I move—

I should like to express my gratitude for the arrangements which have made it possible for me to make this Second Reading speech at such an early stage. I wanted particularly to do so because there is a great deal of uncertainty on the part of the public in regard to what precisely the Bill comprises, and what I intend doing in terms of the Bill, when it is passed by this House. Here, at the moving of the Second Reading, I am now being afforded the opportunity of furnishing the particulars which are involved in this matter. Hon. members will be aware of the fact that owing to the limited time remaining for the passing of the Appropriation Bill, it will not be possible to deal with the Bill in its entirety or even with the Second Reading in its entirety now, except if hon. members were to be so kind as to pass it without discussion! Under the circumstances I hope that hon. members will allow me to deliver only my Second Reading speech now; after that we can adjourn the debate until a later stage when it will be more convenient to deal with the Bill properly.

Hon. members will agree with me that in normal circumstances the usual supply and demand can determine the rent which must be paid for rented dwellings and rented premises, but as a result of the extraordinary circumstances in which we are living to-day, the rapid industrial development which has taken place in the country, the increasing numbers of immigrants, the temporary migration to the cities as a result of drought and other conditions, there is at present a tremendous housing shortage in the country and the normal regulation of rents by supply and demand has consequently been disturbed. The demand, particularly over the past two years, has become much greater than the supply and it has been clear for some considerable time that the shortage of housing which has arisen in this way is being unjustifiably exploited by certain lessors—and I want to emphasize strongly that it is only some lessors, not all—for their own gain at the expense of the lessee, so much so that complaints are continually streaming into my office. Cases have been mentioned where rents have been increased on as many as four occasions over the last two years, and increases of up to 50 per cent and 60 per cent in the rents which applied two years ago, have been mentioned. I am certain that hon. members on both sides of the House will be aware of similar complaints in their own neighbourhoods. Hon. members are aware of the fact that it has always been the Government’s stated approach, and it still is, that rent control, whenever it is in any way possible, should gradually be relaxed. In the past this policy has been carried into effect by lifting the rent control in 205 out of the 274 areas in which it had originally been introduced, and in 1955 it was also abolished in respect of business premises. But if all the signs indicate that a group of lessors are, for their own gain and at the expense of the lessee, exploiting a situation which has arisen, then the Government is in duty bound to step in and call a halt, and that, apart from certain rectifications, is what is being envisaged in this Bill. Legislation was passed in 1964 to make it possible for the Minister responsible, after there has been an inquiry by a rent board and their report has been considered, to extend rent control to certain individual properties or even groups of properties where exploitation has indicated that rent control is essential. But this is a cumbersome process, a process which was included in this form in the Act because it was accepted that the insertion of that measure in the Act would place a damper on unreasonable increases in rent and that it would only have to be applied on rare occasions. But it is obvious that if complaints about rent increases on uncontrolled premises are simply streaming in by the scores each week, it is an impossible task to take timely action if investigations have first to be made and reports brought out by the rent boards in each individual case. The mere volume of the complaints are an indication of what the tendency is, and lays down the pattern. One of the most important measures in this Bill, something to which I also referred in my statement of 5th August, is the amendment of Section 33 (1) (bis) and (ter) of the existing Rents Act to make it easier and consequently more effective to apply rent control on uncontrolled premises, and to eliminate time-consuming enquiries and reports. I am referring to Clause 9, paragraphs 1 (a) and 1 (b) of this Bill. Paragraph 1 (a) empowers the State president summarily, upon my recommendation, to extend the provision of the Rents Act by proclamation to any dwelling, garage, parking space or business premises, or certain groups thereof which were occupied or used for the first time after 20th October, 1949 and before a given date, and it empowers the State President to determine the date with effect from which the provisions of the Rents Act will apply to such properties. That means that the rent which was paid on the date stipulated in the proclamation in respect of such property, will be the rent applicable to that property until such time as the Rent Board is approached for a rent determination and such rent determination has been made.

But now the Bill also provides in sub-paragraph 1 (b) that this extended rent control can at any time be withdrawn or amended. In other words, this measure is now being made a temporary one for the first time. It is the intention, when this Bill has been passed, to issue a proclamation whereby, in the first place, rent control is extended to all dwellings occupied or used for the first time after 20th October, 1949, and before 1st June, 1966, and whereby, in the second place, the rent applicable to such dwellings will be the rent which was being paid as at 31st May, 1966.

Does that include flats?

Yes, all dwelling units. That does not mean therefore that rents are being frozen at what they were on 31st May, 1966. Hon. members will also remember that in my statement of the 5th August, I never used the word “frozen”. All that it will mean is that the rent which was being paid as at the 31st May, 1966, will remain valid until either the lessee or the lessor has approached the Rent Board for a rent determination on the grounds of the fact that the prevailing rents are unreasonable rents, and the Rent Board has made another determination. Lessors of uncontrolled premises who are therefore collecting higher rents as those which were payable as at 31st May, 1966, even if they had come to an agreement with the lessees before 31st May, will, as soon as the proclamation appears, be guilty of an offence, and I want to suggest that they rectify the matter before the proclamation is promulgated. After the proclamation has appeared they can make application for another rent determination.

I want to admit that since we are endeavouring here to combat unjustified rent increases, it will unfortunately be the case that the decent, the accommodating lessor who has possibly not increased his rent over a long period, and who has now only recently, for the first time in many years, come to an agreement with a lessee in regard to an increase may be detrimentally affected by this—temporarily. I am sorry that it is not possible to accommodate them in this Bill, but I am convinced that the rent boards will deal sympathetically with such decent lessors when future applications are made. I mentioned earlier that this principle of extending rent control to uncontrolled premises, a measure which is already contained in the Rents Act, and which has already been applied in some cases, but which entails a time-consuming, cumbersome procedure, is now being made a temporary one for the first time. I have done this because it is my firm intention to repeal, at the first possible opportunity, the proclamation which will be issued. We must do something to keep the exploiters in check and as soon as this has been done, in other words, as soon as we are convinced that the rent boards have dealt with the stream of applications for amendments which can be expected after the proclamation has appeared, there will, in my opinion, be no need any more for the extended rent control to remain in force. I shall then be able to have the proclamation repealed in the knowledge that exploiters will be aware of the fact that it can be reintroduced immediately if their actions make it necessary.

Initially I did consider making this measure applicable for a fixed period of time, but if I had done that such a fixed period of time would have had to be a safe one and it would have tied my hands if circumstances were such that I would have been able to lift this extended rent control at an earlier stage. That must not be the case. I must not be bound in that way because I want to try and apply this measure as a very temporary one and because I regard it as being a purely deflationary measure. In addition to that, hon. members are in the position that they will be able to call me to account here if I allow this extended rent control to remain in force longer than may be absolutely necessary.

In my statement of 5th August, I also envisaged the extension of rent control to business premises. The renting of business premises, however, takes place on a totally different basis than is the case with dwellings. The type of lease which is entered into is basically aimed at enabling a lessor, in the initial stages, to establish and build up a successful commercial undertaking first, while he can then in later years, when his turnover and his activities have increased, pay a correspondingly higher rent. After considering the matter I have now decided not to extend rent control to business premises in the proclamation. However, it must be borne in mind that the rent which is being collected in respect of shop buildings in particular does have a substantial effect on the cost of living. Dealers transfer increased rents to the consumers in the form of price increases in respect of commodities which are not branded commodities. I have consequently instructed the rent boards and inspectors to keep a watchful eye on the position and to report on the matter at the first indication of unjustified actions by lessors. If it should then appear to be necessary to extend rent control to business premises as well, I shall not for one moment hesitate to do so.

Mr. Speaker, whether or not it will subsequently be necessary to make the provisions of the Rent Act applicable to their properties as well is entirely in the hands of the lessors of business and commercial premises.

There will be certain persons and bodies now who will want to intimate that this measure will result in the construction of residential accommodation becoming a less attractive field of investment. Let us consider for a moment what the tendency in this connection has been. In a contributory attempt to channelize as far as possible the available material and manpower in the building industry for the erection of residential accommodation, building control was introduced on the 2nd December, 1964—that measure which empowers me to postpone for a period of time the erection of structures other than dwelling accommodation of certain standards so that preference can be given to the erection of residential accommodation. Of the 1,052 projects on which decisions were made in terms of building regulation measures, nearly 25 per cent, that is 266, with a total value of R62,500,000, were prohibited, even so there was a tremendous decrease, namely 77 per cent, in the value of building plans approved for the erection of flats during the first three months of 1966 in comparison with the corresponding period in 1965.

If it is also taken into consideration that the building industry is far behind with the completion of approved building schemes—at the end of 1965 it had a carry-over of 40 per cent in respect of dwellings and 55 per cent in respect of non-residential buildings—everything points to the fact that this measure—I am now talking about building control—should be retained and may even have to be applied more strictly in respect of non-residential buildings, in order by so doing to canalize more capital for the construction of dwelling units.

If the private investor were to bear in mind that the population of South Africa is going to double itself in the next 30 years and that we are consequently going to have to erect just as much residential accommodation in this period as has been built in the country over the past 300 years—and that will be in addition to our urban renewal projects, slum clearance and so on—then I think that they will of necessity have to see, in the provision of residential accommodation, the safe and permanent field of investment which every investor is so assiduously seeking.

I want to make an earnest appeal to private investors to see in the erection of residential accommodation a field of investment and in that way contribute towards making it possible to repeal this measure as soon as possible by bringing about once more a better ratio between supply and demand through the provision of additional residential accommodation.

According to private investors, however, there have up to now been problems which have impeded their progress. Section 33 (1) ter of the existing Rents Act at present provides that where uncontrolled dwellings are placed under control, the rent as determined by the Rent Board shall give the lessor a net return of no less than 6 per cent on the value of the land and 8 per cent on the actual cost of erection of the building. The amount which was allowed over and above this amount, was exclusively in the discretion of rent boards. Now hon. members will agree with me that since we are now going to be dealing with dwelling units which were erected 17 years ago and which are now going to be brought under control, units which may in the meantime perhaps have undergone a change in ownership three, four or even five times, it is a totally impossible task, quite apart from a factor such as the increasing values of buildings on account of the devaluation of money, etc., to determine one’s rent value on the basis of the cost of erection.

In respect of controlled dwellings on the other hand, the reasonable rent is that rent which the rent board determines by, apart from certain other things, allowing a lessor a fixed 8 per cent per annum on the value of buildings and 6 per cent on the value of the land. These percentages were absolute. I decided to eliminate this anomaly and apply the same basis in respect of all dwellings. In other words all dwellings will be dealt with on the basis of the fixed 8 per cent and 6 per cent.

Is that on the valuation of the Rent Board?

I am coming to that. I want to go further, Mr. Speaker, and say that where there is a building on which the owner has a mortgage bond, or suppose I own a residence which I rent, and I decide to sell it, then I can only find a buyer who will have to pay a higher rate of interest on his mortgage bond than that which he will receive in terms of this stipulated 6 per cent and 8 per cent. Consequently clause 1, paragraph (c) is now providing that rent boards are required, where the average of the 8 per cent and the 6 per cent is not sufficient to cover the interest of a bona fide loan registered against the property, to grant the additional amount. There is a limit imposed on that, namely that the rate of interest which they may take into consideration shall not be higher than that which is normally charged by financial institutions on mortgage bonds for buildings of that nature. Otherwise it could easily lead to abuses. With the determination of rent values of a controlled premises—which may or may not correspond to the market value—rent boards, apart from other factors, must in terms of the provisions of the Rents Act also take into consideration any sworn or Building Society valuation of such premises or land.

I want to give the assurance here, Sir, that I shall have rent boards instructed by the Rent Control Board that with the determination of rent values of dwelling units which will now be placed under control by proclamation for the first time, preponderance of importance must be given to sworn valuations or to Building Society valuations when considering the factors which they have to take into account in terms of the Act in order to determine the rent value.

I have received strong representations in regard to the rates of 8 per cent and 6 per cent. It was suggested to me that the norm of 8 per cent and 6 per cent which has been laid down for rents, was imposed in the days when rents were lower than those which have obtained in recent years, and that justification consequently exists at present for the raising of those rates. Now, Sir, I have an open mind on this matter. But at this stage I have insufficient data to make an amendment in that regard in this measure. But I am quite prepared to reconsider these percentages, provided properly constituted bodies of investors—and there are such bodies—can furnish me with irrefutable figures and information indicating that at 8 per cent and 6 per cent plus the difference in current rates of interest, the provision of residential accommodation for the private investor is unrealistic. After I have received those particulars, I shall, in consultation with the Minister of Economic Affairs, go into this matter to make sure that the field of investment in this direction compares favourably with other fields of investment in the economic life. If a case can then be made out for that matter, I shall come forward next year with an amendment to rectify it.

In view of this it will probably not be out of place to appeal once more to those same investors to do everything in their power to provide residential accommodation so that the balance between supply and demand can be restored as quickly as possible. In view of the population explosion and the population increase which lies ahead, their endeavour will have to be a major one.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with the other clauses in this Bill. As far as Clause 1 paragraph (c) is concerned, the position is that with the determining of reasonable rent in respect of controlled premises—which include single rooms—the rent board must, inter alia, include the value of any services which the lessor provides, but in the definition of services the supplying of meals is excluded without defining what a meal is. A class of lessors has now developed which makes use of this exclusion of the defining of meals from the definition of services to obtain an abnormally high rent for their apartments by merely serving perhaps a cup of coffee and a slice of toast to the lessee in his room in the morning and regarding it as a meal. By so doing they immediately turn their lessees into boarders and consequently they are exempted from rent control, which results in the collecting of exorbitantly high rents for the apartments which are occupied—because boarders are exempted from rent control.

This amendment is merely defining what a meal is, and will now require lessors of this type, if they want to give themselves out as boarding house landlords, to supply a proper meal in a properly adapted additional room, especially set aside for the purpose.

I am aware of the fact that there are other possible evasions as well. Cases have been mentioned where flats are leased subject to meals having to be taken in restaurants which have been provided in the building. Cases have also been reported where flats are leased to serve as annexures for hotels. Well, Sir, this kind of thing is being investigated and if there are grounds for steps being taken, such steps will be taken as quickly as possible. There is no time to do so in this Bill, but I give the undertaking that I shall give instructions for this matter to be investigated and that we, if it is necessary, will deal with the matter as quickly as possible.

Clause 1, paragraph (a) is aimed at rectifying an anomaly which has arisen in respect of parking spaces and garages which were built before 1949. There is a very strong legal opinion which indicates that the definition in the present Act only relates to parking spaces and garages which are an integral part of the structure of the residential building itself. The tendency has therefore arisen to make parking spaces available somewhere else in the grounds at a much higher rent and in this way to collect a rent for the residential accommodation which is much higher than that indicated by the rent board as being reasonable. This amendment is now rectifying the position in respect of parking spaces and garages, so as to exclude any doubt.

The Rent Act makes provision for rent control over business premises, but in 1955 rent boards were by proclamation deprived of jurisdiction in respect of business premises, but provision was never made for it being possible to reintroduce this jurisdiction again. The amendment in Clause 2, paragraph (a), rectifies the position and entails that business premises may once more be placed under rent control by proclamation if that should be necessary.

Paragraph (b) makes it possible for relieving magistrates to function temporarily in the place of magistrates who have been appointed as chairmen and members of rent boards, and who have left or are not present.

Clause 3, paragraphs (a) and (b) are purely consequential amendments which have to be made as a result of the 1964 amendment of the Act, while the words being inserted in Clause 4, which have been taken over from the Arbitration Act, are merely intended as a further protection of the dignity of rent boards.

Clause 5, paragraphs (a) and (b) which deal with rent increases which are in conflict with the Act, merely contains two consequential amendments. However, the Act reads that, where a lessor has knowingly imposed a rent increase, contrary to the provisions of the rent board, he is committing an offence, and this word “knowingly” has already caused considerable difficulty since it places the onus of proof on the State. By way of explanation I can just mention a case which occurred here in Cape Town. A person who had quite a fair amount of legal knowledge, purchased a property which had been leased before 1949 and in respect of which the rents had been determined by the rent board, and he immediately increased the rent without the permission of the rent board. When the case was traced and a charge was brought against him he, in spite of the fact that by merely using his telephone he could have established locally from the rent board what the position was, and in spite of the fact that the seller—who could not then be found—was required by law to inform him of the rent determination, pleaded that he had not known that there had been a rent determination, and because the State could not furnish adequate proof to the contrary, he was acquitted. But a few months later the same person purchased an identical kind of property and acted in absolutely the same manner and, believe it or not, he was again acquitted. Surely this kind of malpractice cannot wittingly be allowed to continue unchecked, and paragraph (c) is now being inserted to transfer the onus of proof to the lessor.

Clause 6 contains a merely consequential amendment while Clause 7 repeals Section 21 (bis) which, as a result of the amendments being introduced in terms of Clause 9, is no longer necessary.

The insertion which is being contemplated in Clause 8, paragraph (a) will make it unlawful for a lessor to require that his lessee, as a condition precedent to the leasing of a dwelling sign away in any manner whatsoever his protection in terms of the Rent Act. The Act as it reads at present imposes a prohibition on the receipt or payment of commission or premiums, and so on, as a consideration for the possibility of being able to lease a dwelling, and a penalty clause for the contravention of these provisions has been written into the Act. But a new evil is now cropping up to an ever increasing extent and I think that hon. members will agree with me that something should be done to do away with this new malpractice. Some lessors of controlled premises now require lessees at the same time they sign the lease, to sign, as a condition precedent to obtaining the lease, a document in which they terminate their lease, and by so doing then sign away the protection being afforded to lessees by Section 21 of the Rents Act.

There are company lessors who go further and who use this signing away by the lessee of the protection afforded them by the Rents Act to continue leasing their controlled property on a temporary basis while they speculate with the ostensible selling of individual flats. They get away with it because there is nothing in the Rents Act which prohibits a company, which owns a block of flats which are under rent control, to sell company shares and place a particular flat in the possession of the buyer of the shares, provided the particular flat is vacated. For this purpose, of course, they have their legal lessees sign away their protection so that when it suits the company, the lessees can be thrown out to make place for the so-called buyer of the flat. Ironically enough, all that such a “buyer” then has, is a few shares in a company and for the rest he is the lessee of the company, usually at a much higher rent than that which the rent board determined or would determine. I am investigating this aspect, as well as the fact that some owner companies will tend to allow flats to remain untenanted while seeking possible buyers and also make the purchase of shares a condition precedent of leasing, and I want to give the assurance that if this malpractice continues I shall not hesitate to introduce legislation against this as well at a later stage, so as to deal severely with these people. In the meantime the present provision ought to protect the lessees of flats. Clause 8, paragraph (b), does not contain any major new principle, but merely rephrases the existing Section 25 (2)(bis) and ter in order to make its application more effective. It is also being provided now that furniture brought onto the premises by a third party, is deemed to have been brought there by the lessor. This has become necessary because subsidiaries or associates of lessors rent furniture to a lessee as third parties at abnormally high rents in order by so doing to increase the rent. The words being inserted at the end of Section (2)ter are in order to bring it into line with the new definition of “parking space” in order by so doing to eliminate any possible evasion as a result of lessors renting unmarked parking spaces so that these may then be exempted from rent control. The furniture in houses belonging to persons who may perhaps be travelling overseas, or who may be away from their houses on a temporary basis and who for that reason are leasing their houses temporarily only and will subsequently occupy them again, is being exempted from rent control for a period of six months.

The amendment being effected by Clause 9, paragraph (a), is purely consequential, while paragraph (b), reinserts the proviso which was accidentally deleted in 1965, but also extends it to include other things on the grounds of which it could be alleged that a controlled premises has changed its identity and is consequently exempt from rent control.

Clause 9, paragraph (c), is being amended solely in order to make it possible to exempt a building which was occupied before 20 th October, 1949, from rent control and to cancel the exemption again if it is necessary.

Vacation houses, the dwellings of people who have gone oversea on holiday, or houses which for similar reasons are being leased on a solely temporary basis, are, in terms of paragraph (d), being exempted from control for a period of six months. A moment ago I dealt with the furniture; now I am dealing with the house. These, Sir, are briefly the provisions of the Bill. If hon. members now have the time to study this explanation of mine, together with the Bill, I hope that this will enable hon. members to understand the difficult Rents Act. I move.

Mr. Speaker, we are glad that the hon. the Minister has taken this opportunity of giving his second-reading speech, for two reasons. The first one is that since he made his announcement on 5th August, a state of unrest and uncertainty has existed. I think we have made it quite clear to the Minister that we believe he should have had his legislation ready at that time so that everybody would have known what his intentions were in introducing legislation of this kind.

