eventually developed into different states, so we accept it as one of the facts of reality that that must and will happen in South Africa. We have never yet denied that there are dangers inherent in that, nor have we ever denied that dangers would arise if such areas came under communist influence. What we have said, however, is this: if those dangers should in fact arise they would not be so great under circumstances in which we grant freedom to those people and assist them and co-operate with them in the economic field, as they would be when those same communist influences operate upon those same people as part of an integrated South Africa with an integrated government. Then the danger would be a mortal one, because those influences would be taking hold of and leading astray the majority of the people in one country which is common to all of them. If I have to fight (which I do not think will be necessary under our policy), I would rather fight against people outside our borders. We may in any case come up against that problem in the case of the three territories which are being granted independence by the United Kingdom. We are already faced with that problem at the moment. Britain has allowed communist money to be sent to Basutoland to play a part in the election—Chinese and Russian money. In South Africa, therefore, we are already faced with the problem of a communist danger in a neighbouring Black territory which is being granted its independence by Britain. That is a danger. But how infinitely greater is the danger when the White man cannot protect himself as he can do when he is the sole master of his fate, because he has to live together in the same country with all those influences being exerted and with people who are capable of being influenced even forming the majority! Let South Africa have no illusions. Under United Party policy, whatever they may call it, the mere fact that the nation is going to have that mixed character must, as in Kenya, lead to gradual demands for greater participation in politics by the Bantu. Whether the Blacks achieve a greater say will not be determined by consultations, will not be determined by referendums. It did not happen in that way in the other countries. All those guarantees given by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition are worthless. Power is simply seized. The facts are that, if he consults as he says he will, the following will happen. Suppose he has his central parliament, with eight White representatives for the Bantu, and a few Coloured persons and Indians representing their own people. Then the Leader of the Opposition wants to consult. He does not want to consult with the natural leaders; therefore he has to hold consultations with the Luthulis; he may have to consult with the Sobukwes or the Mandelas, and he will certainly have to consult with the Potos. He may say now that he does not like rebellious leaders of that other type, but in terms of his own statements and policy he does want to consult with the people who are the leaders of political parties or party groupings, and not with tribal chiefs. Now, what are those people going to ask? What is Poto going to ask? What is Luthuli going to ask? Not even to mention what Mandela is going to ask.

What is Matanzima asking?

What Matanzima is going to ask is independence for his Black territory, and I shall be prepared to grant him that at the right time. But what Poto and Luthuli are going to ask for is the present-day White territory as well, and equality and “one man one vote”. That is what they are going to ask the Opposition for, namely, Black supremacy over that mixed nation and the White minority. Let us imagine what the position will be. After holding such consultations, the United Party will say: “We have to consult the electorate on the matter, as we promised to do.” They then consult the electorate by means of a referendum, and the electorate will most probably say “no”. What will then be the position? A head-on collision between Black and White such as South Africa has never known before. In that head-on collision in this one united fatherland of all the races the majority group is going to have the sympathy of all the nations who are fighting against us to-day, because it is on those grounds that they are fighting against us; that is to say, the African states, the Asian states, the Western states and the whole of the UN. The question I ask is this: In that situation, when everything has gone so far, what hope will South Africa have of being rescued from the consequences of that party’s policy? Have they not learned the lesson of Africa?

The National Party, on the other hand, unequivocally adheres to its standpoint, which is that we shall develop the Bantu in their own areas and that we shall lead them to freedom in those areas. Unlike the Western nations, we shall not allow dates to be exacted from us. We shall see to it that the course of gradual development is followed so that the masses of the people will eventually reap the real fruits of a truly democratic state—not a state of transition to a military dictatorship, which has followed in the rest of Africa as a result of independence being granted overhastily. I therefore repeat: we are adhering to our policy. It is true that there are dangers and that demands will be made. We shall maintain our standpoint in the face of them, because we are not one of the nations which are not used to dealing with the Bantu or which are giving way to-day as far as the rights and status of the White man in the world are concerned. We are not a nation of that kind. We shall maintain our standpoint, but we shall also set the Bantu on the road to their independence at the right pace.

I now come to the attack made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that in any commonwealth South Africa might form with its Black neighbouring states they would try to dominate us and might even kick us out. My reply to that is a very clear one, and that is that we are prepared to co-operate with the various peoples, but only on the basis of the principles of non-interference in the domestic affairs and of decent relations. If we cannot come together on that basis of sound co-operation and sound relations, then we shall not sit together with them on some body or allow ourselves to be kicked about as Britain recently did when she went to Nigeria under pressure from Black nations who wanted to dictate to her what she had to do in connection with a territory under her control. In other words, it will not be possible to have such an association of states here if that is to be the spirit of that body. We shall not cling to a so-called prestige group at all costs; we are not interested in that at all. We shall only be interested in real cooperation among states which have common interests, and who want to co-operate for those reasons. I believe that to be possible.