We are also very grateful for having had the opportunity of hearing this speech at this stage because we believe that this is the kind of Bill which should perhaps be accompanied by a White Paper, the reasons being that not only are the contents of the Bill important, but also that we believe that the Minister’s intentions and the purpose to which he wishes to put the Bill are also most important. This speech has therefore to some extent offset the fact that the hon. the Minister did not publish a White Paper with this Bill. With these few remarks I should like to move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, when the debate on this vote was adjourned yesterday evening, we had the privilege of addressing the Minister on a certain aspect concerning the S.A.B.C. I trust that the hon. the Minister will soon be present in the House so that we can continue with the discussion and address certain remarks to him concerning this particular aspect. The position has been that in 1962 the hon. the Minister promulgated certain regulations whereby a concession was made to certain pensioners on a certain basis, in terms of which these pensioners who were living in homes for the aged subsidized by the Government, a provincial administration, a municipality or a home for the aged administered by one of the churches represented on the S.A.B.C. Advisory Council on religious broadcasts, were entitled to receive a concession to the extent of paying R1 per annum in respect of listener’s licence fees. However, Sir, it is noticeable that, during the past three years …

Here is the Minister, like his mail, always late. I wonder whether the S.A.B.C. will nut this over the radio on “Current Affairs”; The missing Minister; where was he?

Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to see that the hon. the Minister is now present. We must make concessions if he has been delayed. I hope that he will now be able to make a concession as far as a worthy group of persons is concerned. The position is that since 1963, under the existing regulations governing the granting of these concessionary radio licences, the figure has steadily dropped in spite of the fact that the number of radio listeners’ licences issued has increased by approximately 100,000 per annum. In 1963 there were 8,430 concessionary licences issued. In 1964 it dropped to 7,941 and in 1965, the latest available figures show that there has been a further drop to 7,763. I believe that the S.A.B.C. genuinely desires to assist these people. These people I am referring to are the social pensioners. As far back as 1963 the S.A.B.C. Board of Governors indicated their willingness to make a concession to these people, as they undoubtedly realize that the radio is in many instances the sole means of entertainment as far as the social pensioners are concerned. Many of these people only have an old, outdated radio set. They are unable to enjoy the development of the F.M. system. Therefore they are being called upon to pay an increase in licence fees, which now amounts to R5.50. However, the concession was made to those persons living in these various homes, as I have already indicated. A great deal of hardship has been experienced especially by those social pensioners who are not accommodated in a home for the aged, but are living alone, or living as a couple.

It only seems fair and just that these people should receive some concession. The Board of Governors of the S.A.B.C. three and a half years ago agreed that such a concession should be extended to this particular group of persons. Sir. that was three and a half years ago but I know that the Minister indicated that he was unable to accept that recommendation due to what he termed various administrative and financial difficulties. The Minister was good enough to reconsider this whole aspect during the course of last year and in reply to a question this year the Minister indicated that the matter was being further considered but that finality had not yet been reached. My plea to the Minister this afternoon is for him to give sympathetic consideration to this plea and to the resolution which was passed by the Board of Governors of the S.A.B.C. to extend this privilege to these people.

In terms of the existing regulations, various difficulties have arisen. For instance, there are certain homes administered by organizations which do not receive any subsidy from the Government. They are non-profit organizations and there are certain organizations such as the Women’s Section of the M.O.T.H.s organization who administer such a home in my constituency. The inmates of that home are unable to enjoy the privilege of having made available to them a concessionary listener’s licence at the amount of R1 per annum, although this home is run on the same basis as any other home which is receiving a subsidy. But in actual fact the home costs the Government nothing. Therefore there are these difficulties, but I believe that it is possible for the administrative difficulties to be overcome. For instance, the applicant for an indigent invalid’s licence at 25 cents per annum is required to submit supporting affidavits signed before a minister of religion, a commissioner of oaths or a justice of the peace, and therefore it would appear that it would be possible for a social pensioner who is living alone or, if it is a couple, where one of them is a social pensioner, to produce a letter of authority which is issued to them by the Department of Social Welfare to prove that they are social pensioners, and at the same time also to submit an affidavit to show that they are living alone or as a couple.

The other aspect to which the Minister had objections was in regard to the financial position of the S.A.B.C. It appears that the S A.B.C. at the present time and for the last few years has shown a considerable increase in its revenue, and I believe that the con cession granted to this deserving group of people would be more than offset by the increases which have occurred in listeners’ licences, resulting in increased revenue. If we look at the figures for 1965 we find that the total revenue for the year was R11,068,807, and the total expenditure amounted to R9,402,717, an excess of income over expenditure of R1,660,090. I know that certain amounts of this have to be allocated and transferred to various funds and that the development fund received almost R1,250,000 of that amount. But the position is that the amount of revenue derived from the increase in listeners’ licences has been considerable.

As I mentioned earlier, the table shown in the report of the S.A.B.C. shows that approximately 100,000 more licences per year have been issued over the past four years. In the previous year, 1964, the revenue also increased. The total revenue for 1964 was R9,364,178, and the total expenditure was R7,914,139. [Time limit.]

I first want to say a few words about television, and then I want to come back to the Opposition’s attack on the review “Current Affairs”. Last night the hon. member for Orange Grove stated the view that television would not be introduced until this hon. Minister had first vacated his post, and that he believed that television would then certainly be introduced. He said that as though he had simply become reconciled to the fact that as long as this Minister is there, it will not be done, but as soon as the Minister is no longer there, it will come. That was more or less the purport of his words.

I just want to tell the hon. member very clearly that as long as television cannot be controlled, as long as the programmes and the quality of those programmes will have the effect on people that they have at present, as long as we continually have to make cuttings from newspapers about people who are associated with television and who are continually referring to the deterioration of the morale and the morals of people who watch television, and as long as we are aware of the fact that many good working-hours are wasted in front of television sets, South Africa will keep television out of this country, where our manpower and every hour of labour is needed for productivity. It is not a question of its being only the Minister’s will. It is a matter of every right-minded South African insisting that his children should be protected against this thing which is actually aimed merely at affording cheap publicity and enriching advertisers and the television dealer, and at striking at the very root of man’s being, and at conquering his mind for the benefit of the destructive forces abroad. I want to put it very clearly that it is not only the Minister; it is an. attitude to which every right-minded and loyal South African subscribes. Do not tell me that it is a modern development with which we are supposed to fall in. Poison gas is also a modern development, and so is the atom bomb, but must we jump at it immediately merely because it is modern? No, if it is essentially hazardous to the people, we should keep it out until we have the means to control it, and there I want to leave television.

I want to come back to Radio South Africa and the attitude in respect of the review “Current Affairs”. The fact remains that there is a sustained campaign against the S.A.B.C., particularly in some newspapers of the liberalistic group of the English Press, who for their own part contribute nothing to our national life and do nothing to safeguard the position of the Whites in South Africa, but who are always begrudging others like the S.A.B.C. the freedom they claim for themselves. The United Party, through the hon. member for Orange Grove and others, has now fallen in with that group and is adopting the same slogan. Now I ask myself, why must Radio South Africa and the review “Current Affairs” continue speaking the language they are speaking at present? Radio South Africa, as a good and loyal South African institution, dare not be silent if things happen such as those that have in fact been happening lately. I do not want to generalize like the hon. member for Orange Grove, who is merely talking to the wind; I want to mention specific examples, and then I want to ask him, if he is a loyal South African, whether he can remain silent when such things are said, without commenting or without taking up the gauntlet for South Africa.

I want to begin by saying that the A.N.C. was banned as an organization some time ago. Prior to that banning there was an article in the Star to the following effect—

That is the viewpoint of the Star, and shortly afterwards an A.N.C. pamphlet appeared which I want to read—

That is the same so-called peaceful organization of responsible people. If that happens, should not the S.A.B.C., should not Radio South Africa, should not any loyal supporter and citizen of the Republic of South Africa rebel immediately and tell the newspapers: “You are protecting the enemies of South Africa”? If Radio South Africa wants to be a loyal South African, dare it be silent if such things happen? I want to take a second example. When we withdrew from the Commonwealth the following appeared in that same paper, the Star—

Now listen to this—

What happened then? We withdrew from the Commonwealth. This article appeared the day before we withdrew. We then withdrew, and the Prime Minister returned from the Commonwealth Conference, and the next day the following article appeared—

And then it added—

That is the spirit in which those newspapers speak. Dare Radio South Africa be silent? Dare the Leader of the Opposition and any member of the Opposition be silent if we look back on that event and subsequent events; if we see how this nation became one after the withdrawal from the Commonwealth, and how grateful we are that we are not a member of the Commonwealth? If Radio South Africa is a loyal South African, dare it be silent when such things happen? Must we be silent when newspapers adopt this attitude?

I want to take a third example, a very prominent example.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member can make his own speech; I do not want to listen to him now, because until now he has in any event spoken a lot of rubbish. The third example I want to take is the following: What happened after the attempt on the life of the Prime Minister in 1960? The Monday after the shooting the Cape Argus published an article to this effect—

The article continued—

That is the spirit revealed in English newspapers. Dare South Africa be silent if that happens? When Dr. Verwoerd returned from the Commonwealth Conference and received a hero’s welcome at the Jan Smuts Airport, the same paper published the following—

Mr. Chairman, that is the language spoken by the newspapers. Dare Radio South Africa, as the mouthpiece of the nation, be silent when such things are broadcast? Dare it be silent if these things are disseminated throughout the world through the medium of the English language? Is it not the task and the duty of Radio South Africa to employ all the powers at its command to present the true facts and the correct image to the world abroad, in its entire approach as regards this matter? Mr. Chairman I want to tell you why action should be taken, and I want to ask the Opposition the following: Do they agree, in view of subsequent events, that those newspapers were wrong and that it was therefore right of Radio South Africa to act, or are they so disloyal to South Africa and so unpatriotic that they persist in defending those people and in attacking Radio South Africa? I ask this salient question and I hope they will have the courage to reply to it. They are always boasting of their patriotism. Why must Radio South Africa disseminate these ideas to the world abroad? Why is that its task and its duty to South Africa? In the first place, the negative, pessimistic and destructive attitude adopted by a number of our English newspapers is readily accepted and adopted by world opinion because they write through the medium of English, which is an international language and by means of which it is carried to the entire world abroad, whereas the newspapers that present the opposite image use the Afrikaans language as a medium and do not enjoy the same publicity abroad, and for that reason a slanted image is disseminated to the world abroad. Dare Radio South Africa, that can outline the true image of South Africa to the world abroad through the medium of English and by means of its transmitters to foreign countries and to 7,000,000 listeners in South Africa, be silent and allow this slanted image to be disseminated to the world, or is it its task to correct it? [Time limit.]

I have never been able to understand why people whip themselves into a passionate state over the question of television. Why hon. members should object to television passes my comprehension. Throughout the world today television is regarded as a modern development that is used by all nations as a form of communication and of presenting art. I can quite see the difficulty in South Africa. There is a difficulty, but it is not the difficulty to which the hon. member for Randfontein has referred; it is not the moral difficulty that the nation will become depraved through television. Sir, I will tell you what the difficulty is. We can provide English programmes for television but we would have very great difficulty in providing Afrikaans programmes.

Is that the only reason?

In providing programmes, the world pools its programmes and you will find, when you see television on the screen in Britain, for example, that many American pictures are shown there.

Blood and thunder! (Skiet en donder).

It is exceedingly difficult to maintain a full programme throughout the whole day. That is the reason and I can see the difficulty here, but we could compromise; we could have a short television programme in both languages. It would not be a programme similar to the radio programme we have today but we could have a short programme. I think there would be no difficulty about that.

So much for television. Then I come to this question of the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation. Before discussing their policy I should like to refer to their accounts. The auditors tell us in the accounts that the reserve fund established under Section 20 of the Act stood at R4,179,000 but was only funded to the extent of R3,388,000; in other words, there was almost R800,000 not funded. Perhaps the hon. member for Sunnyside who has knowledge of these matters will be able to explain that to us because he probably knows how these accounts are conducted. It seems to me an extraordinary thing, when the hon. the Minister of Finance is scratching around looking for funds, especially loan funds, that this money was unfunded. Perhaps there is some explanation.

Now I come to the policy of the S.A.B.C. Whenever we have discussed the policy and the Act and have pointed out that there is no control of the S.A.B.C. council or committee, we have been told that the S.A.B.C. was established on the advice of that great Britisher, that great Scot, Sir John Reith (now Lord Reith). He knew what to give us; he modelled it on the British system and we are told that therefore it must be good. Well, I do not think it is, because when Sir John Reith gave Britain its radio system he was dealing with a homogeneous community. Ours is not homogeneous; we have different kinds of people. We are told now that we may not amend the Act, that we may have no changes and that the S.A.B.C. must continue as they are. Sir, how has the radio developed? It has become an agency of the Government. They spend their time not giving us the news but giving us the policy of the Government. When a Minister speaks they give his speech, not necessarily because he is giving information to the public, but even a political speech is put across. Sir, I want to be quite frank. I do not mind if they do put a Minister’s political speech across, provided we have the right to reply, provided we can have the same facilities as the Nationalist Party. The S.A. Broadcasting Corporation is only an instrument of the Nationalist party to-day.

Nonsense.

That is how it is being used. I am not interested in this tendentious stuff that comes across, where the editor of a Nationalist newspaper explains the news of the day. I have no objection to his explaining it but let us have a man to explain it as well. What I am asking for is that they should give us a forum. Let the S.A.B.C. be a forum as you have in other democratic countries. In 1953 we had a general election and the parties came together and said “We will take time on the radio, time for both parties. We will broadcast in both languages”, and an amicable arrangement was come to. We asked for the same facilities this year. It was refused. Why? Because they wanted to use the S.A.B.C. as a government political Nationalist Party instrument. That is the position. And we have it not only in Afrikaans, but also in English. We have these people telling us in English what we ought to think. Now I want to make this proposal to the hon. the Minister. I know the hon. the Minister says the Broadcasting Corporation is an autonomous body. All right, give us some directors who are prepared to take a broader view of how the S.A.B.C. should be used, give us some men who will say: “We will make the S.A.B.C. a forum, all parties will be allowed to express their views, also the smaller parties”.

All the parties?

Of course, not only the Nationalist Party. When I speak about a forum, I want freedom of expression. Naturally I do not want it to be patriotic as the hon. member for Randfontein wishes. These people have prejudice on their lips all day long. They say that we must be patriotic. Well, if Broadcasters are not patriotic you can revise the broadcasts and say that certain things are not acceptable. You can do that with broadcasting. It is not like an interview on television. An interview on television goes rather differently. Now what happens in Great Britain? The Prime Minister, Mr. Wilson, appears on television, he is questioned on television. Then Mr. Heath, the Leader of the Opposition, appears as well—not at the same time of course but a while afterwards; he is also questioned. I want that spirit in our S.A.B.C. We get nothing of the kind to-day. What we are getting to-day is the news. South Africa, we are told, is the only country in the world where there is peace and happiness, and in the rest of the world you get all the troubles on earth, except in South Africa. We are so happy. Yes, we are very happy.

It breaks your heart to hear that.

Well, Mr. Chairman, that from a Minister. A lowdown personal remark from a front bench Minister. He has descended as low as the S.A.B.C.

And you get annoyed when you hear the truth.

I do not get annoyed.

It does not worry me.

If the hon. the Minister uses language of that kind in an interruption, he seems to be very much worried. Otherwise he would not make personal remarks like that.

That is my appeal to the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. Let all the political parties get an equal chance. When Parliament is sitting, for example, let representatives of the Parties give their impressions of the week. We get speeches of Ministers. We have the editor of a Nationalist newspaper telling us what we ought to think. Why not the editor of the Johannesburg Star!

Or the Rand Daily Mail?

All right, the Rand Daily Mail if you like to suggest that. I do not mind. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down, made an attempt in the first place to lay it at the door of the S.A.B.C. that as a result of the biased attitude of the Broadcasting Corporation, the United Party is sitting there in reduced numbers, and that the S.A.B.C. did in fact have an influence because, as they allege, the news reporting was biased. I think the hon. member knows that that is not correct. He knows that the S.A.B.C. presents adequate reports in both languages on current matters of a non-political and also of a political nature, so that everybody may form his own sound judgment. But, Sir, apparently they cannot think for themselves, and as they were beaten in the last election, they also want to drag in television because the S.A.B.C. did not carry them as they wanted to be carried, and because from their point of view reporting here in South Africa is too patriotic to swallow and accept. That is the objection of the United Party. If one has a guilty conscience, nothing hurts more than the truth. Apparently that is the attitude adopted by the Opposition in their attack on the Broadcasting Corporation. But I just want to say here that it appears to me as though they now want to drag in television also to assist them, because if they succeed in having television introduced here in South Africa, they may perhaps be able to exert some influence by means of the reporting they prefer, and they hope that they will then be able to sell their cause more successfully. It was said here that we were against the introduction of television because we could not present programmes in Afrikaans. That is a nonsensical allegation, because if we wanted to present them in Afrikaans, we could easily have them translated. That is no problem. But it is not easy for us to translate the image presented there, and what we object to is the image that is disseminated by television and that is presented to the Afrikaner child and to the adults.

How many programmes have you seen on television?

It makes no difference how many I have seen. I can quote authorities who are in fact able to express an opinion. I have seen re-broadcasts of television programmes, and the fact that I have not seen so many television broadcasts will not influence me in the least. I do not need that to enable me to form an opinion. There are hundreds of people who have served on commissions of inquiry into the advantages and disadvantages of television.

If the Opposition comes here and pleads for the introduction of television, then I presume they have at least considered the financial implications, and the influence those television shows will have on the people, whether they will be beneficial or detrimental, whether they will be morally stimulating or destructive, whether they will result in spiritual disorientation or spiritual upliftment, or what the reaction will be. In the first place I do not believe that they are concerned about the financial problem of the introduction of television. It is quite clear that it is costing England R40,000,000 a year to run television, over and above other expenses. Of course, they may recover it by means of the advertisements that may then be sold, but to me the financial aspect is not the prime consideration. To me the prime consideration is the influence it will have on the people’s attitude towards life. As regards the financial implications, I believe that we, as a young country, cannot afford it. We have enough in our radio broadcasts. There is no need for us to see it visually. We can listen and the radio can offer us enough of educational value, and is in fact doing that. Enough news reports are broadcast, enough lectures by authorities, and recitals, ballet music, and everything one could desire; there is a variety of programmes to satisfy tastes.

Why introduce television? I submit that the Opposition is seeking, through the introduction of television, to undermine the morale of South Africans, both English speaking and Afrikaans speaking. They are not interested in high morality.

Oh!

Yes, that is what one usually gets if one makes such a statement—weak laughter. What are their prime motives? Not one member of the Opposition has made a thorough analysis of this point, and has produced proof that they are very serious about the matter. I want to read to you what the real position is, as opposed to their claim that it is of a high moral quality. Here is a cutting from The Star of September, 1966; a letter written to the editor of The Star—

Sir, the letter in The Star on September 2 by “Ex-TV Personality” fails to mention the immense harm that television has done to Britain and other Western countries.

Do you believe all that nonsense?

I quote further—

A family no longer communes, plays games, talks during the evenings, but sits in a semi-circle round the “Telly”.

Do you want damning evidence of the disruption of family life? Here is someone who watched television over a long period in Britain, from where we are supposed to import those programmes. Here it is condemned as demoralizing. I want to read some more to you from a report …

Do you want to go back to the ox-wagon era?

I want to tell the hon. member that no ox-wagon would carry him. The wagon would collapse.

I want to read further what a certain Dr. Himmelweit said after an inquiry had been carried out in England at the instance of the Government and the people of England—

Further on he says—

I can read further what that person said. That same commission said that most of the pictures shown were presentations of—

Here you have evidence, given after thorough investigation, of what the situation is that hon. members are now seeking to create in South Africa too. They must now tell us frankly whether or not they accept what was said by those people who had carried out an investigation. We are grateful that we have a Minister who will never allow television to enter South Africa, because we still want our youth to be active in sport, to spend their time on study, and thus to make a productive contribution for the future instead of sitting and watching television for hours on end, with the results pictured by the authorities. I need not plead for my people, but I am pleading for the hon. members over there who also pretend, now and then, that they are patriots. They want to introduce this sort of television programme in South Africa in order to demoralize and undermine our people. [Time limit.]