South Africa will therefore have to choose between these two directions in the field of colour. I have no doubt about what the result will be. I have no doubt about what the choice will be and in whom the people will place their trust.

I should like to make a final point in passing. If Rhodesia has failed to win the friendship of the world, although it has 15-non-Whites in a parliament consisting of 65 members, then the Leader of the Opposition should not try to lead the public of South Africa to believe that he will gain peace and international friendship and co-operation and support when he seeks to introduce eight White representatives of Blacks into a Parliament consisting of approximately 180 members. In other words, there is no hope of peace or the continued existence of the Whites once we enter upon that downhill road of a mixed nation in a mixed fatherland. South Africa should realize that.

In addition to deciding about that important fundamental principle one will have to decide which of the two parties will be able to provide for the basic securities of South Africa. Those basic securities lie in different spheres. One sphere is that of internal security, that is to say, whether the Government will be able to maintain internal peace and order by means of its police services and the courts, and whether it is prepared for that in this period of subtle ideologies, which are trying to achieve victory by means of dirty tricks, sometimes by means of flattery, sometimes by making use of ideological groups, sometimes even by making use of clerics. The parties must decide about that, that is to say, whether or not they are prepared to fight by means of legislation or other courses of action. It has become very clear in the past few years that this Government is prepared to take the necessary steps, even unorthodox steps, in that situation, no matter how it is vilified, no matter how it is vilified by the Opposition. But it has also become clear that the United Party, either because it does not have the courage or because the United Party itself belongs to those groups of semi-liberalists, is not prepared to take the necessary steps to combat undermining of that nature effectively. It cannot, because of its prejudice. No matter how anxious it is to have order, it cannot maintain it, because of its attitude; but this Government is ready to do what is required. It has proved that it wants to do so. and it has shown by means of results that it has secured order and peace in these difficult times.

The second leg of a country’s security is the defence machinery created by that country, The Government has built up the Defence Force to such an extent that it commands respect, that it is seen as something which makes South Africa a country which is not to be tackled lightly by another. We are still not satisfied; we are continually making improvements by reorganizing the structure of the Defence Force, by specially adapting it so as to be able to meet the various possible methods of attack, and by utilizing the youth of our country and all the means at our disposal. In doing so, we are turning the Defence Force into an even more powerful machine than it already is, In this respect, too, the country is in safe hands.

However, the struggle that one has to wage is often one in the diplomatic sphere, which means that there must be no irresolution in the international policy of the Republic. It must be a policy of certainty and strength. I think I may confidently say that in the international sphere, in spite of all the clashes South Africa has had to experience, it has succeeded not only in making silent friends—not alliances; it cannot succeed in bringing about such outward demonstrations, nor will the Opposition succeed in doing so, not with their policy—but also in gaining respect for the firm attitude adopted by South Africa. The important fundamental principles on which our entire international policy is based, pre-eminently that of non-interference, are being granted recognition to an increasing extent. We have made such progress that some of the states in Africa are already beginning to show greater understanding. When one day—I do not know when it will come—self-support becomes the dominating factor in their lives owing to lack of support from outside, when self-support becomes more important to them than the puppetry on the international stage of their military or other dictatorships, then they will have gained the maturity and the insight to look to South Africa for what we are prepared to provide, namely co-operation towards the proper development of one’s own people and one’s own country. I therefore have no doubt that in the international sphere as well South Africa will get the best protection by having this Government. When it is necessary to take a stand (for example, at the UNO. or even against the UNO if it may become necessary). this Government will do so, but the unstead fast United Party does not give us any hope. That means, therefore, that if the electorate had to make a choice to-day (and they have to make a choice on the basis of these two important matters of policy which affect the whole of their lives, namely, on the one hand, continued existence in the modern world with the modern outlook going against the White man and in which South Africa has to stand alone, and on the other hand the struggle to bring about security in the various spheres, both internal and external), there is so clearly no choice that the electorate would want to give their decision on the basis of those considerations alone, whatever agitation is set afoot by the Leader of the Opposition about any droughts and natural disasters or other problems there may be in the country. Everything is secondary important to survival. The measure of assistance granted to farmers, for example, is of great importance to them, but of what use would assistance be to farmers who could no longer remain in South Africa, whose entire nation had already been destroyed or pushed out? Basically, therefore, the choice is going to be made, and must be made, on the things I have mentioned so far.