I am afraid it is the bigoted nonsense I have been listening to that has brought me to my feet. Otherwise I would not have taken part in this debate at all. I do not know what hon. members think they are talking about. Television is an accepted modern means of communication in our modern world, just as radio is accepted as a modern means of communication, as modern newspapers are accepted in that way, as the use of the telephone is accepted as such. Of course, all these things can be abused. We all know that. There are filthy books being spread around South Africa. We were discussing that only the other day. There are bad films in circulation, wild west films the hon. member referred to, all sorts of films about crime, crimes of passion and crimes of sadism. All sorts of nonsensical films can be seen in South Africa. There are bad radio programmes. One has the fortunate privilege to be able to switch the darn thing off if one does not want to listen to such programmes. But surely those are no reasons for the prohibition of a modern means of communication. Because there are bad radio programmes, bad films shown in South Africa and bad books circulating in South Africa and published in this country, does it mean that you cut your public off from these means of communication? You may attempt to control them in some way, you may see to it that pornography is not spread, that films depicting crimes of violence are not shown in this country—that is why certain films, for instance, are not shown to audiences under a certain age and why children cannot go to certain films. These are accepted means of control. But this does not mean a blanket prohibition of the use of one of the most modern means of communication. I speak as one who has often during overseas visits spent a lot of time looking at good television programmes, and there are extremely good television programmes. In America there are many networks and one can switch from the one to the other; in England the same thing occurs. And what is more, these things are an absolute boon to people who are lonely, who are living alone, to people who are old and unable to get about, to people who are sick and not able to enjoy going to the theatre or going to films. Wonderful plays are produced on television, wonderful educational programmes are shown. Hon. members in this House are talking the most ridiculous nonsense about television. They seem to imagine that every programme is especially designed to undermine the moral fibre of South Africa. All I can say is that it is a very brittle moral fibre if it can so easily be influenced by television programmes. I also want to say that television is a wonderful way of bringing into every citizen’s home the ability to watch the important events that are taking place in the country itself, big sporting events which all our population would enjoy so much, particularly people living in the country districts who are unable to get to the big international sporting events or inter-provincial sporting events taking place in South Africa. This would give an enormous amount of pleasure to our population. What can be the possible objection to this? There are important events that should be shown to our citizens. I have been in England when important events have been shown on television, the opening of Parliament, speeches by well-known politicians and statesmen. I was in America when the Cuban crisis started. Nothing had a more calming effect on the population of America than the frequent sight of their President calmly telling them what was happening, keeping them in touch with the events of the day, and generally speaking preventing panic spreading across America at that time of crisis.

As to the financial side, I am surprised that hon. members …

What should be the top priorities?

Sir, we can afford these things. It is only necessary to cut out all these millions of rand which are spent on these ridiculous apartheid measures. Then we will have plenty of money to spend on television. Will the hon. member tell me why it is that a number of countries in Africa can afford to have television, small countries and poor countries?

That is why they are poor.

They have television because they are advanced enough to know that they cannot deny their people the advantage of this new means of communication. Sir, we are nearly in the ’seventies, and it is obviously ridiculous that South Africa, the most modern industrial country on the Continent of Africa, should lag behind in regard to this most important medium of communication. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that it has got nothing to do with the morals of this country, it has got nothing to do with the finances of this country. It is purely and simply a political move, that is all. The position is that hon. members of the Nationalist Party, although they have this vast majority in this House—I am surrounded by Nationalist Party members, they are even sitting at the back of me—but believe it or not they are so unsure of their position in this country that they are not prepared to risk our innocent members of the population being subjected to the undermining influence of opposition thought over the radio.

The gesture the hon. member for Houghton has just made does not disturb me in the least. I have learned that in politics the world sometimes takes such a turn that the two poles come close together.

“And never the twain shall meet.”

The hon. member spoke about South Africa’s backwardness compared with other African States that have television already. In the light of the views of the hon. member for Houghton, I think there are also many other respects in which she would describe us here in South Africa as backward compared with other countries in Africa. But it does not disturb us in the least to be described as backward in terms of the views of the hon. member for Houghton. We have different criteria for backwardness. In fact, one sometimes gets the impression that we and this hon. member are speaking different languages, and that we will never really understand one another. So widely separated are our criteria. The hon. member for Houghton said that there were good television programmes. That is true, but that is not the crux of the matter. But I shall come to that later.

As regards the United Party I think we may have a better chance of speaking on the same wavelength in respect of these matters. But apparently even the United Party is trying to have television sold in South Africa merely in the hope of obtaining more votes in that way. [Interjections.] If that is not so, then why did the United Party have posters in the recent election with the slogan “If you want TV, vote UP”? If it is not true that the United Party is advocating television primarily with a view to votes, then I cannot understand why they did not advance a better argument as to why television is in fact essential. If it was not with a view to votes, I can hardly see the advocacy of television by the United Party in any other light than that they are speaking on behalf of certain financial institutions and interests that will in fact be able to derive benefit from the introduction of television, in contrast with the population of South Africa.

But let us take a realistic view of the matter. We all know what great expense television involves, and also that it is out of the question to establish a utility service in South Africa, such as Radio South Africa, for example. The cost of that will be too high. None of the African States that has these so-called television services was able to finance it itself. The financing came from outside. If it were therefore decided to introduce television in South Africa too, it would have to be on a commercial basis. It would then have to be coupled with advertisements. That is the crux of the matter, namely the costs involved in the production of television, the high operating costs, together with the other price that will have to be paid for it, a price in terms of morals and values. If television were introduced in South Africa it could, as the hon. member for Orange Grove also said, only be a single channel broadcast because of the high costs, i.e. one broadcast for the Afrikaans and English speaking people and also for all the other population groups in our country. The costs involved are too high to consider more than one channel. If the hon. member for Orange Grove has anything else in mind, I should like to hear it.

The costs involved forces television to enter into a partnership with commerce. That is the heartbeat of the matter. If that happens one sole demand is made immediately, i.e. to draw the highest possible number of viewers, something that can only be achieved at the cost of the quality of the programmes. That is a law which television has never been able to escape anywhere in the world. I challenge any hon. member in this House to give me an example of where television has been able to escape that law. The advertiser is interested in selling his wares, and with that object he is interested in the number of viewers, and not at all in the moral or any other aspect. In fact, he has no interest in any of the moral or other considerations that are important to a population.

Let me give hon. members a few examples of what is happening in other countries, although I cannot boast of having seen it myself. Here I have an article which was written in Die Transvaler last year by Mr. Julian Thomas. I take it he is a British journalist. He said [translation]—

Britain is the oldest television country in the world and introduced television as long ago as 1936; and to-day 75 per cent of the television time is devoted to that kind of thing. Hon. members of the Opposition have now come along with the argument that television brings one into contact with the whole world, that one receives news immediately. In fact, one lives with the whole world, they say. But this is what Mr. Thomas said about that [translation]—

Let me tell you what the position is in America, according to what was written about it by the magazine Time—

This view is part of the questionable notion that the main task of a television programme is to get the highest possible number of viewers for the sponsor, thereby achieving the highest possible profit.

So that is its only criterion: Profit. But listen what the magazine wrote further—

And this is what the magazine said as regards the situation in Britain—

What is the position in Japan, where television drew people away from the theatres so that the theatres had to close down at a rate of 500 a month? The theatres then lowered the standard of their programmes and began to produce what they called “eroductions”, i.e. an abbreviation of “erotic productions”. By doing so they lowered the standard of their programmes even further with the object of drawing people away from television to the theatres. But what is happening now? Now the quality of the television programmes is lowered even further to draw those people back. [Interjections.] That hon. member may giggle, but I challenge anybody to give me an example of where in the world a television service has been able to escape that law, a law which precipitates a continual lowering of the moral standards of the programmes. That is why people such as T. S. Eliot, a person for whose opinion hon. members on the opposite side should have respect, said of television that it was a force which broke down the spiritual individuality and the individual thought of nations and peoples to the ground. [Time limit.]

It is with considerable dismay that one listens to the arrogant nature of the attack made by the Nationalist Party on television as a medium. We get these moans and groans but what is the basic reason behind it? They say that television is going to break down the entire moral fibre of the people of South Africa, this little thing, Mr. Speaker, which will be under the control of a Department of State and of the hon. the Minister. How can this hon. Minister be accused by these hon. members of allowing programmes to come into this country, programmes which are going to break down the moral fibre of the people of South Africa?

They know him better than we do.

If television will come to South Africa it will be placed under the control of the S.A.B.C. and under the supervision of our Government. I ask these hon. members whether they think that we will permit this sort of programme to come on the air, programmes which will corrupt the moral fibre of our youth? Do they expect that to happen? Television is one of the finest means of communication. It is one of the greatest discoveries of the century as a means of communication from person to person. This is something which can bring people together as never before and it is a means of disseminating information as never before. It is a means of getting into the minds of people as never before. I believe that the Nationalist Party in setting their mind against this is revealing a depth of aridity to such an extent that they cannot even see the value of a system such as this for the people of South Africa, in a country such as this, widespread as it is. Our farming population is cut off from so many cultural achievements of mankind. Many of the greatest cultural achievements of mankind are denied our farming community and that on account of the size of our country. Television is a medium whereby this can be brought to them thereby enriching the natural life of South Africa. It would also have another effect which is of great importance to us in South Africa and that is of bringing home to each language group the living reality of the other language. This, I believe, is something of the utmost importance particularly in those areas where one of the two official languages hardly has any existence. By means of television we can bring to children the presence of another language as a living reality. We can bring it to them that there is another culture, something which should belong to every one of us. The English and the Afrikaans languages belong to us and so does their respective cultures and everything for which they are striving. All this is part of our common heritage. We as English-speaking bring our culture, our language and our achievements and we accept from the Afrikaans-speaking people their language, their culture and their achievements. Thereby each one of us endeavours to contribute to something which is common to all of us. Television can then be a means of bringing us together and keeping us together. This is something which can be of immeasurable and inestimable value to us in South Africa.

How did the people vote, for or against TV?

That question coming from an hon. member who was so rude to my bench mate last night I will ignore completely. The only thing that is preventing a major social amenity being brought into this country is the prejudice of the Nationalist Party. They complain about the qualities of the programmes but does this not constitute a challenge to us in this country? Does this not offer opportunities to the artistic life of South Africa? Would this not be the key to an artistic flowering, something which is lacking at the present moment because we need something to set off the spark? Television will provide such an opportunity and will make it worthwhile for our artists to produce works and encourage people to take part in the living arts. This is something which at the present moment is dying away. It will offer an opportunity to our people, particularly the Afrikaans community, to come forward with their contribution to the cultural life of South Africa. There is very great need for a spark to set us going to build something up for a common future. But a lack of vision and a lack of imagination characterizes the Nationalist Party and is again behind its failure to see what television can mean for us in South Africa.

I should now like to deal with the S.A.B.C. Last night the hon. member for Randfontein launched an attack on this side because we dared to attack the S.A.B.C. He said he refused to go on the defensive but was going to state the right of the S.A.B.C. to have an editorial of its own. But why were there attacks on the S.A.B.C.? Because it has taken a partisan part in the national life of South Africa. It is because of this that the S.A.B.C. was attacked but now the S.A.B.C. is to be given the medium for an answer, a medium against which there is no recourse for the other side. Furthermore, this is a medium whereby an audience can be reached which no newspaper can ever reach. What is more, this medium is being accepted as the gospel by people hearing it coming over the radio. They believe every single word that comes across and are not the type of people who will bother to read a four-page typescript answering the charges made in the “Current Affairs” programme. Let me say again that if there were no direct cause on the part of the S.A.B.C. there would never have been an attack from this side of the House against it because we were brought up according to the tradition of the B.B.C. which during the war established itself with a first-class record as far as national security was concerned and for telling the honest truth. Let me call the attention of the House to the distinct difference there was between the B.B.C. and the lies and propaganda that came from the propaganda station on the other side, namely Zeesen, where a deliberate attempt was made to form and condition the thought of the people of the world by a distortion of the truth. My concern is that this broadcasting corporation is to-day in danger of becoming merely one more of the organizations used by the Nationalist Party to condition the thoughts of the people of South Africa and to direct and pervert the thought of the people to the point where they are brought to support this Government. [Interjection.] My thoughts have nothing to do with the B.B.C. I am accusing that hon. member and his party of using the S.A.B.C., or attempting to use it, to pervert the thought of the people of South Africa, and to condition them in order to bring them behind the National Party. I believe, Sir, that that is a grave sin against the right of the people of South Africa to have fair and impartial reporting on the S.A.B.C., of which it was capable in the past and of which it can well be capable again in the future.

Mr. Chairman, just now the hon. member for Kensington asked that Radio South Africa should be given permission to broadcast political speeches of all parties, the Government party as well as the Opposition parties. Now I want to ask him whether that is a very dangerous request to allow the United Party to broadcast their policy over the radio. If we were to get the speeches of the quality we heard in the House to-day in this connection, I can assure him that the United Party would dig their own grave even more rapidly than before. They now have a small field to cover when they present their policy during elections. They present it only to those small groups of people that come to listen to them and that never have the opportunity of listening to a speaker of the National Party.

How would they fare if large radio audiences had to listen to them? I want to challenge the hon. member for Kensington to tell me when an M.P. of the National Party used the radio to deliver a political speech. Apart from one occasion in 1953, when the two leaders had the opportunity of stating their cases, I know of no other example.

Mr. Chairman, the difference between the attitude of the Government and that of the Opposition is the criterion for values and norms, the definitions of the formula for what is national in its widest and also its narrowest sense. I want nothing else, Sir, but a radio which is national in the purest sense. Whatever it interprets and disseminates to the people should be founded on or should reflect the national character. It should be truly national in character. It should be patriotic, true to the people and true to their culture. It should under all circumstances and at all times put South Africa’s interests first. That is my criterion for a radio system in South Africa and in any country. That is the difference between our attitude and that of the hon. members on the opposite side.

I also want to respond to what was said by the hon. member for Houghton. She said that we should accept television because it is the most modern means of communication. Another hon. member elaborated on that and said that we must have it. He said it was the most advanced communication medium mankind has to-day. For my part, I am satisfied that the radio at present offers us the most important single factor to bring the world to our front-door. If we compare it with communication lines by sea, land and air, even with the most modern forms of transport existing at present, then those communication lines are put in the shade and dwarfed if they are measured by the radio flash, as it is used to-day to span the remotest corners of the world. I think we have a communications system in South Africa with which we can be quite satisfied, at this stage in any event. The radio has no equal as a single medium through which the largest number of people in the most extensive areas may be reached simultaneously in the shortest period, measured in seconds and fractions of seconds. As an example of that, I want to mention the radio flash about the assassination of our late Prime Minister, which was received almost everywhere in the world within a few minutes. That is simple proof of what can be achieved today as a result of the fantastic speed and range made available to mankind by the radio, as a modern means of communication. In what way will television improve on that? By means of the radio sounds and words and images are forged into a unit that can be manipulated in such a way that it achieves an unequalled range on the ether. Compare that with the limitations of an orator on a platform in previous ages, in respect of the range of his voice, the number of people he could reach by means of his speech, as against the millions who can be reached by one man to-day, regardless of numbers, time, space or distance. It is therefore clear what a tremendous influence the radio can exert in its present advanced stage. What more can television offer us in this country? Television’s value does not lie in its communication aspect, but in the fact that it is a kind of bioscope. It is its leisure programmes that diminishes its value.

Why do you not go back to the tom-tom?

As a source of amusement and as a medium for the dissemination of news, information and knowledge, the radio has no equal in effectiveness. It is the most wonderful sounding-board of everything a nation experiences in all facets of its social, communal, economic, cultural and political life. By means of the radio the intellect and the emotions of a nation may be stirred, for good or evil. We want to claim for ourselves only that which is constructive in our own radio services, and not that which can be destructive and demoralizing in the introduction of television. The radio can exert a mighty influence on the life of a nation. Under certain circumstances a well-controlled radio system can influence and guide the development of the nation’s conduct one way or the other. That is why it is such a good thing and so essential that we have already set up an extensive Bantu radio section by means of which we can reach the Bantu peoples. If we had to introduce television and start television programmes for the Bantu, where would it end? I think of the terrible fiasco if a party such as the Opposition makes television available to the Bantu. The radio is of the utmost importance to the non-White population at present. They are eager to listen and learn. If we do not provide them with the best programmes they will tune in their radios to the alien and sometimes hostile programmes that are at present flooding our country from abroad. That result can be inestimable harm to those emergent Bantu peoples. That is why it is such a good thing that we have already made so much progress with Bantu radio. If we compare it with the small scale on which it started in 1940, when broadcasts were made to the various locations in Johannesburg and other large cities by means of telephone lines, and when they were made in only three languages, Zulu, Xhosa and Sesotho, and that it has now grown to 70 hours a day in Zulu, Xhosa and Sesotho, and that programmes have also been introduced for the Tswana, the Tsonga and the Venda, and that we are now reaching 1.500,000 to 2,000,000, as against the 86,000 Bantu reached in 1956, we are grateful for the essential progress that has been made. [Time limit.]

We have today been treated here to the spectacle of hon. members of the Nationalist Party railing vociferously against television, something which most of them candidly admit they have never seen.

Have you ever seen the devil?

We have been told here of the opinions of so many people who see the evil in television and who are against it, but what about the millions who benefit by it? What about the vast development taking place all over the world today? Are we then the only people who are in step? I can remember how that same party opposed immigration a few years ago in the same way. [Interjections.] They said that immigration would drown the Afrikaner. We were told that our culture would be destroyed, that those people would take the food out of our mouths and that we would have neither homes nor work; but now we cannot get enough immigrants. We in our time were accused of importing the scum of the earth!

I want to return to what was said by the hon. member for Randfontein. He told us that the S.A.B.C. had the right to state South Africa’s case. I am in complete agreement with him, but my quarrel with him is that they state the Nationalist Party’s case and nobody has the right of reply. [Interjections.] The fact remains that Radio South Africa is today playing the same role that Zeesen played in Germany; it makes propaganda for the Nationalist Party from morning to night. That is what we object to. A medium which is paid for by the people of South Africa should serve the whole of the country. [Interjections.]

Order! I appeal to hon. members to allow the hon. member to make his speech.

There is one other matter I wish to touch upon concerning the hon. member for Randfontein. Last night he made some very disparaging remarks about the hon. member for Wynberg, which the Chair rightly ordered him to withdraw. These remarks, coming from him, astonished me. He is a person whom we consider to be an educationist. He has had many years’ experience as an educationist. Is this the kind of thing he crammed into his pupils? I do not expect such remarks from him. I think the hon. member should be ashamed of himself. If he has any sense of honour he will apologize to the hon. member for Wynberg.

Whereas we have come to the end of the debate on this Vote I have a pleasant task to perform and that is to welcome the new Postmaster-General. Mr. Strauss was appointed Postmaster-General in November, 1965. Since he formerly held the post of Deputy Postmaster-General, Mr. Strauss has become well acquainted with the Department in all its various branches. He spent his career in the Post Office in various sections, which he also came to know very thoroughly. But he was not only in the Post Office, he also worked in other departments and later he even played a leading role in the Inspectorate of the Public Service. He was one of the first officials who applied himself to what we to-day call the O. and M. section of the Public Service, that part of the Public Service without which the Public Service to-day is really no longer conceivable, that part of the Public Service which makes for high efficiency. It was Mr. Strauss who instituted an examination into the working processes in the Post Office and applied the O. and M. methods there and who effectively reorganized the Post Office and helped to expand it. It was also Mr. Strauss who was for the most part the driving force behind the schools in the Post Office, schools which we have so often discussed already, in an attempt to develop those schools into institutions where Post Office staff could really be trained to become highly proficient and expert staff. To those who know him Mr. Strauss is really a sensitive person, a man who is a leader and who can inspire others, without driving them, to follow his lead. We hope that we shall have years of great service from him and that he will have a fruitful career in the Post Office.

Our only hope is that he will soon have another master.

I know that the House expects this debate to be kept as short as possible because of the pressure of time and that is why it is not my intention to reply to all the points which have been raised here. Most of those points have already been effectively and devastatingly replied to by this side of the House. However, there are just a few which it is my duty to reply to briefly.

The first is the request by the hon. member for Umbilo in regard to concessionary radio licences. I want to assure him that this matter is at present being considered, but at the moment I am not in a position to make any promises, except to say that we shall go into the matter very sympathetically.

You have been saying that for years.

The hon. member will realize that one is dealing here with an independent undertaking, which is dependent solely on its own funds, and now this undertaking is being expected to do work which is in reality charitable work. For that reason one must be careful, because one does not know what the results will be of any concessions one might make. Often the consequences of a concession is something which one never expected. The reason why we could not agree to such concessions is those consequences which we met with when the last concession was made.