That, does not mean of course, that we are not going to do everything we possibly can in the economic sphere. On the contrary, this Government is exerting itself with great ingenuity and planning in the economic sphere, as every industrialist and entrepreneur knows and testifies in his own circles, on public platforms and to the rest of the world. General confidence exists, but apart from the general confidence there are certain fundamental principles on the basis of which industrial development is being guided by the Government, and which everyone realizes are of supreme importance. I may just mention them briefly.

The first is that the export trade is full of new promises and should be developed further. Those who want to suggest that the export trade was declining were mistaken. If they examine the statistics they will see that it is growing, even in Africa. A second principle is that the Government will continue to create the climate necessary for this promotion of the general welfare. The rate of growth proposed by the Government is well-known to us. In addition the national product is continually increasing. As the past few years have proved, there is no doubt that, on the basis of the manpower and financial resources we shall have at our disposal, we can and will achieve the rate of growth we have laid down for South Africa (taken on an average, over the following five-year period).

The third principle is that the accent is being placed on developing our manufacturing industry. A policy of selective protection will be continued. We will have to continue with the principle of processing our own raw materials, not only with a view to achieving greater self-sufficiency in the industrial field, but also with a view to manufacturing more for our export industry. Thus we want to promote the production of ferro-chrome, not only for the purpose of exporting ferro-chrome. but also for the purpose of the articles to be manufactured from it here. We shall continue in the direction of the further diversification of industrial products. but not merely for the sake of establishing new industries, because if it is not necessary we do not want to establish industries that will not be capable of enduring. We can still develop further in the economic field. For example, we want to develop the infrastructure further. We shall combat any concentrations of power and monopolies which may occur in our country and become of any real danger. We shall devote special attention to the retail trade, particularly the retail trade which has landed in difficult circumstances in the rural areas as a result of the drought. We shall continue with our policy of border areas, which is one of the means that can assist us in moving the urban Bantu to other areas. We have of course never said that for reasons of policy the Bantu would soon no longer be used in industry. We have never said that the number of Bantu would be decreased immediately, as the Leader of the Opposition alleged a few moments ago. The rate determined by us was a different one, which I am not going to discuss now.

However, I just want to say this in connection with border industries. We have lately had an investment of no less than R140,000,000 there. No fewer than 53,000 people, of whom 41.000 are Bantu, have been taken into employment there. That means that no fewer than 115.000 members of Bantu families are being provided for. Do hon. members still remember that I said years ago that we would within a measurable space of time be able to have at least 500.000 people in Bantu areas placed in border areas, and that in the course of 50 years that number could increase to at least 12.000,000 people? We are already making progress in that direction, in this brief initial period.

I now want to give certain concrete indications of what we want to do in the forthcoming period. We should like to see new enterprises being undertaken by private initiative. A few of the types which have been brought to the notice of businessmen, and which we hope will be undertaken, are a soda-ash undertaking, an electrolytic copper refinery, and the further manufacture of electric locomotives. Then there are certain major industries which are of key importance and which private initiative cannot undertake without receiving some form of Government support. They are also under consideration for the forthcoming period. I just want to mention a few for general information. There is the tractor industry, the establishment of shipbuilding yards for the building of larger vessels, and the development of the fishing industry, for which purpose our fishing-harbours will be enlarged and increased in number. Then we are continuing with the deliberate search for oil, with which we have already made some progress. In addition we are also beginning to consider establishing a second Sasol! [Hear, hear!] We are also continuing with the expansion of the steel industry. Sir, you are aware of all the expansion which took place in Pretoria and Vanderbijlpark under the previous ten-year plan. We are already beginning to consider establishing a third Iscor! Hon. members can therefore see how purposefully the Government plans ahead to meet the needs of our country.

The second and a very important leg of our industrial life is the farming industry. Let no one tell of the farmers of South Africa that this Government does not take the greatest and most sincere interest in the farmers of the country. This propaganda which is being made in an attempt to undermine the confidence of the farmer in his Government is of course to be expected on the eve of an election. The fact of the matter is that this Government has done as much for the farming industry in many fields as could possibly be done. Unfortunately I cannot deal in detail with the extent thereof in the short time at my disposal. It will be done by others. For the very reason that my survey is a long one, I can only devote a short time to every part thereof. Therefore this task will be performed by others in due course. But I want to give the farmers of South Africa the assurance that we are all deeply concerned at the severe hardship which they have been caused by the drought, and that we have not only been united in prayer, but are united in our sympathy and in our determination to try and solve their problems (not only of the period of emergency, but also of the period of reconstruction which is to follow now that the rains have come). The farmers of South Africa are of fundamental importance to the whole of our society. I cannot imagine any Government not realizing that. Food production is of fundamental importance to us. But to us as Nationalists the character of the countryman, of the farmer, the conservative person, is of great significance. His spirit is the foundation on which our attitude is based. He is the power behind our thinking. To think that we would leave in the lurch what forms part of the body and soul of our entire existence as a party is simply too absurd to believe. Therefore, in every possible respect, we shall try to restore the severely stricken farming community to its feet. It is no use ridiculing this new Department. The new Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure has not only been established for the purpose of drought relief. With the assistance of that Department it is the intention to see to it that those persons who cannot obtain credit elsewhere but who have a chance of making progress will get the necessary assistance, both advisory and financial, in every possible way.

Does that mean another Minister?

No, not necessarily. After the election I shall consider how I shall organize the management of the Department.

However, we shall look after the interests of our farmers on the basis of clear and fixed principles. These principles are that we shall not interfere with the independence or offend the pride of the farmer. The farmer should not only be able to carry on industry independently on his farm; he should also be able to feel that he is remaining independent and can plan his own industry. The danger of granting wrong forms of assistance—and that is also the danger when one tries to lay down certain general rules—must be avoided at all costs.

I therefore want to make it clear that we must not expect a number of major statements on measures to be made. In the state of affairs in which we now find ourselves many of our farmers need individual attention. Each of them has a slightly different problem. The combination of factors which will save him, as well as the combination of factors which caused his ruin, although the drought in particular is an important factor, must all be taken into account. We shall see to it that every farmer receives support and assistance from the State on his own merits and in the way best suited to his needs. I therefore have no doubt that we are heading for the reconstruction of our agricultural industry. I have no doubt that the cattle-farming industry, which has suffered so severely, and the dairy industry will get their assistance. They will have to be built up again. A country such as ours cannot do otherwise. I therefore place all my confidence in the Ministers and the Departments, who are as keen as the Leader of the Opposition can hope to be, to do everything that can possibly be done for the farmer and the farming industry.

In addition to these important aspects in the development of the State, namely, industrial development, the development of mining and the development of agriculture, there are certain basic services which have to be provided. Large-scale planning for those basic services has been undertaken years in advance. I do not want to discuss the transport services, for example, the progress that has been made in the field of aviation, and the purchases which are to be made and which will make our share in world aviation—not only South African aviation—a major and significant one, or the plans which already exist for the improvement of our airports. All those things are well known. Just in passing I also want to mention that in the field of communications as a basic service we are busy with much greater things than is generally realized. So, for example, reforms are being introduced in connection with the Post Office savings bank system which are of such a nature that that system could have virtually the same significance as a banking service for the man in the street. These reforms could enable him to draw money from his account on demand immediately, wherever he may be in the country, as new methods of communication are to be introduced which will make it possible to obtain any information about his account immediately at any place in South Africa. The microwave system which is now being developed is of such a nature, and is being employed in such a way, that the telephone system itself will, within the next five years, be able to develop to the stage where virtually 85 per cent of our telephones will be automatic telephones, so that one will be able to dial directly from virtually any part of the country to any other part of the country. By means of the international cable, to which we are a party, and which will in fact be the most modern in existence, we shall even have exceptionally good communications with the rest of the world and particularly with Europe. Then we shall reach the stage where one will be able to dial through directly to any major city of certain other distant overseas countries. Great progress is being made in every field as far as the communications system is concerned.

I should also like to say something more about the other two major basic services, namely, water supply and power supply [Interjection.] I am sorry that the hon. members of the Opposition are so envious that they do not want to listen, but the people outside would like to know these things. We realize the cardinal importance of water. A long list of projects for the next five years will be submitted in due course, but I just want to indicate the following in broad outline. Within five years 86,000 morgen of new land, excluding the Orange River scheme, will become available in South Africa. In the same five years 148,000 morgen of existing development will be supplied with additional water, which can lead to greater productivity and security. Furthermore, such progress will then have been made with the first stage of the Orange River scheme that there will be additional water for another 53,000 morgen there too. An additional 35,000 morgen of new irrigable land will become available there, in addition to the 86,000 morgen of new irrigable land elsewhere. In addition, it will become possible within the next five years to supply approximately 85.000,000 gallons of water per day to three great power stations, namely, Camden and Hendrina Nos. 1 and 2, which will result in the generation of 5,600 megawatts of electricity for use in the country. Furthermore I also want to make it clear that I hope that the 500,000 morgen feet Oppermansdrif dam on the Vaal River will be completed within the next four years, which, together with another dam-wall raising work, will increase the available water supply of the Vaal River triangle, Klerksdorp and the Free State gold mines by 300,000,000 gallons per day. That shows the large extent to which the needs of this part of the country will be met in terms of immediate plans. In addition there are of course great possibilities as far as the Tugela and the Boland are concerned, to which we are devoting very serious attention, and which can greatly stimulate industrial and agricultural development. In fact, we regard the provision of water as a matter of such great urgency—and the drought has perhaps contributed to it being regarded as so urgent a matter—that we intend appointing a commission to go into all the aspects of water provision. That will result in the greatest planning in respect of water provision which has ever been undertaken in South Africa. This commission will deal with the problems of the re-utilization of water and the most economic utilization of water, for example, by building power stations of a type that uses less water. The possible desalination of water, with the possible use of nuclear power for the purpose, will also be investigated. The possible establishment of nuclear power stations, so that sea water instead of fresh water can be used in the generation of power, will also have to be investigated. In other words, a commission of experts is now going to be appointed with the object of drawing up a broad and ambitious plan for the future of South Africa in regard to everything in connection with water.