The hon. member for Kensington is not here and that is why I shall not reply to the points which he raised. However, there are two points in particular which have enjoyed the attention of the House this afternoon. The one is the S.A.B.C. programme “Current Affairs”, and the other is the introduction of television. Both matters were dealt with very thoroughly and I am not going to dwell on these topics, but I nevertheless find that there is something very strange as far as the survey “Current Affairs” is concerned. It is that many accusations have been made by the Opposite side of the House, many vague accusations but with the exception of one, none of those accusations are based on actual facts. I want to refer to the alleged facts. The alleged facts were stated by the hon. member for Orange Grove who said that the S.A.B.C. in its “Current Affairs” programme on a certain date had said that the Rand Daily Mail in its Township Service edition had included certain news reports and photographs which it had omitted from its previous normal edition. Let me remind the hon. member of what “Current Affairs” actually said. It said—

It did not say all; it said “the great majority of despatches”. I checked on that, and this contention made by “Current Affairs” is true to the letter. In other words, the only reason for the hon. member attacking “Current Affairs” has proved unfounded and is totally incorrect. I now want to return to the question put by the hon. member for Randfontein. He pointed out to hon. members on the opposite side all those articles appearing in “Current Affairs”. He asked whether or not hon. members agreed with the criticism levelled by the S.A.B.C. at those articles in the newspapers, and not one of them has said to-day that they agreed with that criticism. Not one of them has ever in any way whatsoever protected “Current Affairs”. Each time “Current Affairs” attacked the Press, the attitude adopted by hon. members opposite was against the S.A.B.C. and in favour of the Press. Let us now return to the Press.

The English-language Press is known to-day as being a slanted, twisted Press, which is continually distorting the facts. Let me mention examples concerning my own Department which occurred in the past month or two. A while ago The Star in its leading article made a series of utterly false allegations in regard to the mental health section of the Department of Health. They were completely false, and when it was asked to rectify those allegations it published the letter which had been written to it on a back page where nobody or very few people could see it. Those are the kind of slanted actions taken by this Press.

Why do you not have them up before the Press Board then?

Is it any use taking the Devil to Beelzebub? But let me furnish the following example. On 30th April The Star came out with an important news report, i.e. that the S.A.B.C. was experimenting with television, that it was broadcasting television. The Star related how one of its reporters had received the news from a very reliable source, a person who had himself been present at the house of one of the officials of the S.A.B.C. where they had looked at television, Sir, the S.A.B.C. does not even possess a television transmitter, and one cannot look at television without there being such a transmitter. When the news was published the S.A.B.C. immediately went to The Star and said that this news was completely false, that there was no such thing. This report was not only contained in the newspaper, it was also printed on the posters. When The Star came out with its next report it did not withdraw that false report, notwithstanding the correction made by the S.A.B.C. What it did do was to place it again and state in a footnote that the S.A.B.C. had alleged that it was not true. But it retained the posters outside with exactly the same news. Is it honesty on the part of a press to act in such a way? I say that there is not one newspaper belonging to that press which does not specifically distort the news or make slanted statements. The news is always twisted. Now one can understand that the English-speaking population of South Africa has, over the years, been educated by that slanted news and those false reports which are still appearing from day to day. Let me now ask you this: Is it not right and proper that there should be an institution in South Africa which should try to give the true news? Is it not right and proper that there should be an institution, which has been established with public money, such as the S.A.B.C., which should supply the public, and particularly the English-speaking public, with the correct news? Surely it is obvious that when one is dealing with a mighty English-language press which is solely in the hands of a few mining magnates … [Interjections.] Yes, I can well understand that the hon. members would not like the whole world to know that, but the Argus Group and the South African Morning Newspapers Group are today all controlled by the big mining magnates.

Who are they?

Does the hon. member want to know the names? I think the hon. member already knows. He knows that one of them who has the greatest say in the matter, Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, once sat with them on that side.

And who controls the Afrikaans Press?

That is beside the question now. [Interjections.] Let us first deal with the facts. Here in South Africa we have a mighty English-language Press which for the most part is controlled by a man who once sat there as a member of the United Party, he was a deputy leader of the United Party, and that is the reason why those hon. members are always trying to protect that Press which publishes such slanted reporting and never want the public outside to know about it. [Interjections.] It is in the interests of the country that there should be an institution such as the S.A.B.C. which can for the first time to-day bring home to the English-speaking people of South Africa the true facts in regard to the news. The S.A.B.C. has now created its own leading article, “Current Affairs” in which it occasionally deals with the same subjects and whereby it keeps the English-speaking as well as the Afrikaans-speaking people informed in regard to the important, meaningful things in life. Why do hon. members object to that? The hon. members have not mentioned a single fact to prove that what “Current Affairs” broadcasts is slanted or untrue. The hon. member for Orange Grove tried to do so but he failed hopelessly. Now I want to ask why it is that hon. members consistently protect the Press and as consistently want to prevent the public outside from hearing the impartial facts? [Interjection.] I am now coming to their one major argument which is this: They say they will allow the S.A.B.C. to make these broadcasts but that they should then, on their side, be able to reply to them. That is not an original idea. It is an idea which was put forward the other day by Mr. McCall, the Chairman of the Argus Company, in his annual report. He said: “Let the S.A.B.C. broadcast its ‘Current Affairs’, but afford the Argus newspapers an opportunity of replying to it.” Let me analyse the position for a moment. Do you know what the circulation of the English-language newspapers is, newspapers which because they have a monopoly disseminate the same news every day?

Who has a monopoly?

Do you know, Sir, they say a fool can ask more questions in an hour than a wise man can answer in a year. Mr. McCall said they should be afforded an opportunity of replying. Let us consider the facts. The circulation of the English-language newspapers is approximately 1,500,000. They reach 1,500,000 readers every day. These distorted facts are told to 1,500,000 readers, practically every day, and they spread those so-called allegations made by Archbishop Hurley throughout their entire Press, in every edition throughout the country, and 1,500,000 people in the country knew about it. The S.A.B.C. then stated that those allegations made by Archbishop Hurley were incorrect, and that he had not been stating the actual facts. The Argus then stated that it wished to reply. Do you know how many people listen to “Current Affairs”? Approximately 500,000 do, one-third the circulation of the English newspapers. Three times as many people read the English-language newspapers. The Argus newspapers then made a clever move: First they wanted to disseminate those falsehoods in their newspapers with a circulation of 1,500,000 and then they wanted to use the S.A.B.C. to repeat those falsehoods to 500,000 people. Is that a fair request, or is it a ridiculous request? In other words, the distorted reporting of the English-language Press must be disseminated four times as far as the correct version of the S.A.B.C.! Surely that is a ridiculous request? No sensible person would ask a thing like that unless he had an ulterior motive, and I know what the motive of the hon. members is. They are dependent upon that Press for their existence. If hon. members on that side had not had the assistance of that Press to enable them to reach their voters, not one of them would have been sitting here to-day. Hon. members on the opposite side are now pretending to be surprised. They must be very naïve. They know that a politician can only gain the votes of thousands of people—and one needs thousands of votes in order to be elected—when he has a Press behind him. The hon. members need not pretend that they are not dependent upon that Press. The reason for their having lost elections in the past and having suffered such a heavy defeat at the recent election was that a part of the Press was used to try and help the Progressive Party.

And where is the Progressive Party?

The whole set-up is extremely clear. Hon. members on the opposite side do not want the public to know the truth because they know that when the public know the truth the public will realize all the more how the Press which supports that side of the House is distorting our policy.

Because my time is limited, I do not want to dwell on this any longer. Let me proceed. I come very hastily now to another point. There are only a few points which I have to reply to and they are in connection with television. The hon. member for Mooi River made a very peculiar assertion. He has very singular ideas. He boasted with this argument, and said: “Why can there not be television here; the Government can in fact control the programmes.” I wonder whether the hon. member has ever examined the Act and whether he is aware that the S.A.B.C. is an independent body. It is most ridiculous to state that the Government has any control over it. The hon. member forgets the following fact which the hon. members for Randfontein and Innesdale pointed out so effectively, i.e. that if one introduces television into South Africa, one has to do so in one of two ways: Either the State will have to pay the expenses thereof (and then it is going to cost at least between R25,000,000 to R40,000,000 per year), or that money will have to be paid by the advertiser and ultimately by the consumer, the poor man, who has to buy the products of the advertiser.

Why do you not do away with Springbok Radio then?

If that should happen, then it simply means that the advertiser will determine the quality of the picture. Hon. members must remember that television is a tremendously expensive system, much more expensive than Springbok Radio for example. Television is so expensive that it would not pay any advertiser to advertise on television unless he could get the majority of the people to buy his products, and in order to draw the masses he will have to sink to the lowest of the low. That is your problem. Your problem throughout the world is that the advertiser sounds the keynote and determines what the standard of the television programmes may be, and in order to reach the masses it has to be as low and as smutty as possible. It is of no avail the hon. member for Mooi River or that vociferous hon. member there saying that there are good things on television. Mr. Chairman, one finds that the viewers to-day is the youth of South Africa; one also has one’s older people but one’s viewers consist mainly of the youth. The education of the youth is one of the most important things for the survival of a nation. As a result of the problems which we are faced with in South Africa to-day, the education of our youth in South Africa is of the utmost importance. The education of our youth is tremendously important. Are hon. members who have children not concerned about the fact that these children, while they are still small, are going to be contaminated by the filth which we see on the television to-day and which one cannot put a stop to? One can show a child good things on the television too, but show him filth and what impresses him most? That filthy and degrading message remains with him throughout his life. One may perhaps warp that child in one year merely by showing him a few filthy and obscene things. It is of no avail stating that the pill is sugar-coated, that it is pleasant, that it is sweet and that one may just as well give it to the people, while there is poison in that pill. [Laughter.] The hon. members only think of the sugar. They hope that we will swallow the pill and they hope that we will forget that inside the pill there is the bitter poison which will ultimately mean the downfall of our civilizations.

You have swallowed many pills in your time.

I do not want to dwell on this any further. We will never be able to convince that side of the House and they will never be able to convince us because our points of departure are poles apart. The point of departure of that side is the same as it has been since the year 1895. It is the point of departure of the capitalist. It is the point of departure of those people who are always thinking only in terms of money-making and of fostering trade. That is the one side; the other side is the side of idealism, which wants to promote the welfare of South Africa, the welfare not only of one part of the population but the welfare of the entire population of the country.

Revenue Vote and Loan Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 25,—“Health, R27,726,000”.

May I ask for the privilege of the half-hour? Sir, in 1958, on the 5th August, I put a question to the then Minister of Health (Hansard, Vol. 97, Col. 1463). The question roughly was this: What is the approximate number of (a) Europeans and (b) non-Europeans who were certified as insane and who were detained in prisons in the Union during 1957; what were the average periods of detention for each of these race groups? The reply was: Six Europeans for an average of 16 days and 460 non-Europeans for 39 days. On Friday, the 19th August, 1966, some eight years later, the hon. member for Houghton asked whether any mental patients had been accommodated in police cells during 1965 due to lack of hospital accommodation; if so, how many patients in each rae group, and for what total period of days in respect of each group. The reply was: The period of detention of mental patients in police cells is only partly related to the shortage of hospital accommodation; 241 White and 4,398 non-White patients were detained in police cells during 1965. It is incredible that over a period of some eight years in a civilized country with a boom, a country in which great industrial changes are taking place, a country with great financial activities, without any extraordinary increase in population, the position should have deteriorated from 460 non-Europeans to 4,398 and from six Whites to 241 Whites. Sir, that is bad enough. It is very serious that the numbers have increased to that extraordinary extent during this period of roughly eight years. I think it requires an explanation from the Minister. It is true that he has not been responsible for the Department of Health throughout the whole of this period, but he has been responsible for a sufficiently long portion of that period. But the position is very much worse because in the reply to the hon. member for Houghton it was said that ten of the patients confined in prison had died during their detention, and of these ten, there were three who did not die of natural causes, although the magistrate said that nobody was criminally responsible. He went on to say that the cause of death, in the case of these three at any rate, was multiple injuries. It is important to appreciate that they died from multiple injuries, because it is difficult for a confined man to inflict multiple injuries upon himself. I think we are entitled to assume therefore that the men who died under these conditions in prisons must have been killed by some other person. It is impossible to inflict multiple injuries upon oneself, other than perhaps through a fall. The magistrate went on to say that nobody was criminally responsible and I am sure he was probably correct, but I think we must draw the line somewhere between criminal responsibility and actual responsibility, because it is difficult, according to law, so far as I know it, to say that a man who is insane, who is not responsible for his actions, can be criminally responsible for destroying someone else. I think it is reasonable therefore to conclude that the conditions under which these people were detained in prison were such that they were unprotected from other people who were not criminally responsible for their actions. Sir, it is terrible to contemplate this state of affairs. It is terrible to contemplate that these unfortunate mentally diseased but conscious people should be exposed to destruction by one another. The magistrate goes on to say that he was told by a police commander that 60 non-White mental patients were kept in four police cells. The magistrate describes both the accommodation and the supervision as “totally inadequate”. I quote from a newspaper report—

Sir, it is quite incredible that such a state of affairs should exist in a country like South Africa. We do not find that patients who suffer from a common disease like appendicitis die in police cells or die in the street or in private homes because there is no accommodation for them in the general hospitals of this country. Many a time—it must be almost daily—one finds that patients demand admission to the ordinary general hospitals and that there are no beds available. What do the hospitals do? The hospitals realize their responsibility. The doctors in the hospitals realize their responsibility and they never turn a patient away if he is likely to die or if he is likely to suffer. Why then must people wait in prison cells because there is not sufficient accommodation in the mental hospitals? We have been telling the Minister’s Department this for at least nine years to my knowledge. If patients are admitted to prison cells, why are they left uncared for and untreated? Apparently there is no adequate supervision according to this statement by the magistrate. I asked the commissioner for mental hygiene within the last few days whether they still used isolation cells and strait jackets. His reply was: “No, those days are past; we have drugs with which we can rapidly bring patients under control; we can tranquilize them. They no longer need to throw themselves about, to hurt themselves or to hurt others”. If the hon. the Minister genuinely believes—and I do not believe that he believes—that those people should be kept in the prisons, why does he not do something about it? After all these years he has done nothing in spite of the fact that the numbers have increased. The numbers of deaths have increased. It is unbelievable that in a single year, in a single prison, ten patients have died, three of them from unnatural causes. Sir, this is not a medical problem. It is a problem of organization to arrange the disposal of these patients. It is purely and simply a question of organization. It is simply a question of these patients being cared for temporarily by a doctor or in a nursing home, tranquilized and then transported within a few hours to one of the mental hospitals. There is no part of this thickly populated country, which is more than, at the most, 100 miles away from a mental hospital. Our roads are good; we have motor cars and tranquilized patients could be transported easily, and if one did die on the road, or if three died on the road, they would not be dying from neglect; they would not be murdered by fellow mentally diseased patients. This is purely a question of organization; we have discussed this over the years and what have we achieved? Nothing. I hope that next year when we put questions to the Minister we will find that something has been done. I know that this can be done. It is purely a question of lack of organization; it is a question of lack of consideration for these unfortunates. Behind the stone walls of the prisons they are not prisoners; nobody is answerable for them. They are not charged with any crime. The police look after them to the best of their ability, I am quite sure, but it is the responsibility of the Department of Health to attend them. The Minister knows that he cannot do it because he does not organize it and because he does not make use of the general hospitals of the country. He has had commissions and at least two of these commissions have told him to hand over the mental hospitals to the provinces because there these people will find a home where they will be cared for. Hand over the mental hospitals to the provinces and there will be no more cases where people will be turned away; there will be no more mentally diseased persons in our prisons; there will be no more violent deaths in the prisons. Alternately all that is necessary is to organize some means of communicating modern methods of treatment to the doctors in the hospitals; ask the Prison Department to train prison doctors to deal with these patients; arrange that transport is available at any time of the day or night.

Then I want to turn to the question of ambulances. I have some newspaper cuttings here which contain reports about terrible things that are happening because the control over ambulances is unsatisfactory. It is no good the hon. the Minister saying that he has no control over ambulances. The Minister has an overriding authority over every health aspect of this country; he can deal with any problem either by negotiation or by legislative action, and if a problem such as this ambulance problem crops up year after year, then he should interfere. Similarly he has had advice from his own commissions telling him to hand over control over ambulances and to force the provinces to take charge of them. This is no longer something to be done by the local authorities. I have here a copy of the Rand Daily Mail of 25th August, 1959, in which I read this—

The report goes on to say that the doctor found a bleeding woman who had been seriously injured, on the road on a Sunday afternoon. Someone had telephoned for an ambulance but the municipal ambulance department said that they could not go beyond the municipal boundaries. The doctor did what he could and finally an ambulance arrived from Westford, and only after he had spoken to the man in charge did he realize that they were not properly trained and that they did not have proper equipment. Then I also have here a cutting from the Star of 21st June, 1966—

The A.A. duly received a reply, in which it was stated that the Minister and the Secretary for Health were aware of the urgency of the matter and that new representations had been made to the Transvaal Provincial Administration for the institution of ambulance services, the results of which were being awaited. They are still waiting.

Sir, the country is divided up into various areas such as local authority areas, where the municipalities run ambulance services. In many instances these municipalities provide fairly reasonable, efficient services, but there are large areas of the country outside the municipal areas which get no service at all, and when accidents happen outside municipal areas—and all the controllers of ambulances seem to know very well where their boundaries are—the municipal ambulances refuse to go out, just as the fire brigades refuse to go beyond the municipal boundaries. The result is that these injured people lie on the road, sometimes for hours and some of them die. These are avoidable deaths. The failure to organize good ambulance services costs life; it creates cripples, and in some cases accident victims become simple-minded or almost imbeciles. Many of the sequelae of accidents could be diminished or even avoided completely if there was an adequate, efficient ambulance service throughout the country. When I talk about ambulance services I do not mean just a motor car with a hood on it, loaded from behind. I mean a service such as is supplied in most of the modern countries of the world, a service carrying blood and blood substitutes, a service staffed by men who are not necessarily fully qualified doctors (although that would be better) but men who are equipped and trained to give not first-aid but to give that service which will protect the life on its way to the hospital. The service should always be supplied with a two-way radio service so that the hospital can be informed as to what it can expect. On the whole, generally, in every part of the country there should be some place where a telephone will be answered and where the answer will be that an ambulance is on its way. Here again, Sir, the hon. the Minister failed hopelessly to make any attempt at organization. As a matter of fact, he has done nothing in this connection. And yet he is the Minister of State who has the overriding authority in controlling the health of this country. Nothing can stop him from having it done if he wishes to do so. Two of his own commissions have already told him that he should hand over these hospitals and ambulances to the provincial councils.

I do not think that it is quite fair of the hon. member to accuse the Minister that enough is not being done for the mental patients of our country. It is unfortunately unavoidable that where there are no hospitals some mental cases, particularly those who are acute cases, have to be accommodated in small towns, in police cells, until such time as another refuge can be found for them. But as far as I know, provincial hospitals, in the Transvaal at any rate, admit these cases and it is usually those cases, which cannot be calmed with ordinary sedatives, which are temporarily accommodated in police cells until such time as they can be admitted to a mental hospital. I want to praise the Minister for the fact that he has seen to it that adequate provision has been made for White mental patients. He even went further by also causing hospitals for non-White mental patients to be erected in Northern Natal and in Mafeking. These hospitals, where provision has been made for 3,000 patients, will soon be put into service. I therefore hope that next year my hon. friend will not again have a reason for complaining about the terrible shortage of beds. We must accept that it takes time to make these facilities available, but I am sure that the shortage of accommodation for non-Whites will also be wiped out next year.

But I want to leave the hon. member there because I want to speak about another matter which causes me concern. It is in regard to the growing danger of bilharzia in Southern Africa. Statistics prove that the urinary tract infection as well as the intestinal form of bilharziosis are increasing. This increase can quite possibly be attributed to the massive water conservation schemes we have established in our country in the past few decades. Even those schemes which are still being planned, will contribute to spreading the danger of bilharzia even further. We must realize that cases of bilharzia have already been diagnosed in the suburbs of Johannesburg and in the south-eastern coastal regions as far as the Transkei. Infected snails have even been found on the Vaal River side. When one reflects upon this, one becomes concerned. These extensive stretches of stagnant water are causing an increase in the snail population. We find that it is at these large storage dams in fact that pleasure resorts are established where people can swim, go out in boats, fish, and so forth. In that manner infection can quite easily be spread. I realize that it is very difficult to be 100 per cent successful with our chemical and biological means of combating the disease, because we are continually getting from our northern neighbouring states people, Bantu in particular, who are infected with the disease, is it not possible to have these people who are coming from our northern neighbouring states, the Bantu in particular, medically examined for possible bilharzia infection? If that is done and bilharzia infection is discovered, those people can be treated. By those means we can prevent bilharzia from spreading further in our country and clean areas from being reinfected. There are of course medicines we can use for treating a patient, but hospitalization is necessary in such cases. I do not think that we are doing enough to trace patients who suffer from bilharzia. We should take more systematic action with the purpose of tracing and treating these people. Experiments have been conducted to have people immunized against bilharzia and to try to diminish along those lines the danger this disease holds for the human race. For instance, people are being treated with lucantone hydrochloride. It reduces ogenesis, which leads to calcification of the bladder, deformation of the urinary tract, and so forth. But such a patent does not recuperate completely and still secretes egg-cells. One may perhaps use that in the endemic areas where it is not possible to train these underdeveloped people by means of guidance to keep streams free from infection. Unfortunately this immunization which may perhaps be used against S. Haematobium, does not apply to the mansoni type. If one is immune to one it does not follow that one is also immune as regards the others. For that reason I doubt whether it will be of any use to us in this respect. I am of the opinion that we ought to do more as regards tracing and curing of bilharzia sufferers. In addition to that we must provide guidance to our Whites to try to prevent our streams and dams from becoming infected. In the meantime we must continue to combat snails by means of existing methods, namely the chemical-biological method. As far as our non-White population is concerned, we should also provide guidance with a view to educating them to keep our streams and Hams free from infection. If the hon. the Minister sees his way clear to doing this, I shall be very glad because I feel that this is a danger we cannot lightly ignore. Because it is of national importance we shall have to try to combat it to the best of our ability.