Another strong leg on which the development of the country rests is power. The demand in the Republic is increasing tremendously. It has been calculated that Escom alone will require an 81/2 per cent increase per annum between 1965 and 1970. That means that the consumption at Escom will increase from 23,000,000,000 kilowatt hours to 34.700.000.000 kilowatt hours by 1970. and plans for the establishment of the necessary generating plants have already been completed.

Then there are the large local authorities whose consumption will increase from approximately 6.000,000,000 kilowatt hours to 8,500,000,000 kilowatt hours. Apart from the support which the State will have to grant to both developments, whether by way of financing or in whatever way, the Government realizes that the need for power will increase to such an extent over the next 30 to 40 years that (notwithstanding all the already visible exploitable sources that we have in South Africa, some of which, such as the development of nuclear power stations, are another type in respect of which research is still being carried out) the need will be too enormous to meet without turning to more unorthodox and remote sources than have hitherto been considered. The mere fact that the question of the investigation of these possible future sources of power has been brought to my personal attention, and that I also grant my personal support to the investigations and calculations, is indicative of the seriousness with which this Government is making provision for this basic service and of the far-sighted attitude it is trying to adopt in respect of a basic requirement of a developing country such as South Africa.

Hon. members can therefore fully appreciate why I attach so much importance to broad planning and why I have established a Department of Planning and Co-ordination. In the field of economic planning and in the preparation of the economic development plan we have already had proof of the value that central planning and co-ordination can have as regards the stimulation of ideas, the establishment of new undertakings and the initiation of ambitious works for the future.

The growing needs, as far as science and scientists are concerned, are also being attended to. The only survey on such a scale which has ever been made of our scientific resources and their serviceableness and transferability is being conducted at the moment. We shall use that as a basis for further development in order to achieve the most effective utilization of the scientists in our country, the science of our country and the research institutes of our country. Everything must be carried out on a more highly co-ordinated and more systematic basis than anything that has ever been conceived before.

I think every member of this House deserves a medal for enduring the punishment of sitting and listening to the hon. the Prime Minister for two and a half hours. Of course the Prime Minister is fully entitled to speak as long as that. But what I find interesting is this: During all that time he made one statement after another; he dealt with virtually every aspect of our political life; and in each statement made by him there is so serious a flaw that if one analysis his statement it becomes completely meaningless. I should like to give you a few examples; but unfortunately I have only half an hour. If I were to discuss all the flaws and illogical statements and untruths in the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech, it would take me two and a half hours as well. For example, he said that the colour policy of the Nationalist Party as opposed to the colour policy of the United Party will be the test the people will have to apply at the election. Then he came along with the statement that the United Party, with its policy of White leadership through White control over the whole of South Africa, would create an impossible situation, that there would be disharmony and that the non-Whites would make demands to which we would have no answer. In contrast with that he offers the policy of the Nationalist Party — the fragmentation of South Africa and the creation of autonomous, independent Bantustans. The hon. the Prime Minister says that he will be able to resist demands made by people from outside; that it is easier to resist demands made from outside than demands made from within. But what gives the hon. the Prime Minister the idea that in terms of his policy the majority of the native population will ever be able to make a living in these independent Bantustans? Or should he not admit, if he is honest — and he is honest — that as long as he lives and as long as his children and his grandchildren and great-grandchildren live, there will be a majority of natives in the Republic of South Africa? They will be born here; they will work here and they will die here. The difference between Nationalist Party policy and United Party policy is this: Under the policy of the United Party we shall have to deal with demands; nobody can deny that. People always want more; I want more and the hon. the Prime Minister wants more. We shall always have to face demands, but we shall be facing demands from our own subjects. Under the Prime Minister’s policy on the other hand, we shall have to deal with demands from the subjects of foreign, sovereign states, though they will be people who will live and who will make their living in the Republic of South Africa. That is the difference. The Prime Minister himself has admitted that he is having trouble with communistic and Chinese influence in Basutoland, which has hardly become independent yet. It has already started there, and he said that it would also start in the other territories. If there is trouble in Basutoland, why increase that trouble eight-fold by establishing eight independent Bantu states for South Africa? Where is the wisdom, where the statemanship? And now the hon. the Prime Minister comes and actually tells us that he admits that the commonwealth which he has always painted for us in such rosy colours, where there are to be seven Native Prime Ministers and in which he will be the only White Prime Minister — that was his beautiful prospect for South Africa; that was the sum total and the final outcome of his policy — now he tells us that he realizes it will not work. But what will he do then? He will not stay there; he will do as he did in London; he will withdraw. Then surely he is admitting that he can clearly envisage eight, nine, ten or eleven Native states in South Africa which will be hostile to him and that he will be unable to cooperate with them; he would have to get out. He also advances the argument that his Government will see to it that South Africa’s internal security is maintained, and that the United Party, because of its philosophy, cannot do so. But what has become of the hon. the Prime Minister’s memory? Mr. Speaker, during the war years we did not have a few isolated communists and non-White agitators to deal with; we were faced with White organizations which were built on stirring up disharmony an destroying the order in South Africa. We did not struggle for fifteen years to get the position under control and then say, as the hon. the Minister of Justice had to say, “We cannot sleep at night; we are so concerned about the situation in South Africa.” No. we had the position under control and stopped within a year and we had to act drastically. We even had to immobilize the Minister of Justice for a while, and we did so without any fears. How dare the hon. the Prime Minister come forward with such arguments? He experienced those events as we did; surely he knows better.