First of all I should like to say that this side of the House wishes to express its best wishes to the present Secretary for Health. We understand that this is going to be his last session and we from this side of the House therefore should like to wish him well for the future. We also understand that he is going to take up an appointment in the field of tuberculosis and we all express the hope that his efforts will be such that we will see a dramatic fall in the number of tuberculosis cases. At the same time we should also like to welcome his successor whom we wish well in his new post.

Having said this, I should like to continue from where my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Durban (Central), left off in regard to mental diseases. The hon. member for Geduld told us that next year there will be a hospital for the accommodation of 3,000 non-White mental cases. We are pleased to hear that. As far back as 1958 the then professor of psychology at the University of Stellenbosch said that there were too few doctors for the treatment of mental cases. What then is the use of having large institutions if we cannot staff them properly? The hon. Minister knows that not only do we have not enough doctors to look after the ever growing number of mental cases that we have on our hands in South Africa, but neither have we enough nurses for this work. In view of the shortage of doctors and of nursing staff there does not seem to be any hope of relieving the position facing us. I would say that the remedy lies on different lines. I want to suggest that every provincial hospital has accommodation set aside immediately, and not next year, but now, for accommodating and treating mental patients. There must not be any doubt about it. This matter also goes back to 1958 because I think it was thereabouts that I made the same plea in this House following upon a communication I received from one of the senior members of a Transvaal hospital in which he said—

The easiest way in which that can be achieved is to accommodate these people in provincial hospitals. If we are going to wait we are going to have a repetition of what is taking place in police cells outlined by the hon. member for Durban (Central). I want to discuss these cases further.

In a statement Lieut. Botha said there were 14 cells at the Newlands police station, 12 of which were for Africans. All mentally defective persons in the Johannesburg magisterial district not yet certified were taken into these cells. This is what this person testified. From the reply to a question I put to the hon. the Minister of Justice earlier in the Session it appeared that he himself was not sure who looked after those people in the cells, whether it was a job for the police or for the Department of Health. In any event, there was overcrowding in these cells and there were deaths. These deaths did not all take place simultaneously but at intervals. Nothing was therefore done between the first and the second case of death. These patients were still kept there. That is the tragedy of the position. Apparently one death took place on 5th February and the next one on 8th December. During that period apparently nothing was done by the Minister to see that this overcrowding was stopped. On the other hand, these persons who were considered to be mentally defective and in some cases dangerous were still herded together in the same cells. It is a tragic thing that the Minister does not seem to know that this has been happening. Lieut. Botha stated that the cells in which these people were kept were not specially equipped for the mentally ill but were ordinary cells. For how long can we go on with such a state of affairs in our country? Surely the Minister should have done something during this period.

We have told him time and time again to make accommodation available at provincial hospitals. When it comes to non-European hospitals there is in Johannesburg the non-European hospital at Hospital Hill. Surely some portion of that hospital could be set aside for accommodating the mentally dangerous? I do not know how often, nor do I think the Minister knows how often the District Surgeon visits these mentally disturbed people. As a matter of fact, I do not even know whether they do receive any treatment from the time they enter the cells until they are taken to the various mental hospitals. So if we are going to wait until next year before something is going to be done then I am afraid we will have a repetition, in the meantime, of what has already taken place. Obviously the Minister has not done what he should have done. As soon as this death occurred in February last year he should have got down to it and seen to it that those people were properly handled if they were to be taken to one of the charge offices.

I want to leave it at that, Sir, and I want to say a few words about the shortages of nurses here in the country. I want to know what the hon. the Minister is doing about it. I want to know, firstly, what has happened about the Commission. This hon. the Minister is continually appointing commissions of inquiry, but we never know what happens to them. We do not know what the results are. [Interjection.] I am not going into the question of chiropractors—we can keep that for another day. We want to deal with the nurses, not the chiropractors.

I want to make a few suggestions, Sir, in the very short space of time that is left to me. I want to know whether the hon. the Minister is doing all in his power to bring in nurses from overseas. I want to know whether it is true that there are unnecessary delays in bringing in immigrant nurses. I want to know as well whether the Minister has considered training nursing medical aids who do not need the same standards of proficiency as a trained nurse, but who still have the door open to them to become nurses at a later stage and to take the necessary examinations. These young ladies can do the work that is often done by a trained nurse. Once a nurse is trained she can be encouraged to take up a specialized course of some sort in the hospital. I do not know what the hon. the Minister has done about that, and whether he intends doing anything about that. I want to know whether he has considered the hours of work of the nursing staff. The hon. member for Durban (Central) spoke to him—I think it was two years ago—about the long hours that nurses work. On the face of it they work eight hours per day, but he knows as well as I do, Mr. Chairman, that they do a tremendous amount of overtime and they are not compensated for this overtime. I want to say now that any nurse who works overtime in a provincial or government hospital should be paid for the services she renders to the people. There is no question about it. I do not see why she should be treated differently to anybody else.

I also want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister that there are 186,000 beds available for the sick. Only 86,000 of these are being used for teaching purposes. So it means that there could be 100,000 beds available for teaching purposes for nurses. It is where we have these beds, i.e. in country hospitals, in small towns, where we can train the medical aid nurses. Those are the places for them to train at and we should do our best to recruit from those areas. They are near their homes so they need not even stay in hospitals. They can come into the hospital every day from their own homes and go home after the day’s work is concluded. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, the death of a patient, of a mental patient, is always a tragic occurrence. But I think it is also as tragic for hon. members in this House to draw unwarranted conclusions. I find it tragic that the hon. member for Durban (Central) wants to suggest here, according to his own conclusion, that patients who were detained in cells had been murdered, where sufficient medical evidence in support of such a statement is lacking. “Murder” is the word used by the hon. member. I think it is extremely irresponsible of a medical practitioner to draw such conclusions where there are no grounds for them.

The hon. member for Rosettenville suggested plans here for distributing mental patients among provincial hospitals, since there is an alleged shortage of staff. Nobody wants to dispute the fact that there are at present too few doctors and too few nurses both in South Africa and throughout the world. But how that staff and those doctors will suddenly pop out of the blue when the patients are apportioned to provincial hospitals, goes beyond my powers of understanding.

But, Mr. Chairman, I should like to exchange a few ideas in regard to a matter I consider to be of particular importance to us. According to the statistics for 1964, 219,000 Whites were working in factories and 66,397 in the mines. That is a total of 285,000. In 1964, therefore, the number of Whites working in factories was three times as many as the number working in mines. This large group of people is being exposed daily to dangerous metals, toxic substances, toxic chemicals and drugs, an ever-increasing series of plastic substances which constitute a threat to the skin and the lungs, and now ionising radiation as well. Furthermore, these people are exposed to accidents, to mental worries of the regimented labour force and the threat of malnutrition. These unhealthy conditions can be monitored in certain ways. Dust can be measured, humidity can be measured, radiation can be measured, and to forth. But the final determination of the health of the worker still remains the examination of the individual himself. Unfortunately industrial medical science in our country still leaves much to be desired. Apart from the gold mines, the Railways and a few of the larger industries, very little is being done about this health service. There are only factory doctors. The factory doctor I just want to mention in passing. Every now and then he holds an out-patient clinic at a factory and he takes a little interest in the health of these people. What is industrial medical science then? The treatment of patients falls under the general practitioner. The occupational doctor can only provide a little first-aid or take temporary measures.

Industrial medical science was regulated in the first instance by Native Labour Regulation Act of 1911. In terms of the latter Act owners, particularly owners of mines and some of the larger industries, are being forced to accept responsibility for the treatment of their workers. It has become tradition that this doctor also takes over the treatment of these occupational diseases.

What is the purpose of the occupational doctor then, Mr. Chairman? The purpose is twofold: In the first instance to keep the worker fit for the work, and secondly to adapt the work to the worker. What does that embrace? I shall indicate it in brief, Sir. Firstly, it embraces medical examinations when workers are employed. Secondly, it embraces periodic examinations to supervise the health of the workers. Thirdly, it embraces a medical check-up after an illness or after an accident to decide whether a worker is fit to resume his work. Fourthly, it embraces recommendations in regard to the prevention of occupational diseases. Fifthly, it embraces cooperation for preventing accidents, Sixthly, it embraces industrial rehabilitation. In other words, if a worker has been injured, he may perhaps return to work sooner, though not to his specific post. In the seventh place there is co-operation for preventing workers from being exposed to noxious gases, vapours and radiation. In the eighth place there is supervision over working conditions. In the ninth place it embraces the regulation and maintenance of emergency services. And so I could continue, Mr. Chairman.

It is unfortunately the position in our country that these services are mainly being rendered by the mines, by the Railways, and by a few of the larger undertakings such as the larger factories. The unfortunate fact is that the damage is actually being done in the smaller factories. It is a well-known fact that at present pneumoconiosis occurs ten times more in industry than it does in mining. Deafness is becoming a very, very serious threat. All those things are things which must be investigated.

Mr. Chairman, this requires long-term planning. You may say, “But the system has always worked well.” We are actually only at the threshold of our industrial development, and I visualize that these problems can become very serious in the future. Diseases such as coniosis, cancer, haemopathy, deafness and others take years to develop, and in this respect I think that our serious attention to occupational medical science is imperative. I do not want to advocate immediate legislation. However, I want to advocate the establishment of an inspectorate or a directorate for occupational medical science to co-operate with the C.S.I.R. to keep an eye on these factories and in particular because the smaller factories cannot afford occupational doctors and their organization. I am of the opinion that it should fall under the Department of Health because to my mind it cannot fit in with the Department of Labour. There are in fact such inspectors, but, Sir, I want to see that real medical aid is rendered here and that real medical research is done here. Hence my plea to the hon. the Minister to give attention to the establishment of such an inspectorate or directorate for occupational medical science.

Mr. Chairman, on the 12th August I took part in the discussion here of the motion of the hon. member for Kimberley (South). From what the hon. the Minister had to say in his reply on that occasion, it would appear that he misunderstood what I had said. I was surprised. I had spoken on a subject which is very close to my heart, a subject that I have been raising year after year since I became a member of this House. After having raised this matter for the fourth or fifth time—the fact that nowhere in South Africa is there an institution for mentally deficient or retarded Coloured children—and after having resumed my seat, the hon. the Minister rose and said that at that precise moment, while he was speaking, an institution of this nature was being established in part of the existing Alexandra Institution for Whites. I afterwards expressed appreciation on behalf of the Coloured people for the fact that such an institution—the only one of its kind—had been established. I went into the matter further on the 12th August and I was surprised when in his reply the hon. the Minister said:

If there was something wrong with the tone of my speech, Sir, I apologize. I do not actually know to what tone the hon. the Minister was referring, because as far as I am concerned I am completely blameless in this regard. However, I was rather upset when the hon. the Minister said—

Mr. Chairman, I can give the hon. the Minister the assurance that if he will read my speech he will find that nowhere did I use the expression “corrugated iron buildings”. Nor do I think that I used any similar term in a derisive way. I just want to rectify this matter, Sir. I want to assure the hon. the Minister that I knew those buildings in a different capacity during the war years. It was the old British military hospital and the portion that was built like a barracks housed the staff of that military hospital. I have since got to know the place because one of my friends, Dr. Campbell Bland, was stationed there when it was a tuberculosis hospital. South Africa has since lost his services. He is an Australian with 12 years’ experience as a chest specialist and he is now at a hospital in Newcastle-on-Tyne. He left South Africa because of the poor salary paid to him owing to the fact that he was not conversant with Afrikaans. I had the privilege of visiting the Alexandra Institution this morning, the only one of its kind in South Africa, and I want to tell the hon. the Minister that any hon. member of this House who is interested in this important matter, the care and accommodation of mentally deficient children, will agree that what has been achieved there redounds to the credit of the hon. the Minister, because he is the first Minister of Health in the history of South Africa who has had an institution of this nature established. It redound to the credit of the hon the Minister that this institution exists. It is an absolute revelation to any person visiting that institution to see how its dedicated staff and superintendent run that institution. It is not a planned institution in the sense that the buildings which house it were planned for that purpose, but in the circumstances I can only say that what is being done there is absolutely wonderful. I have in the past heard a great deal about the superintendent who is there now, so much so that on the 12th August I described him here as a second Albert Schweitzer. After what I have seen there to-day, I can say with a clear conscience that that description is not at all misplaced. It is clear that devoted work is being done there. I do not wish to go into any further details. Through his Department, the hon. the Minister is in contact with the superintendent of this institution just as he is in contact with all the other institutions. After what I have seen and in view of the figures which I mentioned here on the 12th August, and considering the fact that this is the only institution of its kind and that there is still a great need for other institutions of this nature, the only appeal I want to make is that the hon. the Minister and his Department will be sympathetically disposed towards the staff of that institution and will give them the necessary assistance in order to enable them to make provision for additional accommodation. It would appear to me at first glance as though it would not cost very much to accommodate at least an additional 200 of these children there. I want to tell Coloured parents throughout South Africa who have to bear the cross of having a child of this nature, that once the child is admitted to this institution, it will receive the same care that it would receive in any institution in South Africa or in the world. I do not doubt that the Department will be sympathetic when requests or further recommendations for improvements or extensions are made. At the same time I am in a far less favourable position than the hon. the Minister and his Department when it comes to exerting a little pressure upon the Department of Public Works when recommendations are made, and I hope, at least as far as these needs are concerned, that the Department of Public Works will not merit the nickname “Please Wait Department”. I do not want to criticize. Nothing was further from my mind on the 12th August as well, because I had the privilege then, which I have had for a number of years, of making an appeal for something which I have since seen realized. I have said that the hon. the Minister must be given credit for what he has done, but the fact remains that there is still a great need in this regard. I have also stated previously that when plans are drawn up for an institution which is intended to meet every requirement in a particular direction, consideration must be given to the way in which those needs will grow as the population increases; that the planning should be done in such a way that the future permanent institution will be so situated that it will be in the neighbourhood or in the vicinity of the developing Coloured areas. This is a real problem because at the moment this institution is so situated that it is very difficult for the staff working there to get to and from their place of employment. The nurses have no living-in facilities. In making an appeal for a permanent institution properly planned for this purpose, I do not think that expenditure in this regard should be incurred at this particular institution at the moment. I feel that when this planning is done, the institution should be so planned that it will be situated in the vicinity of the Coloured area from which the necessary staff will have to be drawn. I was mistaken on the 12th August when I said, inter alia, that there was absolutely no institution available for mentally retarded spastic Coloured children. That is not so. I did not mean to say that. There is an institution for mentally retarded spastic Coloured children. That institution admits spastic Coloured children who are mentally retarded, but there is no institution in South Africa for spastic Coloured children who are mentally sound. I have experience of this problem as a result of facts which I mentioned here on a previous occasion. We see that a fine new and large school for cerebral palsied children is now under construction in Cape Town, largely as a result of the work of voluntary organizations, and I may also say that in Durban we have T>e Brown Centre which is an excellent institution but which is also a private one. There is also a school for cerebral palsied children in Pretoria, but nowhere is there an institution of this nature for Coloured children. I want in all earnestness to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to this fact with the request that, if possible, he inquire into the matter in order to see whether a temporary extension for those children cannot be provided at the Westlake institution, and also for epileptic children for whom there is only one institution at Worcester, an institution which was built by the D.R. Church. One of the greatest problems encountered is the lack of staff and it appears to me that the reason for this is, as in all cases in which there is a shortage of Coloured staff, that the salaries are too low. During the past two weeks I have come across two cases in which constituents of mine wanted to enrol their daughters at the Brooklyn Chest Hospital, a municipal hospital, as auxiliary nurses. Both were accepted. The starting salary is R30 per month with free lodging and uniforms from the first day. But I find that at that institution, where there is a great shortage of staff, the starting salary, without free lodging and with no uniforms provided for the first six months … [Time limit.]

I only put Vote 25 to the Committee, but members seem to be discussing both Vote 25 and Vote 26. I will allow such discussion to continue, but after Vote 25 has been disposed of I will not allow any further discussion on Vote 26.

I trust that the hon. member for Outeniqua will not think it remiss of me if I do not follow him up in what he has said, because there is another matter to which I want to refer. The health of a nation, and the organization of the services to ensure it, is probably one of the most important duties of this House and of this Committee. After all, it is fundamental to a nation’s survival that that nation must be physically and mentally sound. It is just as fundamental that the organization and the bodies striving to achieve this goal must be established and organized on a sound basis. I adopt the point of view that the health of a nation is primarily the responsibility of the Central Government because I feel that this is the only body which can act with real co-ordination and which can organize the services of the State in such a way that everyone is able to derive the greatest benefit from them. The continued health of our people can only be assured through the actions of the Central Government. It is also my opinion that the old concept that existed—that the health service of the State should be purely preventive—is obsolete and, under present circumstances, no longer holds good. I feel that the function of the State is certainly also therapeutic. This is proved by the taking over by the State of hospital services, the treatment of leprosy, the treatment of tuberculosis and so forth. That is why I argue that the State not only has a preventive function but also a therapeutic function to fulfil this connection.

It is a fact that the human being is not simply a conglomeration of legs, arms, head and neck. Man is an entity or an organism all the parts of which are essentially connected with one another and are functionally dependent upon one another. Medical science is continually fighting against the tendency which exists to fragment the human body. We are fighting against this tendency because we do not want the cardiologist to view the heart as an organ surrounded by the body. We do not want the dermatologist to see the body as a skin which simply serves to cover a mass of flesh. We do not want the urologist to see man as an organism the only function of which is to accommodate two kidneys. Man is a complete organism and every person, no matter what his speciality, must bear in mind the fact that he is dealing with a being which is essentially one. We find in this country, because of a natural process of evolution, that health services are rendered on four levels.

I may mention the fact that the Snyman Commission has expressed itself in this regard, although it was not requested specifically to investigate it. It found that medical health services in this country were being rendered on the following four levels. We have the State as the central body, followed by the provinces with their hospitals, etc., then we have the concept of local authorities which also have their health services, social services in which health services are included, and, finally, the level of private practice. It is essential from the point of view of the health of a country that the private sector, that part of its medical services which is rendered by private practitioners must remain inviolate, and for the purpose of my argument, therefore, I shall exclude it. I should like to point out to the House that the Snyman Commission expressed itself as follows in regard to the facts which I have just mentioned, this fragmentation of our health services—

We have the absurd position in practice that a person who is the responsibility of the Department of Health as a result of his mental aberration, becomes the responsibility of the Provincial Administration as far as his treatment is concerned when he has an attack of appendicitis. If he contracts an infectious disease such as diphtheria while recovering from his operation in that hospital, he immediately becomes the responsibility of a third authority, the local authority. These factors can only lead to the ineffective treatment of that patient. In actual fact the system to which we are subject is one for which nobody can be blamed; it is a system which has developed as our country has developed. The patient is subject to that system and, as a result, suffers physically. It is a basic concept of medicine that three people cannot treat the same patient independently of one another.

It is therefore my considered opinion that the time has arrived—and I ask the hon. the Minister to give his attention to the matter—for a commission to be appointed to inquire into this question of the divided control of health services in this country. Even in these Estimates which we are now discussing we find that a lump sum of R47,000,000 is to be voted for health services and that this sum is spread over 13 different Votes and 25 sub-heads. I feel that we have reached the stage where this stage of affairs must be faced squarely. I feel too that efforts must be made to eliminate this anomaly.

I wish to associate myself very briefly with the hon. member for Geduld when he was pleading for research into bilharzia. To us in Natal this is a matter of the utmost urgency, particularly in view of the colossal chain of State dams being built in Natal which are providing recreational facilities which have never before been known to our people. I believe that this is one matter which should receive the most urgent attention of the Department of Health. We hear that certain drugs are being tested overseas which are very promising and to us in Natal I believe this matter will be vital because the potential of Natal cannot be realized without gravely prejudicing the health of the population both of Natal and of the other provinces who come there to take part in the sports facilities offered.