The hon. the Prime Minister comes here and presents us with a wonderful vision which the Nationalist Party hold out for the future. We are so glad. We, too, had plans; we had plans for a larger White population; we had plans for the development of the Orange River Scheme. Those plans have been destroyed. For sixteen years their implementation was postponed by this Government — years which South Africa will never regain, years which posterity will reproach them for. This Government has been in power for seventeen years — almost eighteen years. On the eve of the fifth election since 1948 the hon. the Prime Minister comes forward with his plans. It has taken him seventeen years to formulate those plans. For Heaven’s sake, how long will it take before we will be able to reap the fruits of those plans?

The hon. the Prime Minister comes here today and in this no-confidence debate, on the eve of the election, makes a speech about our farmers, and now he suddenly tells us that he loves the farmers of South Africa. Yes, they are the warp and woof of his whole life and organization! But, Mr. Speaker, not so long ago we had to hear from his Ministers — and he did not stop them — that the farmers had to disappear from our farms — 2,600 of them every year …

Who ever said that?

These are facts. Where was his love of the farmers then? During the debate on the motion of no-confidence last year my hon. Leader raised the question of the farmers. Under the Prime Minister’s Vote he again raised the matter. Did the Prime Minister then say that the farmers were important to South Africa? His reply was: They are not of basic importance to South Africa and their affairs should not be discussed under his Vote! [Interjections.] I have his speech in front of of me and here are columns from which I can quote. He said most indignantly:

In other words, how dare the hon. the Leader of the Opposition talk about agricultural matters. since it prevents him from talking about matters of colour. That epitomizes the entire attitude and standpoint of the Prime Minister and his Government: “Forget about the interests of the people; we prefer to speak about colour problems, which we want to exploit.”

The hon. the Prime Minister went so far as to make wild allegations here. He has suddenly come forward with an educational system. Not so long ago he told his congress in Bloemfontein that he had no time for education; he had been too busy with constitutional matters. Now he comes forward with a plan. What does he tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, he is not concerned only about the intelligent child; he wants to enable all children to achieve a higher education. When did the Leader of the Opposition speak of intelligent children? The words he used here, he has used time and again. What he stated here was no new pre-election policy: it is part of his philosophy; it is part of his view of life that children with ability should be educated as far as their abilities enable them to benefit by that education. Is the Prime Minister prepared to have children educated at the expense of the State if their mental capacity is such that it is impossible for them to benefit by that education? Why does he make such a ridiculous allegation against my Leader? Why does he make such an unworthy allegation; it is not worthy of the hon. the Prime Minister to use that type of argument.

I could mention many more examples. The hon. the Prime Minister spoke of national unity and told us that he is the great champion of national unity. He is trying to persuade us that he is not only the champion but also the embodiment of national unity; that in his Party the two groups stand united. Mr. Speaker, in the United Party national unity is put into practice every hour of the day. Look at our ranks; look at our congresses. It is a newsworthy event if an English-speaking person appears at a Nationalist Party Congress. Where is the hon. the Minister of Information? What has become of his wild statement that he would test English-speaking opinion in an English-speaking constituency? That a Prime Minister with such a background should come here with these allegations!