I also wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Durban (Central) in regard to the question of the provision of accommodation for mentally ill patients and with particular reference to the problem we have in Pietermaritzburg. I believe this is a matter in which we are seriously behind right now. I think we are many years behind in a programme of building which would have given us some hope to cope with the number of patients who require urgent attention. These people, whose lives are dull and dim through no fault of their own, deserve the best that we can possibly give them in the way of treatment. To us in Pietermaritzburg this is a matter of the utmost importance, and I hasten to say that this is not because there are more people in Pietermaritzburg who are mentally disturbed. It is merely that we have in Pietermaritzburg the Fort Napier Hospital, the Town Hill Hospital and, nearby, at Howick also a large hospital for mentally retarded people, plus at least two of the Rudolph Steiner institutions in the near vicinity.

At Fort Napier the patient population of White males is 269, of White females 228, and of the non-Whites there are 762 males and 233 females. In Town Hill, a mile away, there are 129 White males, 182 females, and 605 non-White males and non-White females, 305, giving a total of 1,266 patients. It is my opinion that the facilities offered at both Town Hill and Fort Napier are totally inadequate. They are out of date and completely inadequate to meet the needs and to give the mode’n means of treatment which these people are receiving in other countries overseas. I do not believe that the physical conditions at these hospitals are such that these people are given a fair chance of recovery. Fort Napier, as you know. Sir, was built in 1861. There is a story that there is still to-day a tunnel which connects the hospital at Fort Napier to the Governor’s residence which is now used as a training college.

The story is that at the time when the Zulus were threatening that tunnel was built so that the Governor could hide in the Fort. I am just wondering whether the Fort Napier Hospital has lost any patients; if they have they may find them in that tunnel. [Interjections.] I may also find some hon. members opposite in the tunnel! You have the position here that patients of different races are together in these hospitals and I believe that in terms of the policy of the Government which is to separate and to provide separate facilities for the patients of different races in their own areas, you have a golden opportunity here to take the steps necessary to rationalize the accommodation of these patients. The Department of Bantu Administration has taken a step already whereby in northern Natal, in Newcastle, they have provided accommodation for some 1,500 mentally defective patients, and I should be interested to know, just in passing, whether some of the non-White patients from the Pietermaritzburg area might not be housed in the Newcastle area as a means of affording some kind of relief in respect of the conditions in Pietermaritzburg. But the point that I want to make is that the area particularly of Town Hill and also of Fort Napier is to-day right in the centre of Pietermaritzburg.

At the Town Hill Hospital there is an area of 305 acres, which is prime development land for the city of Pietermaritzburg, which has been taken up by an institution of this nature which is nearly a 100 years old, which urgently needs rebuilding, which needs relocation and rationalization. The City Council of Pietermaritzburg have approached the Minister’s Department asking whether it would not be possible for this land to be surrendered to them and the patients to be transferred in order to develop that land for residential purposes. The land is obviously destined for residential purposes. The council have made this offer to the hon. the Minister’s Department. I believe that they have a sufficiency of land to provide, in a suitable location, land which would be adequate for the needs of the Department …

For the next 100 years.

Perhaps for the next 100 years, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) says. Part of the use to which this land is being put, part of the therapy which is provided to the patients, is of an agricultural nature, right in the heart of Pietermaritzburg. I believe that the City Council have a very strong case here for asking that the Minister should consider this point. Something has got to be done. I am sure that the hon. the Minister himself would agree that something must be done to create modern conditions in the Piermaritzburg area. Whether the hospital is moved south of Piermaritzburg or just beyond the boundaries of Pietermaritzburg is immaterial.

The problem is that because of the shortage of staff and the necessity of providing all the necessary facilities for the staff who work at these institutions, they cannot go too far from a major centre because of educational problems for their children and so on. Sir, I believe that we owe a very great debt to the people who devote themselves to the care of these people and patients in this condition. I believe that the City Council of Pietermaritzburg will come to the assistance of the Minister and his Department at any time with the provision of this land. As I have said, they have an abundance of land available from which some suitable area can be provided which will not in turn be ungulfed by residential areas, which will place that new development in precisely the same position in which both this one and Fort Napier find themselves. I put this to the hon. the Minister for his consideration and I hope he will find it possible to take steps to put this matter right.

The hon. member for Mooi River will excuse me for not pursuing what he has been saying. I am not familiar with his local conditions but from what he has said it appears that they do have an historical place there.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow the arguments and remarks made by the hon. member for Durban (Central), who was followed by the hon. member for Rosettenville, to pass unchallenged. We should like to know from them why they emphasized the words “police cell” to such an extent. We should like to know what impression they want to create outside this House by emphasizing the fact that certain persons had been placed in police cells in order to protect them against themselves and also to protect the public. It was said here repeatedly by hon. members that these persons had been placed in police cells and that the police officer in command had himself said that he had no facilities for the treatment of insane persons. What was the insinuation?

There was no insinuation. We merely stated the facts.

The task of the Department is, after all, to try to ensure the greatest measure of happiness and well-being for the vast majority of the people of South Africa, and this the Department does in various ways. I want to come back to an earlier debate on the care of mental defectives in which the hon. the Minister told us quite clearly that the public should gradually be taught to appreciate the importance of the task of the Department and the fact that the Department wants to help them. After all, it is our aim to help these people. I am pleased to see that an amount of R43,000 is to be voted for health guidance this year as compared with an amount of R19,000 last year. We are thankful that we can make the public aware, by means of publicity and propaganda, of the dangers to which they are exposed. I want to mention a few of those dangers. There are certain infectious diseases that we are virtually 100 per cent sure we can prevent. We can only prevent them by immunization. But what do we find? We find that there are many members of the public who are aware of this but who forget it because the fact is not brought home to them as a result of a lack of publicity. We find, for example, when there is an outbreak of smallpox in the Cape, that the papers are full of it the next day and so everyone has himself inoculated again, but by the following day they have forgotten all about it. When a case of rabies occurs in South West Africa and it is reported in the papers, we find that the next day every member of the public regards every dog with suspicion, but by the following day they have forgotten all about it. To mention another example, diphtheria is a disease that afflicts not so much adults as the child for whom we are responsible. We know diphtheria is a disease we can prevent, but are parents aware of this fact? I want therefore to ask the hon. the Minister whether this fact cannot be brought home to the public by way of propaganda. If propaganda, however drastic, does not succeed, I want to ask that consideration be given to making immunization against diphtheria compulsory. I say this because it is the children who suffer, not so much the adults. The same accounts for poliomyelitis. In 1961 and 1962 there was an intensive campaign throughout South Africa to encourage inoculation against polio. We are glad to be able to say that, as a result of that campaign, only three White cases and 86 non-White cases of polio were notified in 1964. But once that intensive campaign was over, our publicity waned with the result that the public were no longer to the same extent made aware of the benefits of immunization.

During the first five months of 1966 three cases of Whites who had contracted polio were notified, but over the same period, 217 cases of Bantu polio sufferers were notified. I want to emphasize that we should continue to make propaganda and continually impress upon the public the benefits of immunization. But we must not only keep the public informed about infectious diseases. Vast amounts are voted for combating cancer. I want to say in passing that I think the time has come for us to stop using the word “cancer”. We should rather talk of “malignancy”, because over the centuries a stigma has become attached to the word “cancer”. A person who thought he had cancer regarded it as a stigma and withdrew from society; he hid himself. He regarded it as a social evil. We can only wipe out the idea that a stigma attaches to him because he suffers from cancer by means of a purposeful campaign to make him realize that we want to help him. Mr. Chairman, we can help that person and we can also cut down on our costs by making that person aware at an early stage that he has something abnormal in his system and that he should undergo treatment in time. Just as we succeed in getting the parents of mentally deficient children to come forward to enable us to help those children, so we should also persuade people who are possibly sickening for cancer to come forward in time. Not only will this be in the interests of the person in question but it will also help us in regard to our population problem. I want to point out that this question of publicity and propaganda also enjoyed the attention of the Snyman Commission. The second recommendation of the commission was as follows—

I also want to say something about mental ailments. Years ago when the Department was brought into being, the idea was to remove mentally deficient or feeble-minded persons from society. It was only later, after treatment had been started, that we realized we could also help these people by therapeutic treatment. But many members of the public are still under the impression that there is a stigma attaching to being feeble-minded. There is talk of “groen dakkies” and the mentally deficient person is referred to as “mad” and as an “outcast”. We must educate the public in this regard as well. We must bring it home to feeble-minded persons that we want to help them; that we do not simply want to help them once they have been certified as feebleminded but that we want to help them so as to avoid their being certified as feeble-minded persons in the future. We can only do this by means of a campaign of gradual, penetrative propaganda and publicity.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that after the hard afternoon’s work the hon. the Minister has had, he has enjoyed the break and I am sure that he will be in a generous mood to look favourably upon the little requests which I have to make to him this evening. I wish to follow up the theme that was voiced earlier by the hon. member for Durban (Central) and the hon. member for Rosettenville. I wish to raise the point concerning the very serious lack which exists in Port Elizabeth of facilities for the proper handling of mental patients in that city. I am not going to attempt in the short space of time that I have at my disposal to indicate what I think ought to be done for after all that is the duty of the hon. the Minister’s Department. I want to attempt to focus attention on the very urgent need that exists for steps to be taken to provide facilities for the treatment of the mentally ill in that big city. At the present time there are only two private psychiatrists practising in the whole of the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage complex. Theirs is a private practice and all that they are able to do in the time when they are not occupied with their own practice is to attend on a sessional basis a clinic twice a week. In addition to that Port Elizabeth also has the services of a Government psychiatrist who spends a day and a half in Port Elizabeth once every fortnight to conduct a clinic at the Mental Health Society’s offices. In this way some 400 to 600 patients are treated annually but due to the lack of time and the proper facilities these clinics are at the most diagnostic and in no way therapeutic. Now, Mr. Chairman, that is the case as it exists to-day, and if we look at that area, expanding as it is, with a tremendous growth in population, the position must become progressively worse each year. We think of that area and we think of what is going to happen in the future when the waters of the Orange River flow down to Port Elizabeth. We think of the oil that is going to be found in Murraysburg which is in the hinterland of Port Elizabeth and we have also heard that there is a distinct possibility that a third Iscor might be established in Port Elizabeth. If all these things happen, think of the tremendous population that will develop in the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage complex. At the present time there are no facilities whatsoever to deal with our mentally ill in this area. During the past year alone 500 new patients with mental illnesses were reported to the P. E. Mental Health Society while there was a total patients’ attendance, old and new, of some 8,000 cases. When one takes into account these figures and one also bears in mind that at the present time there is a White population of over 100,000 people in Port Elizabeth it is, I think, alarming to find that there are no beds specifically available for psychiatric cases although at any one time you can find 15 to 20 cases in the Provincial Hospital which of course, as we all know, has no proper facilities for the treatment and handling of these people. The nearest mental hospital available to the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage complex is Fort England some 80 miles away at Grahams‘own. It is important to note that of these 700 patients in Fort England the majority come from Port Elizabeth. If one bears in mind too that the patients recover more quickly if they are not separated from their families and their family complex and also the stigma that is attached to the seclusion of these mental patients in some far distant mental hospital where in many cases the family contact becomes completely broken, I think that a very real and urgent case exists for the establishment of a unit for dealing with these patients. I am not pleading for a mental hospital. All we are pleading for is a unit of some kind where patients likely to recover within a few weeks can be treated, a unit where patients who only need day hospital treatment can be housed and looked after. But most important of all we want a place where these people can be observed and where actively disturbed patients who would otherwise be relegated to the police cell waiting for certification and hospitalization can be properly cared for and treated.

I realize that we do not have a State hospital in Port Elizabeth which can be extended or developed to provide the facilities for which I plead, but I feel, like the hon. member for Rosettenville, that there is no reason at all why steps should not be taken to extend the provincial hospital—it would have to be State-aided—to house these people and to provide temporary facilities which we require so urgently. The Mental Health Society in Port Elizabeth consists of volunteer workers who have the interests of the mentally ill at heart. They are doing a tremendous job. They are not being rewarded except for the satisfaction that they are doing their best for their less privileged brethren. I ask that this matter be given very serious consideration and that at least a commission of inquiry consisting of the Department visit Port Elizabeth and make contact with our Mental Health Society and see if some steps cannot be taken to alleviate this very serious situation which exists there.

Mr. Chairman, if one listens to the hon. member for Walmer, one is in full sympathy with him and with those mentally deranged persons, and I am convinced that he will receive all sympathy from the Minister and his Department as far as that matter is concerned. As it is a local affair, the hon. member will pardon me if I do not pursue the matter.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the plea of the hon. member for Durban Central, where he brought the matter of ambulance services to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Health. If we consider that every local authority in our country operates an ambulance service, and if we consider the tremendous amounts spent by the various local authorities on ambulance services at present, then I should like to make a plea with regard to this matter. Who bears the responsibility for ambulance services? Is it borne by the local authority or by the Provincial Administration or by the Central Government? We shall really appreciate it if the Borckenhagen Report can appear as soon as possible, to determine exactly whose responsibility ambulance services are. If we take our larger cities, for example, we find that various cities are at present served by one hospital, but that every local authority has its own ambulance service which takes those patients to one hospital. We are convinced, and I agree with the hon. member for Durban Central, that the ambulance services should be controlled from the hospital so that it will also be able to see to it that those ambulances are properly equipped, in contrast with the present state of affairs. What we find in an ambulance is a driver and someone that merely helps him to carry the patient. We therefore want to tell the hon. member that as far as that is concerned, we agree with him that there should be a great improvement as regards our ambulance services, but I feel it is not fair that a few isolated cases should be mentioned here.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to come to another matter that I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Health tonight. It is the question of chronic diseases We find that the incidence of chronic diseases in South Africa is increasing year by year, but no concern, neither the Provincial Administration nor the Department of Health, is prepared to accept the responsibility for chronic disease patients here in our country. I want to plead with the hon. the Minister to-night that the time has come to determine who is responsible for chronic disease patients. Does it rest on the Provincial Administration or on the Department of Health? If we consider the Provincial hospitals, we find that they are not prepared to accommodate those people in the hospitals. They need those beds for urgent and serious cases, with the result that they want to get rid of those chronic cases as soon as possible. And where must those poor people go then? Who must nurse them and where will they be accommodated? I want to plead in this House to-night that I see no need why those chronic disease patients should be nursed by our Provincial hospitals or by private institutions. Has the time not come that those chronic disease patients should be admitted to every old-age home established in the Republic of South Africa—and there are many of them—and that next to those old-age homes a hospital for chronic disease patients or an infirmary or a number of beds, for example 15 or 20 should be set up, so that those people, as soon as they are discharged and no longer need medical treatment but only proper care, can receive that care in those specially equipped chronic disease hospitals that we should establish. I realize, Mr. Chairman, that it is a very expensive affair to admit a patient to a hospital nowadays, and that the admission of those people to our Provincial clinics demands a great deal of money. But I am convinced that we can accommodate our chronic disease patients much more cheaply, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the time has not come to treat our chronic disease patients on the same basis as that on which we are treating tuberculosis cases at present. We find that the tuberculosis cases are at present accommodated partly through private initiative. Can we not also have an inquiry into the position of the chronic disease patients, to see whether we can be assisted on the same basis by private initiative to accommodate the chronic disease patients among us, so that we may also bring relief to those people whose numbers are rising by the day?

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. the Minister wanted to be satisfied that there is something rotten in the state of Denmark, then he has had it from the hon. member from Brakpan and the hon. member for Cradock this evening. The hon. member for Brakpan has quite correctly drawn attention to the plight of the chronic sick in this country. The hon. member for Cradock talked about the diversity of control of our health services and we stand here tonight, Mr. Chairman, with an hon. Minister who has had the Schumann Commission Report in his possession for two years, a report, which dealt with these particular subjects, and he has not disclosed details to this House. If I may leave that, I will return to another commission. The hon. member for Cradock said that we needed a commission to go into this diversity of control. We do not need another commission. The hon. Minister appointed a Nursing Commission in 1964. The functions of that commission are as important if not more important than those of the Groenewoud Commission in another department. The Groenewoud Commission has reported and when I asked the hon. the Minister when he expected to get a report from the Nursing Commission he said perhaps at the end of 1967. That is a commission which is to report on the shortage of nurses. That is a commission which is to report on the obsolete conditions of service under which our nurses are working at the present time. That is a commission that is to report on the apparently unsatisfactory examination results, and the hon. Minister says that we can wait until the end of 1967. If I may go on to a third point, and one which appals me more, it is the complete lack of attention on the part of the Government to the training of medical personnel amongst our non-White people. We heard the other day, in answer to a question which I put to the hon. Minister for Bantu Administration and Development, that he was going to build in the Bantu areas hospitals with a total of 4,370 beds, and at present minimum costs, that means an expenditure of R40,000,000. But where is the staff coming from? I have taken the trouble to inquire from the various medical schools in South Africa, and there is a shocking state of affairs in regard to the training of personnel who might be available to work in those hospitals. In the five years preceding 1961, that is prior to the advent of separate development, we find that 1,387 White doctors, 27 Coloured doctors, 74 Indian and Asiatic doctors and 56 Bantu doctors graduated from the medical schools of South Africa. Now, Sir, one will accept that up to 1960 separate development had not been thought of but from 1961 this was the plan or programme on which this Government was planning the future of our country. What do we find in the ensuing five years? There were 1,314 White doctors, an increase of 227 over the preceding five years, and 45 Coloured doctors: in the five years of separate development, a total of 18 additional doctors. As regards Indian and Asiatic doctors, 125 in the five years of separate development and the Bantu, 60 in the five years from 1961 to 1965, an increase of four on the figure before this policy was introduced. When one looks at these figures, one realizes that in order to provide a bare minimum, a position which is below par by world standards, of one Black doctor for every 10,000 of the population, it is going to take this country at the present rate of development 125 years. What is the position at the present time? The Minister informed me this morning … [interjection]. The hon. the Minister is apparently ignorant of what is going on in this Department, of which he should have some knowledge. The figures I am giving him are the factual figures. I should like to go a little bit further. The Minister himself told me this morning that whereas there are 492 White district surgeons, after five years of separate development we have four Bantu district surgeons apparently to look after 10,000,000 Bantu.

Let us look at the planning. When one looks at the planning, how does it appear as far as the Indians are concerned? The Minister of Indian Affairs states that the question of facilities for the training of Indian medical students is at present under consideration. In regard to Coloureds, too, the whole matter is still under consideration and no indication can therefore be given at this stage in regard to which universities will be granted extensions. In regard to the Bantu the whole matter is also under consideration and no definite decision has been made. That is the position we find from replies given in 1966 in so far as this problem is concerned. Let me go further. In reply to a question, I was informed that this year there are 1,416 Bantu in the matriculation classes in the whole of the Republic of South Africa. Last year 323 Bantu passed their matriculation examinations.

The hon. member is now dealing with the Education, Arts and Science Vote.

With respect, Sir, I want to say that, for separate development, doctors must be found out of 323 matriculants.

That is going a bit far.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister in all sincerity that disease knows no boundaries of race. Unless we are going to do something, we are making a mockery of this Government’s so-called policy of separate development. I think that if there is one deduction which we on this side of the House and the country can draw it is that the concentration is on the separation, and that the development of the non-White people is a very secondary and neglected consideration as far as this Government is concerned. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister with the greatest of respect to give less time to investigating the control of the English Press in South Africa and more time to the training of the non-Whites to run health services for their own people.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down will pardon me if I do not follow up his arguments. because I should like to say something in pursuance of the arguments advanced here by the hon. members for Durban (Central) and Rosettenville. They referred among other things to the position of the mentally diseased groups in the country as regards nursing services.

It is interesting to note that since 1952 approximately 40 nurses have qualified annually in this field. It does not seem to be a large number, a number that could improve the position appreciably, but now the question arises immediately whether the Government and the Minister concerned should be blamed for this state of affairs. Should the Minister be blamed if there are not enough people who come forward for those services? I should rather say that the Minister concerned is in fact doing his utmost to improve the position. According to the report of the S.A. Nursing Council the position with regard to mentally diseased persons is that the results of the examinations over the past ten years have shown an appreciable improvement. The results for 1964 in particular were in actual fact better than any results obtained since the institution of this examination in 1932. That is the best proof that this Minister and this Government are in fact doing their best to improve the position. As regards nurses in general, it is also interesting to note that the following appears in the report—

Now I ask whether the Opposition did not want an economic improvement, which contributed towards these shortages we are now experiencing. If they have the courage of their convictions, they must get up and put it very clearly.