The hon. the Prime Minister said that the only new topic raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was that of Rhodesia. He reproached my Leader for dealing with other matters which had already been dealt with in the past. But what else should one do? What is the main issue between the Government and ourselves? It is the incompetence, the errors, the negligence, the lack of insight, the lack of vision of this Government. That state of affairs remains unchanged, and until such time as it changes we shall have to bring up the same matters. Until we see indications of a Government that looks ahead, a Government that really seeks to safeguard White civilization and civilization in general in South Africa, these issues will remain. And then the hon. the Prime Minister told us—I do not know why, since my hon. Leader did not mention it—that if it appeared necessary he would repudiate and leave the UNO. I just want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister this: If the honour of South Africa is defiled, we shall support him in any steps he may take to dissociate us from the body which belittles us and slights our honour. But if he is prepared to repudiate the UNO, why does he not show that he is also prepared to take some stand towards the same UNO where it affects the interests of a civilized government in Rhodesia? We have had an emotional statement from the hon. the Prime Minister. He attacked me for having said that it was becoming clear that they regarded the White community in Rhodesia as expendable, and then he became emotional and in the finest words—I had a lump in my throat—he testified to his attachment to, to his emotional involvement with the civilization and the Whites of Rhodesia. And then he spent the next half-hour explaining to us at great length why he could do nothing special to assist the White community in Rhodesia. In other words, he declares his love for the White community in Rhodesia and then goes on to say why they are in fact expendable, and why South Africa cannot involve itself in their difficulties; they should rather be allowed to go under. At what stage of possible calamity in Rhodesia will the Prime Minister say: “Now I have to start doing something to demonstrate my love for and my sympathy with the White people of Rhodesia?” With great responsibility and with great calm, without the emotion of the hon. the Prime Minister, my hon. Leader said that South Africa should use its influence to reopen the discussions, the dialogue, between the Rhodesian authorities and the British authorities. He then went on to say that it would be disastrous to reopen those discussions once chaos had been created in Rhodesia—and on this point I agree with the Prime Minister; there will be chaos in Rhodesia before those people surrender. My Leader said: In order to prevent the creation of an impossible position, because there can be no dialogue unless there is an orderly, civilized government in Rhodesia, it is the duty of South Africa to help, even by unusual steps, to maintain order in Rhodesia. The Prime Minister’s whole argument, for half of his speech, was to say why that should not be done. What were the two main excuses? One is that in Rhodesia they followed a policy similar to ours, and that that makes it rather difficult for him to side with them. That is of course not true. In Southern Rhodesia, in Nyasaland and in Northern Rhodesia (as it was called at the time) they pursued a policy of territorial federation, similar to the policy the Prime Minister wants for his commonwealth! We on this side maintain that we want federal institutions which are based on population groups, not on geographical areas, a world of difference. The Prime Minister then continued and asked what were we to do, because if one acted as a mediator, one had to take sides and the Rhodesians themselves would prefer not to be associated with the apartheid policy. That was the hon. the Prime Minister’s second admission of that nature. On the last day of the session before last he admitted sorrowfully that he could not go to the capital cities of the West, as his presence in the Western capitals would embarrass the leaders of the West. He used the word “embarasseer”, which I would not use in Afrikaans. To-day we have again heard that a nation which finds itself in difficulties will be embarrassed and weakened by being associated with South Africa. In other words, it would not be wrong for South Africa to try to act as mediator, but it would be disastrous for the present Prime Minister, with his policy, to act as mediator. That is why I maintain that South Africa suffers under a Government which with their policy of pettinesses has made South Africa, in the words of the Burger, the skunk of the world. Now the hon. the Prime Minister comes along and accuses us of trying to make political capital out of the Rhodesian situation. I fling that back in his teeth with the contempt it deserves. He wants to suggest that we are trying to catch votes when we appeal for the preservation of civilized standards. I do not believe there is one Nationalist in South Africa, apart from the Prime Minister, who does not also desire that. He then went on to say that we could not imagine the chaos that would result if we did more for Rhodesia. Mr. Speaker, he cannot see what chaos would result if we did not assist Rhodesia. It is no use quarrelling about that. Surely we all know that is true; If the extremists, the Afro-Asians, find that with the pressure they can bring to bear on the Western nations against Rhodesia, they have discovered a method of forcing the Whites in Africa to their knees, they will be prepared to exert the same pressure to an increasing extent on those same powers to take steps against South Africa as well. But while listening to the Prime Minister, I heard the echo of another speech, a speech by Senator the hon. Paul Sauer, made while he was still a member of this House, when he warned the people of South Africa against a troika policy, when he recounted the story by a great Russian writer about a man on a sledge who was being pursued by wolves, and who flung one horse after another to the wolves until finally the remaining horse was so weak that the wolves devoured him. That is the Prime Minister’s policy. I wrote in the Argus that it was becoming clear that the Prime Minister was of the opinion that White civilization in Rhodesia was expendable. I repeat that. It is quite clear from the Prime Minister’s speech that he has proved to-day that I was right and that he is prepared to fling one community after another to the wolves in the hope of saving South Africa. Rhodesia will be the first. I wonder what is going to happen to South West Africa. I wonder what is going to happen to the Transkei or to Bechuanaland if a similar state of affairs arises there. The Prime Minister said that South Africa’s security is being safeguarded. At what stage? Or are we back in 1939? You know, Sir, we have made progress. Some years ago South Africa’s frontier was in Korea. It seems to me as though it is now receding to the Limpopo. Mr. Speaker, if we think we can detach South Africa’s fortunes from those of the White communities in Southern Rhodesia, we are labouring under a dangerous misconception. [Interjections.] The Prime Minister told us that South Africa was experiencing wonderful prosperity and he mentioned his plans to us. He mentioned the huge factories, another Sasol and another Iscor and even more powerful power stations. But we have such a serious shortage of manpower that this Government cannot afford having a prosperous South Africa. For lack of labour if has just been necessary for them to take urgent and drastic steps to curb the prosperity and development of South Africa. I now want to ask the Prime Minister where is the manpower to come from to man all these new factories in the next five years? I want to tell him: They will come from the Bantustans. They will be native workers, together with White workers. Now I want to know: Is the Prime Minister going to close all these factories he has mentioned as from 1978. because he has told us that from 1978 the Bantu are going to start moving out of South Africa back to the native areas? Are they going to take the factories with them? How can one argue with the leader of a government which is so blind to the essential meaning of its own views and its own policy? If he wants to separate White and Black in South Africa into different areas, if he wants to carry out his Bantustan policy, then I want to ask him to read again what I wrote in Dagbreek two years ago, when I said that one can seriously consider this policy of territorial separation and separate states as being the official policy of South Africa according to the Nationalist Government. We can regard and discuss it as such, provided the Nationalist Party is prepared to call upon the people to make the sacrifices. We can discuss it as such, provided the Nationalist Party is prepared to make a fair division of the land in South Africa, provided it is prepared to work to enable the Bantu states of the future to support the Bantu population. But their policy shows no signs of that, and it remains a fraud. Will the Nationalist Party have the courage to face the consequences of their policy and to say: we believe in segregation; we believe in separate development and we are going to make sacrifices; we shall ask the people not to be selfish; we are really going to bring about partition in South Africa, without border industries, without the presence of millions of Bantu on whom the prosperity of the Witwatersrand and South Africa is being built, without Langas and Nyangas. Until they have the courage to say so, they are deceiving the people. They know that cannot be done. They know that the magnificent plans submitted to us to-day by the Prime Minister, plans for new factories and dams, are all dependent upon Bantu labour. At its best the Bantustan can be no more than a remote corner where the poor, under-privileged Bantu will be restricted, filled with envy of the rest of the Republic of South Africa and with resentment in his heart, because he will know that the riches of the Republic are being provided by the labour of the Bantu who work for the Whites in the land of the Whites. That is the state of affairs which will be created. That is the most frightening glimpse one could have of the future of South Africa, this juxtaposition of poverty and riches, with the poor granted political power by the Prime Minister, with the political organs by means of which to express their resentment and to act upon their resentment in the wrong places, against the Republic, whose riches will be based on what the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) calls labour units—Bantu labour units: not people, but labour units. Mr. Speaker, South Africa cannot risk continuing for the next five years under the dangerous, short-sighted and blind policy of the present Government. The Prime Minister said that there were people who said that they must vote for the United Party in order to keep the Opposition going. That is not the viewpoint of this side of the House. It is with confidence and with determination that we ask the people of South Africa: Vote for the United Party to rid yourself of the most dangerous and short-sighted Government South Africa has ever had, and to replace it with people who have vision and who love South Africa and who wish to preserve civilization here, not only within our Republic, but also in adjoining territories where our future may be determined.

Mr. Speaker, when listening to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) I am sure of one thing and that is that we are going to have a “jolly” election. I have now been listening to the hon. member for Yeoville for the past 17 years. He is a good and compelling speaker, but he has only one difficulty. Every time he makes a speech his party loses a few more seats. I want to make a suggestion to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Prime Minister demolished them to such an extent this afternoon that they are beyond recovery. They cannot recover in this debate in any case. 1 wonder whether he should not let us put the motion of no-confidence to the vote to-morrow. Then we could go home sooner and he could have a little more time to participate in the election, because the longer they talk here the more seats they are going to lose.