In the short period at my disposal I should like to bring another matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister. It is a matter—and I want to emphasize that right at the outset—that I am bringing to his attention as a layman, a layman who is concerned about the increase in the number of victims of heart disease in some form or other. Of the eight categories into which diseases of the heart and vascular system are classified, coronary thrombosis is one which is becoming increasingly prevalent in modern life and which is causing a high death-rate despite the progress made in recent years in knowledge of the methods of treatment, and also in the rehabilitation of patients with heart and vascular diseases.

In recent years the increase in the incidence of these diseases has been blamed on various factors, among which were the following: the modern, hurried life and lack of exercise; people’s diets, with a high percentage of concentrated and animal fats, and the high consumption of sucrose. Others regard it as a degeneration disease which will become more prevalent as the average age of the population rises. But apparently nobody can explain why the condition is becoming more and more prevalent among younger people. These diseases also show other anomalies with which we cannot deal to-night. Sir, but for their prevention diets have in recent years been compiled that have a low animal fat and sucrose content, and a more active life has been recommended. But one receives the impression that these preventive measures have not been of much avail. Can it be that their value is not appreciated adequately, and that the general public is not taking adequate note of these warnings? Has the time not perhaps come for the hon. the Minister to consider launching a determined and sustained campaign, through his Department, to bring the significance of the cause of this disease to the notice of the public without being alarmist, on the one hand, and on the other hand to cause research to be undertaken into substitutes that will not be detrimental to health? The question is whether the foodstuffs that give rise to the condition should not be banned altogether. Should not much more research in respect of this disease be undertaken by the various departments jointly? Thirdly, has the time not come for the establishment of a heart emergency unit at every hospital in the Republic?

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise the question of malnutrition and nutritional diseases in the Republic. At the present time we are facing a very severe crisis, particularly in child health, a crisis so severe that it calls for urgent and concerted action on a national as well as on a local level. Much of this is due to malnutrition, under-nutrition or just plain starvation in certain instances. There is no doubt that there is a severe degree of nutritional deficiency amongst pre-school and school-going children in South Africa, particularly amongst our non-White peoples. Surveys in the Cape Province, for instance, have shown that 66 per cent of non-White children, both Coloured and Bantu, suffer from iron deficiency anaemia. In 1960 a Cape Town survey revealed that 25 per cent of Coloured children between the ages of three and twelve months attending hospitals had radiological evidence of rickets. In July, 1966, Dr. A. J. Brink of the Karl Bremer Hospital reported that 25 per cent of all Coloured and African patients with heart failure, suffered from vitamin B deficiency, either as the sole cause or as a contributory factor. In April, 1965. Mr. J. F. Potgieter of the South African Nutrition Society stated that in the Pretoria urban area, about 77 per cent of Bantu families lived below the poverty datum line. He went on to say in the same paper, that at least 80 per cent of schoolchildren from Bantu households in Pretoria suffer either from malnutrition or under-nutrition. The death rate for African babies in Durban is 246 for every thousand births, and in 1964 in the Cape Town municipal area 33.7 per cent of all deaths in the Coloured community were of children between the ages of one and five; 46.5 per cent of all deaths in the Bantu community were children of one to five years of age, and 17.4 per cent of all Asiatics.

Tuberculosis has as the hon. the Minister knows, for many years ravaged the Coloured people in this country. It has a serious grip upon our Bantu population as well, although the situation is slowly improving. But doctors will confirm that so many cases are not notified that it is difficult to assess the real position. When one thinks of the high cost of living in the Republic to-day, and the fact that medical research workers are unanimous that economic earning capacity is directly related to many nutritional deficiency diseases, it is obvious that the Government should be thinking seriously in terms of an immediate and urgent campaign to deal with what amounts to no more and no less than a threat to the nation’s health.

Kwashiorkor is, without doubt, perhaps, the biggest killer. It is a nutritional disease which affects infants and young children. As the hon. the Minister knows, it is caused by a deficiency of highclass protein and too much starch in the diet of young children, particularly those who have been weaned and then do not have sufficient access to milk or milk substitutes once they have been weaned. Since this disease became notifiable, there has been an average of 1,200 cases a month (mostly Bantu) notified at medical institutions. This does not represent the real incidence, because, of course, many cases are never notified at all. The total number of cases of kwashiorkor notified in the Republic in respect of all races in 1965 amounted to 12,831. of whom 12,062 were Bantu, namely over 90 per cent of the total. I think the hon. the Minister might note that the children who suffer from kwashiorkor, even those who are successfully treated, are frequently left with a lack of vitality from which they never recover, and very often they are mentally affected as well. This means that their productivity rate as workers, when they grow up, is severely reduced.

Then, Sir, we have gastroenteritis, which is another killer, particularly amongst young children in the Coloured community. This is also related to nutritional deficiency diseases. Let me tell the hon. the Minister, in case he does not know it. that at least 10,000 children under the age of 5 years die of this disease in the Republic every year. The reasons for this are obvious, Sir. There is inadequate feeding and lack of proper care; poverty, aggravated by the large numbers in the family; ignorance of elementary hygiene and infant feeding; indifference, particularly where the infant is illegitimate. Hon. members know that the rate of illegitimacy in some of our non-White communities varies from 20 to 50 per cent. And then there is of course the question of the absence of the mother due to outside employment, because so many of these people are employed in domestic service and are not allowed to have their children living with them.

Pellagra is another deficiency disease which is making very serious inroads in South Africa. This affects adults and adolescents rather more than children. As Dr. Quass, Chairman of the South African National Nutrition Society, said a little while ago, half or three quarters of all Bantu admissions to the mental hospital in Pretoria are sufferers from pellagra. It seems to me that no concerted drive has been made against this disease in South Africa. Surely it is time that the hon. the Minister and his Department displayed some initiative in this regard?

With regard to the tuberculosis figures, I should like to say that in 1965, of all races, there was a total of 67,623 cases notified, of whom 55,972 were Bantu. There was an increase in the incidence rate for Coloureds of 17.48 per cent. The increase in respect of Asiatics was 22.16 per cent. The urgency of this matter is, perhaps, brought most clearly home to hon. members by the fact that money voted in this House under the Health Vote jumped from 17 per cent of the Health Vote in 1949, to 42 per cent of the Health Vote in 1961. It formed 45 per cent of the Health Vote in 1962. The former Minister of Health, the late Mr. J. H. Viljoen, said that it would cost anything up to R10,000,000 to be able to bring this disease under any sort of control. It took this Government seven years to reach that stage. To prove how necessary it was to vote these funds, may I just point out that the incidence of T.B. showed an increase of 40 per cent amongst non-White children under the age of five years in the five year period 1958-62. There was a decrease of 4 per cent in the number of cases of White children during the same period. Here in Cape Town to-day 54 per cent of non-White children in the preschool age groups are below the accepted standard of weight for age. One wonders, with the high cost of basic and essential foodstuffs, how many of these children are going to survive at all.

What can we do about this situation, Sir? If the production of our essential foodstuffs is expanded, who will benefit if most of the people who need this food cannot afford to buy it? I suggest that the Government should seriously consider subsidizing yellow maize, amongst other things, for these people.

Then of course there is the question of family planning. The desirability of curbing population growth to prevent future starvation is an obvious line of action for any Government. I believe that this must be tackled without delay. It seems to me, Sir, with respect, that apart from specialized medical circles in South Africa, the magnitude of the malnutrition problem has been very seriously under-stressed during the last few years. I should like to make a plea for positive action, and that is that the Minister establish a sub-department of his Department to be run by a Deputy-Minister, to be called the Department of Nutrition and Preventive Medicine. This sub-deparment could co-ordinate all aspects of health planning in times of peace or emergency and could combat this danger of malnutrition. At the moment there are so many aspects of this matter and they are all dealt with by a dozen different departments.

Finally, Sir, I would like to say that there is a chronic shortage of funds for medical research into these problems at all our universities in South Africa—so much so that the hon. the Minister knows that our medical people have to go overseas in order to try to obtain financial assistance for medical research. I go so far as to say that many of South Africa’s leading medical men to-day are beginning to wonder whether it is not deliberate Government policy to keep them short of funds for purposes of research into the question of malnutrition because every time they go to the Government their appeals fall on deaf ears. [Time limit.]

The least one expects is some semblance of a scientific approach. I was struck by a few things. The first was the rude behaviour of one of the hon. members.

Order! I do not think the hon. the Minister should use that word.

Then I shall say the discourteous behaviour of one of the hon. members, the hon. member for Green Point, who not only went out of this way to try to be most discourteous, but who also dragged in matters that have nothing to do with health. It is time that the hon. member should verify his facts before launching an attack. I want to give him that hint for the future. In the first place I have to point out to him that the Schumann Commission was not appointed by the Department of Health but by the Department of Finance, and that the Department of Health therefore has nothing to do with the report or with submitting the report. His uncalled-for attack was therefore merely an offensive attack on the Government. In the second place his attack was based on the shortage of medical doctors, as though it is the task of the Department of Health to train doctors. But that is the task of the Department of Education, Arts and Science.

Do you not co-ordinate the health services?

That has nothing to do with the matter. The hon. member knows that a government functions through various departments, and that each Minister has his own responsibility. That is why Votes are discussed here, and it is the duty of the hon. member to bring that matter to the attention of the Minister under that Vote. But what did he do when the Vote of the Minister of Education was discussed here? Then he did nothing. Then why launch this uncalled-for and insulting attack on the Department of Health this evening?

On a point of order. I suggest that the hon. the Minister is casting a reflection on the Chair if he says that it is an insulting attack.

No. the Minister is not casting a reflection on the Chair. I have told the hon. member that he was out of order.

That is quite typical, but that is not all. Let me come back to the hon. member who opened the debate and to the tone of his speech, which was predominant for a large part of the entire debate. That is the hon. member for Durban (Central). I should have expected a responsible member to verify his facts before making allegations in this House that cast an unfavourable reflection on the White man. I expect any responsible member to verify his facts first, particularly if he casts a reflection on the White man. But what did the hon. member say? He acted in such a way that even a new member in this House, the hon. member for Brentwood, was forced to remark that he was surprised at the conduct of the hon. member. The new member for Brentwood was forced to point out that the hon. member had adopted un unseemly tone. Let me just remind the hon. member what he said. He said he had checked the figures in respect of the so called mental patients detained in police cells, and he suggested that whereas the Whites were detained for two days only, the non-Whites were detained for 30 days. He emphasized the fact that they were non-Whites, but the hon. member did not take the trouble to ask the Department for an explanation or for the true facts. I wonder why he did not do that. The facts of the matter are that some of the non-Whites who were detained, who were supposedly mentally deranged because they shouted or behaved violently, were to a large extent Bantu suffering from the effects of skokiaan or dagga. It then takes days before they become normal again and people realize that they are not mentally deranged, and then they are eventually released. That is the reason why such a large number of Bantu are detained in the cells. But what did the hon. member suggest? He used the words “police cells” time and again, to create the impression that this country is a police state. That is what lies behind it. [Interjections.] The hon. member should at least know that even if that was not his intention, then that is how the world abroad will interpret it. I therefore say that we expect a sensible member of this House to act sensibly, and to think before speaking.

Let us consider the true facts about the cells. There is never at any time a total of more than 100 people in all the cells throughout the country. Now you must know that the mental institutions people are dotted all over South Africa. They are here in Cape Town, in Grahamstown, Queenstown, Pretoria, Bloemfontein, Pietermaritzburg, etc. But the rural areas are vast, and when the so-called mentally deranged persons are arrested for a crime or for causing a disturbance and are detained in the cells, then it naturally takes some time before it can be ascertained where there is room for them. Some time passes before they can be sent there. It cannot be avoided, and what is eight days? But the hon. member went further and insinuated that the poor Natives were sitting there—and remember, he always spoke of “Natives” and of the so-called injustice done to them—without receiving any treatment. But did the hon. member not first verify the facts? Every Bantu and every other person detained in the cells comes under the care of the local district surgeon. Each one of them is visited and treated, and they are not treated with ordinary medicine; they are treated by giving them sedatives. Why the story that they are left helpless to scream and struggle for days on end? No, if the hon. member had been fair and had verified the facts before he had launched his attack, he would have found that the people who do all the fighting there are in fact the people suffering from the effects of dagga. Surely you know what a dagga smoker is like, that he becomes irritable and aggressive. Then why make these allegations? There is nothing wrong.

But I want to go further. The Government is continually building new accommodation for Whites and Bantu, but the number of mentally deranged persons in South Africa is increasing tremendously. In 1959 there were 25,000, but in 1964 there were 35,000. Surely that is an enormous increase in the incidence of mental disease. Can one expect the Government to conjure up accommodation? At Stikland we provided 1,500 beds from 1960 to 1962, and in Durban 200 in the following year, and 1,000 the following year. In Mafeking approximately 1,800 are being made available. At the moment there are already more than 500 patients in Mafeking. Next year a hospital for 1,500 patients will be established at Newcastle, and for every two years subsequent to that we are contemplating another one somewhere else. Three more have been planned for Newcastle. Surely you cannot expect more of a Government. The provision of accommodation is increasing at a tremendous rate. Why merely make allegations without verifying the facts?

The hon. member also launched an attack on the Government about the position as regards ambulances, and the hon. member knew that he was not on firm ground in that respect because he said: The Minister should not say it does not fall under him, because the Minister has overriding authority. But does the hon. member not realize what the position is in South Africa, that we have a Central Government and also provinces, and does the hon. member not realize that every province is very jealous of its own rights and that it has always been a great struggle to try to effect an arrangement between the Central Government and the provinces, because each of them is so jealous of his own rights? Surely the hon. member knows that the Minister of Health has no authority over them, neither statutorily nor otherwise, and that he can achieve things only by negotiating and by coaxing the provinces. But the co-ordinating council that arranges matters between the Central Government and the provinces as regards hospital affairs, has been dealing with this matter for a considerable length of time, and at the last sitting it was recommended that certain steps be taken and that the provinces take them over, but the provinces are not prepared to take over all of them. It is only the Transvaal and Natal that are prepared to take them over, whereas the others are not prepared to do so. We are now in the position that the hospitals fall mainly under the local authorities, and every province operates its ambulances in respect of its own hospitals. The only ambulances at the disposal of the Central Government are ambulances for indigent persons. Why launch an attack on the Central Government, which has nothing to do with the matter?

The hon. member for Geduld mentioned a problem that is causing all of us great concern, and that is the problem of bilharzia. Bilharzia spread in the Lowveld and from the Transvaal north of the Witwatersrand along the coast until it has now already reached Knysna. We know with absolute certainty that it has reached the Krom River. A specific type of snail is mainly responsible for spreading it. This snail acts as a host to the organism, which enters the snail and breeds in it and then returns to the water, where it comes into contact with human beings. But unfortunately bilharzia is coupled with the hygiene of a nation. Unfortunately it is coupled with the fact that one may not be unhygienic in the veld or in the water, because if one acts un-hygienically in an area where the snail occurs, one infects the snail, and in due course the snail infects human beings in turn. Now we have to do with a large Bantu and Coloured population who do not have the same principles of hygiene that we as Whites have. They act unhygienically in the veld and also in the water, and how can one stop that? The farmers in the rural areas receive guidance all the time. They try to persuade their servants to use the ordinary conveniences that are used by the White man, but they refuse. They persist in their unhygienic habits and as a result they are continually infecting the snails and eventually the snails infect other people. There will be no solution for years to come unless we can cure the people. If we can cure the people, it will no longer be possible for the snails to infect other people. But so far no cure has been discovered. Or rather, the known cures are all antimony compounds, and antimony treatment for bilharzia is not always effective, and it is also a hazardous and most unpleasant medicine to take. As a result of that the Government and the doctors hesitate to use antimony preparations for it. Some months ago a new Swiss preparation appeared on the market. I think it is called Ambilhar. This new preparation was tested by our specialists in Pretoria, by one of our private specialists. For safety’s sake he tested it on only 20 people. That preparation also has all kinds of side-effects. It is not yet conclusive. Apparently there are still shortcomings, but for safety’s sake the Department and the C.S.I.R. will now hand it over to the charge of another doctor, another researcher, to ascertain conclusively whether that preparation may possibly be a solution in our conditions. We are therefore continually working on these problems. They are tremendous problems, because they affect thousands of people in South Africa. But if there is no solution we have to do our best, and at the moment the best we can do is to try to keep our people away from contaminated water, and that is not always easy. We also have to try to teach them hygienic habits, and that is not easy either. We keep our eyes open for any cure that may be effective, and I can assure you that if such a cure is discovered, South Africa will be one of the first countries to use it.

The hon. member for Fauresmith is not here. I see the hon. member for Outeniqua is not here either, and I shall therefore not touch on the points raised by him. The hon. member for Cradock pointed out in what a deplorable position South Africa is because there is divided control over medicine. There are four provinces, and local authorities in the form of city councils, and in addition to that one has the Central Government, all of which have different functions. That is the cause of this confusion in South Africa and also of a great deal of duplication, and for that reason there is always somewhat less efficiency. But it cannot be changed as easily as all that, because the local authorities and the provincial governments are very jealous of their own powers. Two commissions of inquiry have been appointed to investigate this matter. One is the Borckenhagen Commission and the other the Schumann Commission. Those two commissions hold divergent views. Their solutions are not the same.

I thought you had nothing to do with the Schumann Commission.

Apparently the hon. member cannot see the difference between my having authority over it and my knowing nothing about it.

But the Schumann Commission has made a recommendation.

Perhaps I may also tell the hon. members this. Parts of the report of the Borckenhagen Commission have been published, but it has by no means been finalized. The position as regards those reports of the Schumann Commission and of the Borckenhagen Commission has therefore by no means been finalized. The position is that we appreciate the problem pointed out by the hon. member for Cradock, and he may be assured that we shall do everything possible to iron out the difficulties.

The hon. member for Mooi River noticed, true to human nature, that the Department of Health has a fine hospital in Pietermaritzburg. There are two hospitals side by side, and he finds them attractive, and it is essential that they should be attractive and large, because one of the primary requirements of the treatment of people suffering from nervous disorders, people who become mentally deranged, is to give them peace and quiet, to give them an attractive environment, because that has a sedative effect on them and helps them to recover gradually. Now I can easily understand why the hon. member should fix glittering eyes on those beautiful stretches of land and should want to take them away from the patients and use them to accommodate the citizens. But the question I should like to ask is this: Are not people who become mentally deranged, who suffer nervous attacks, entitled to decent treatment? Are they not entitled to decent treatment in an attractive hospital with attractive surroundings? Must the local authorities always come along and demand that what the Government had been planning for years be given to them for new houses? Is that the correct solution? Is it not in fact a tremendous asset to any city if there are attractive grounds in the centre of that city? In Pretoria we regret the fact that our large and beautiful hospitals are not also situated in such extensive grounds. If only we had looked far enough ahead that would also have been the case. Why would the hon. members deprive the Government, that has in fact had enough foresight to provide for its hospitals there, of those grounds in order to build houses on them?

The hon. member for Walmer mentioned the shortage of psychiatrists. It is a major problem. There is a shortage of psychiatrists in South Africa. Speaking from memory, I think there are at present only 99 registered psychiatrists in South Africa. In our own hospitals we try to persuade doctors to take up psychiatry and we try to train them there. At the moment we have 31 training posts and we already have 19 on our own establishment, psychiatrists who are in the process of being trained, but we are faced by the problem that the salaries the Government is able to pay its specialists are always much lower than those specialists can earn in private practice. The incomes of doctors in private practice are so tremendously high that they have to be very idealistic and have to feel very much attracted to the departmental work before they will relinquish their private practices to join the Public Service. Although we are training psychiatrists, the salaries the Government can pay are still so much lower than in private practice that they are still tempted to enter private practice instead. That does not detract from the fact that there are still idealistic doctors whom we can persuade to join our service. We have a small number of outstanding men in our service, but they are always a small minority. Now we have in recent years kept abreast of the new development, which is to try to remove the stigma clinging to a mental institution, which causes the hon. member so much concern. We have tried to remove it by establishing nerve clinics everywhere. We no longer call them asylums; we call them mental institutions, and in the vicinity of a mental institution we nowadays have a nerve clinic, where patients may come free of charge, at State expense, and may often receive the best treatment in the country. Thus we have established a clinic in Pretoria and one at Stikland, and thus we shall also establish a clinic at Valkenburg in the course of the next financial year, and thus we also have a small clinic at King George V, and we also hope to have a clinic at Port Elizabeth shortly. Unfortunately the difficulty with Port Elizabeth, as the hon. member pointed out rightly, is that our nearest mental institution is in Grahamstown. As a result of that, Port Elizabeth is of somewhat lower priority, but we hope that Port Elizabeth will also be on that list soon.

The hon. member for Brakpan mentioned the problem that is of intimate concern to all of us, namely elderly people who are ill. I do not think there is one of use who does not have a soft spot for those people. But as the hon. member also pointed out rightly, our chronically ill people are in actual fact no longer curable. Medical services can no longer help them. All they need is accommodation and good treatment. As the hon. member also said, there is no need for them to be treated in a hospital. They can be treated in an attractive home where they can be accommodated and which they can feel is their own home and not a strange hospital. Unfortunately the old-age homes do not fall under the Department of Health either, but under the Department of Social Welfare. Now I may tell the hon. member that the Minister of Social Welfare recently appointed a working group that inquired into this very problem of chronic disease patients, elderly people who are chronically ill. They submitted a report and I believe the report will be submitted to the administrators’ conference within the next month , or two. But unfortunately that is something that does not fall under this Department at all.

The hon. member for Springs also mentioned a problem that has been on the minds of all of us in recent years, and that is coronary thrombosis. It is claiming many victims. He requested that we should do more research in that respect. Here in South Africa research is already being undertaken by the Medical Institute and by various other institutes, and it is also being undertaken all over the world. I do not think it will be of much use for the Department to undertake its own research. I think so much research is being undertaken all over the world and in South Africa that our contribution will not be of much use.

The hon. member for Wynberg referred to the problem of malnutrition. She said rightly that one of its most prevalent forms is kwashiorkor. She also pointed out that the largest percentage of kwashiorkor sufferers are Bantu children. Here we have to do with a social problem.

Nonsense!

I wonder whether the hon. member will not sometimes think before speaking. [Interjections.]

Order!

Let us consider for a moment what kwashiorkor is. In the first place it is due to a lack of protein, and children who do not suffer from kwashiorkor usually get protein in the form of milk. It is a natural food. Every healthy child gets mother’s milk, and afterwards his parents give him milk. Now all the medical officers in large cities say that the major cause of kwashirkor is of a threefold nature. Firstly, it is illegitimate births, because the mother of an illegitimate child neglects the child and the father rejects him. The child is rejected and does not receive the necessary love and nutrition due to him. That is the first problem, but there is another cause and that is that families have too many children. I do not know whether hon. members realize how many children the Bantu have at present for whom they simply do not care. May I just mention the example of one of my neighbours. Last year my neighbour’s servant had his 19th child; he is a domestic servant. Hon. members want to create a situation where the White man will have to look after all children born in South Africa.

Can you blame them for having many children; what did their Minister say?

If only the hon. member would make more intelligent interjections, one could take notice of them. But the third cause, one of the major causes of kwashiorkor, is the customs of the Bantu. The first custom of the Bantu is to regard the man in the family as the master. If there is food, all the food is prepared and put before the master, and then the master, the husband, first finishes his meal, and when he has done, the left-overs go to the wife and children. Obviously most men are not altruistic. Most Bantu men, when the food is served to them, eat the tasty food; they eat the meat …

Like Vause Raw!

They eat the meat and drink the milk, if there is milk, and then they leave the starches, particularly the white starches, to the wife and children. We always come up against this problem in all our endeavours to help children suffering from kwashiorkor. The Government is spending a large amount of money every year on skimmed milk to feed the children. The Government pays a subsidy of 5 cents, but then the Government provides that it should be administered by the local authorities, that the local authorities should also contribute something and that the patient’s parents should also pay something, because we know that if one gets something for nothing, one does not appreciate it and one does not take care of it. The scheme has performed miracles, but we are always faced with the problem that unless the local authorities intervene and supervise the consumption of that skimmed milk very meticulously, that simmed milk goes to the father instead of to the sick child, and that is why the administration of the scheme is so terribly difficult. I think 66 of the city councils are giving us their full co-operation at present …

Feed them at school.

As a result of that the incidence of kwashiorkor in South Africa has decreased appreciably. The hon. member mentioned the figure 12,000 in respect of last year. I do not have the figures with me at the moment, but they decreased by approximately 2,000 in one year. In other words, this scheme introduced by the Government is a great success. Not only is it a success because those children are fed, but a great ideal is involved here, and that is that one should teach the Bantu parent to acquire a greater appreciation of the use and the value of milk, because the moment the parent begins to realize that his sick child has been cured by milk, it makes such an impression on him that he later buys that milk himself and then no longer turns to the Government. In that way one guides the Bantu back to their customs and helps them automatically to solve that problem. Mr. Chairman, I think I have now answered all the questions.

What about the questions of the hon. member for Green Point?

The Minister will send me a copy of the committee’s report.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think one has to take any notice of somebody who behaves so discourteously in the House.

To conclude, it is with regret that I want to avail myself of this opportunity to take leave of our Secretary for Health. To-night will probably be the last time it will be possible for him to be present here in order to be of service to this House and to us. Dr. B. M. Clark was in private practice for a considerable number of years before he finally joined the service as Health Officer of Pietermaritzburg City. In 1937 he joined the Department of Health as Assistant Health Officer—a post that will be designated “Assistant Regional Director” nowadays. On 3rd August, 1960, he was appointed Secretary for Health. To me it feels as though it was only a short while ago. In the short period he has been Secretary for Health he has achieved a great deal. I think it was in his time that we came to grips with the polio problem; it was in his time that the campaign against tuberculosis intensified tremendously. Dr. Clark rendered valuable services to the country on the South African Medical Council, on the South African Pharmacy Commission, on the commission appointed to inquire into the co-ordination of medical research; he served on the committee appointed to inquire into air pollution, as a result of which the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act was eventually passed by this House. At the same time Dr. Clark was a shining light and a leader at many of the international conferences in Europe and Africa and elsewhere. He was also appointed to the W.H.O. advisory panel on public health. He was also awarded a Fellowship of that organization to study public health in various parts of the world.

We would rather see him stay and you retire.

Mr. Chairman, even in fine moments there must always be a rasping note in this House, on the other side. It is high time the hon. member started showing some courtesy now and then. I think, Mr. Chairman, you will agree with me when I express our sincere appreciation for all the fine services rendered by Dr. Clark. I also want to wish him a very fruitful career in whichever field he may choose to serve our country in future.

I want first of all to associate myself and my colleagues here with the remarks of the hon. the Minister about Dr. Clark, who is now leaving us. We valued his services highly, and we appreciate the truth of the words uttered by the Minister in that respect. Sir, I just want to correct one or two remarks of the hon. the Minister. He accused me of not giving the Committee accurate figures. He went so far as to say that I was accusing him of having a police state. For his information, Sir, on Friday, 19th August, 1966, he, the Minister of Health, in reply to the hon. member for Houghton, said that “241 White and 4,398 non-White patients were detained in police cells during 1965”. Those are figures which come from his own Department.

And now he calls you a liar.

He should apologize.

I did not for one moment say that I had not furnished the hon. member with those figures; my objection to the attitude of the hon. member was that all that he spoke about the whole time in this House was those Bantu. If the hon. member had spoken about the fact that White persons are, on an average detained for, say, seven days then I would not have raised any objection, but what the hon. member emphasized was that the Bantu were being detained for, I think, 30 days. He emphasized this difference, and that is what I told him. We must be careful in this House not to be creating the impression continually that the White man is always doing the Black man an injustice.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 26,—“Health: Hospitals and Institutions, R14,870,000”, put and agreed to.

Precedence given to Revenue Vote 36.

Revenue Vote 36,—“Indian Affairs, R15,243,000”.

Again we have in charge of this portfolio a new Minister. The Minister who was Minister of Indian Affairs and who is now Minister of Community Development, did not stay long in that portfolio before being moved to another part of the Administration. We have hardly got down to an understanding of the policy which he was following before he was placed in charge of another portfolio. We let him off very lightly the first year, which was only fair, seeing that he had not had a chance of becoming acquainted with his portfolio and now we have a new Minister again. Here again we seek more to get information from the Minister as to what line of policy he is going to follow than to bring up against him any of the activities of his Department which may appear to call for criticism. I would like to commence by asking the hon. the Minister whether he will give us a statement, as we got from his predecessor, as to the broad line of policy which he seeks for the Indian community which is now under his control. We got from his predecessor a picture, painted in rather gaudy colours, of a racial group developing along its own lines and eventually having its own areas where it would have what purported to be some kind of Parliament, with its own Cabinet and its own Prime Minister, in terms of a policy of separate development up to the stage, as I say, of a Cabinet of its own and its own Prime Minister. That was the ultimate end of the policy of the Minister who has just vacated that portfolio. We would like to know from the new Minister whether it is his policy to follow the same line. You see, Sir, the Indian community is not like the Bantu who in some respects are placed in certain areas where historically they have had their homes for past generations. The Indians are dotted all over the Republic, except as far as the Free State is concerned. All over the Republic we find large groups and smaller groups of Indians …

What is your policy?

Sir, the hon. member is mistaken; we are not the Government, not yet at any rate; we still will be, and then we will make our policy perfectly plain to him. Or, on the other hand, at the appropriate time we will be prepared to have a debate here in respect of our policy and his policy. What we seek to find out at the moment is the Minister’s policy. It is not our policy which is in question. If the hon. member will study parliamentary procedure he will realize that we are dealing with the Minister’s Vote now, not with the United Party’s Vote. Let us proceed then to ask the Minister whether he is following his predecessor in that regard. Sir, while we are on that point I would like to put this to the hon. the Minister: The Indian community is very often held up as a group of people who busy themselves entirely with storekeeping and in commerce. That is not true. The Indian community, in the whole of the Republic, stem from many different races of the Asian people, and many of them were never associated with commerce in any shape or form; there is a growing Indian community today engaged in industry. Before dealing with the areas which are set aside for these people, I would like to deal for a moment with Chatsworth, where we have a gathering of Indians. I believe that eventually there will be something like 200,000 Indians there. Sir, there is a great demand for areas in which they can establish industries. In other words, they want to carry on their own commerce, which they are compelled to do now in their own areas; they want to establish their own industries and it is a question then of employment and of the part that they are going to play in the economy of South Africa. Are they to play a part such as one might say a cross section of the White population of South Africa will be permitted to play in the areas set aside for White occupation? In a White area, where there is a cross section of the White population, occupied with all activities of mankind, you have all kinds of trades, professions, callings and occupations. Are the Indian people to be permitted to expand in precisely the same manner and in respect of all those callings and occupations, and will provision be made in the group areas which they are now called upon to occupy so that they shall have ample land not only in the year 1966 but to cope with the growing, rapidly expanding population? The statistics which have been presented to us from time to time by the Statistical Department show that there is almost a population explosion. If that is not the position, then in the smaller areas where these people are restrained and retarded in their development, there is bound to be an explosion point sooner or later. We see this developing group of people developing very fast indeed but apparently being left continually on the sidelines. We hear much about the development of the Bantu; we hear much about the development of the Coloured people but the Indian seems to be pushed on to one side. He will not remain on one side, however. He has the intellect and the ability and the capacity, as the hon. the Minister knows, to take his place amongst the Western nations and to stand up against them in competition. Whatever the position may be so far as the Government’s policy is concerned, the Minister is the person whom we on this side of the House have to hold responsible. When next session comes along we will come to the Minister on a much more definite basis than we are coming to him to-day. To-day we are merely seeking information. We seek to find out what line he is going to follow and what he is going to do to give the Indians who are in his charge an opportunity to develop and expand in precisely the same way as any other section of the population who have the brains, the ability and the know-how, which they wish to exercise on their own behalf for their own benefit, in just the. same way that any other section in South Africa would wish to expand and develop to their own benefit.

Owing to the limited time at my disposal, I shall not reply to the statements made by the hon. member. The hon. the Minister will no doubt state his policy in due course. This is the first time that the hon. the Minister is appearing in this capacity in this House, excluding the occasions on which he has answered questions dealing with Indian Affairs, and I should therefore, on behalf of Government members, like to convey our best wishes to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister was formerly Administrator of Natal, the province where the largest concentration of Indians is to be found, and in that capacity he came to know the Indians, their mode of life, and so forth. We should like to express the hope that he will conduct the affairs of this Department to the advantage of the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the population group, the community by whom the policy of separate development was most reluctantly received, was the Indian community. It was difficult to obtain the co-operation of the Indian population group for the policy of separate development. The background to the Indian problem in the Union, and later, the Republic of South Africa, is an account of the amenability, the affection and the goodwill of the Government of the day on the one hand, but, unfortunately, on the other hand, a tale of frustration, resistance and suspicion on the part of the Indians. This resistance and opposition and obstruction which was sometimes encouraged, did not so much occur among the broad strata of the Indian people but was often encouraged artificially by agitators, most of them well-to-do Indians who had acquired wealth here as businessmen at the expense of other population groups. They were mostly former members of the two Indian Congress groups, the Natal Indian Congress and the Transvaal Indian Congress. Despite the prosperity and the wealth which they had acquired and despite the attractive offers by the authorities to repatriate them to Pakistan and India, the Indians did not take advantage of these offers; they preferred to remain among the proverbial flesh-pots of Egypt in the Republic of South Africa. Even to-day some of the self-appointed leading lights among the Indian community regard Pakistan and India as their spiritual homes and look to them for assistance. Some of them even believe that India and Pakistan should plead for them at U.N. It has in fact happened time and time again that the case for the South African Indians has been placed on the agenda of U.N. by these two countries.

Unfortunately, the inciters and agitators still exist, some of them most probably communistically inspired. I should like to refer to an unfortunate incident in this regard. I quote from Dagbreek en Sondagnuus of 5th June, 1966—this is in connection with the Republic Festival (translation)—

The report states that Indian schoolchildren were also influenced by these groups. The article goes on to say (translation)—

Consistent efforts have been made over the year by the Government of the Republic to be fair and just to the Indians because they are regarded as a permanent part of the population. When the Ministry of Indian Affairs was established in 1961, this development was regarded with suspicion, contempt and even resentment by many Indians. At first it was difficult to get the leaders of the Indian community to come to the fore to assist in establishing the South African Indian Council, but with the passage of time the establishment of the Department began to find favour with law-abiding Indians. Leaders did emerge from among them and in due course the establishment of the Department brought about a vast change in the attitude of Indians. To-day the Government can rely upon the co-operation of the Indian community and this co-operation will ensure that they also benefit from separate development. The advantages to the Indians to-day, brought about by their cooperation, have convinced them of the wisdom of their decision to forget their aloofness and antagonism and to make use of the opportunities afforded the Indian community through the medium of the policy of separate development. The Indian Council has already, because of its positive co-operation and the sound judgment of its members, become an important link between the Administration of the Republic and the Indians as such. This Indian Council is particularly useful as a liaison between the Indian community and the Government and has done good work. I believe that in time to come the members will be able to be elected by the community itself on a statutory basis and that they will then be able to deal with certain matters of a local nature. Under the guidance of the Department of Indian Affairs, an advisory committee has already been set up at Laudium near Pretoria. This is the first committee of this nature, and in this regard the co-operation of the Pretoria City Council is praiseworthy indeed. In due course the advisory committee can also do responsible work in connection with the community and the township as such and may eventually even perform the functions of a municipality there. Laudium as such is a practical example of what co-operation between the Indians and the Government can achieve, and I am glad to have been able to do my share in this regard when I was a member of the Pretoria City Council. I should like to add that since its establishment the Department of Indian Affairs has concentrated upon assisting Indians with their problems and removing possible causes of friction. In this regard I want to mention the settlement of the disputes between the so-called passenger-Indians and immigrant-Indians in Natal. The Department has also increased education facilities for Indians. We know that legislation was adopted last year in terms of which Indian education was taken over by the Department of Indian Affairs. From 1st April of this year the education of Indians in Natal was taken over by the Department of Indian Affairs, whilst in the Transvaal and the Cape it is still being managed by the respective Provincial Administrations.

In conclusion I should like to say that in the interests of better education for Indians, all Indian education is since April of this year being co-ordinated in order to maintain the same standard of education throughout. [Time limit.]

I have listened with interest to the hon. member for Koedoespoort. I do not think I want to dwell too much on what he has said. He more or less gave an introduction to the remarks which I wish to address to the hon. the Minister when he said that a few years ago the Indian people were considered to be a group which did not belong to this country, a group which should be repatriated, and that we now have a group of people who have advanced to the stage where they are now accepted as an integral part of the population of this country. They are a group which will have its own areas, a group which has its own Department to look after its affairs and which will have its own policy. As the hon. member for Koedoespoort has also pointed out, since the handing over of Indian education to this hon. Minister last year, with effect from this year, he now controls every aspect of Indian life. In the past the question of the future of the Indian people was never really faced by this Government, and I want to support the statement made by the hon. member for South Coast that the time has now come when we should get a complete statement from this hon. Minister of the pattern which is to be followed in the future, of the policy which will be applied to the Indian people and of the part that they will play in the future of South Africa.

Will you co-operate?

I would in particular like to ask the Minister to tell us what part they will play in the future of our country and what steps he is taking to make them a useful section of the community, a section that will make a useful contribution towards the well-being and the economy of South Africa. In particular I want to ask the Minister what he intends to do in the field of education and more particularly for those Indians who reside in the rural areas. We can see from the Estimates that a number of schools have been taken over and that further schools are being established. A lot of money is being spent. But from my observations, Mr. Chairman, this money is being spent in the urban areas primarily. What is being done about those children who reside in the rural areas? I refer particularly to the area between Durban and Pietermaritzburg, although my comments, I am sure, will apply also to other areas.

Is the hon. the Minister aware of the conditions, of the extremely difficult conditions under which these Indian parents get their children to school? Is he aware of the shortage of schools? Is he aware of the fact that some of these people live up to 30 miles away from the nearest school? There is no convenient public transport. There is no hostel accommodation available for their children. These people get their children to school under extremely difficult conditions.

A little while ago we had a debate with the hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science where he pointed out that transport subsidies were available for White students under these self-same conditions which pertain to the Indian people. And, Mr. Chairman, I am appealing to the hon. the Minister: Is he prepared to make transport bursaries available or provide transport for these people who are living in the rural areas?

These Indians are making a contribution towards the well-being and the economy of our country. A number of them are farmers—good, practical farmers, particularly vegetable farmers, who are supplying a much-needed commodity to our larger centres. Others are businessmen who are providing services, very necessary services in these rural areas. I am sure that the hon. the Minister knows that better education leads to greater productivity. And this is the point, Sir: What is the hon. the Minister doing to bring these people to the point where they will be able to make a positive contribution towards the productivity and the future development and expansion of our country?

I am sure also, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. the Minister knows that grave difficulties are experienced by parents where obstacles are placed in their way so that they have difficulty in getting their children to educational institutions. The education of his children has now to be terminated at a stage at which they have not yet qualified to make a useful contribution to this country. They then become a drag on the State, Mr. Chairman, instead of becoming an asset. And this hon. the Minister and his Department will have to look after these people unless he now takes a farsighted view and plans for the development of these people, particularly in the field of technical education.

I know we are going to get the story about lack of finance. “Where are we going to get the money from?” That is not our problem, Sir. And let me say now. that any money which is expended on this will be a first-class long-term, gilt-edged investment. This is not going to be inflationary or a waste of money or anything else. This is an investment in South Africa’s greatest asset, that is, the young people of this country, be they White or be they, as in this particular debate, Asiatics. We must spend this money to step up the productivity of these people so that they can make a useful contribution to the glorious future of our country.

It has been said in this House, Sir, that we must aim for the optimum development of every person’s capabilities. And it is merely with that object in view that I make my appeal. This appeal, once again, is: Will the hon. the Minister undertake to provide first of all adequate schooling, and secondly transport for these people, or, where that is impracticable, transport bursaries on the same basis as the Department of Education, Arts and Science does in the case of White students.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) stated here that responsibility for the presence of Indians was not accepted by the Government up to a short time ago. To a degree he is correct in that we gave the matter no special attention. However, I do not think there is any justification for such an accusation to come from a member of the Opposition, Sir, because where is more substantial evidence of the non-acceptance of responsibility involving the presence of Indians in this country to be found than in the very record of the United Party? And this is not something which relates to the period when the United Party was in power. It is a matter which relates to the present time for in Natal they are still in power. In Natal they have had the opportunity of showing what they were capable of doing for promoting the interests of the Indian community. But, Mr. Chairman, they have done nothing. It is true that they subsidized education facilities in schools there. But now I want to say here that this Government is sincere about raising the Indians as a group to a respectable level within the pattern of separate development in South Africa. The Government is doing its utmost in that direction. Proof of that is to be found in the rapid volte-face in the attitude of the Indians, particularly in Natal.

What did you say in 1948?

Mr. Chairman, prior to 1948 the United Party enfranchised the Indians and integrated them into the political society of White and non-White in this country. That was their solution.

Where is your repatriation?

We came along with the idea of repatriation, but that fell through because it entailed affecting relations with other countries. For that reason it fell through. But, Sir, I want to come back to the point I want to make as regards the role played by the United Party in Natal. In Natal the United Party Provincial Council for years has had an opportunity of doing something really positive for the upliftment of the Indian community but they have done absolutely nothing.

In connection with Indian education—seeing that the largest part of the appropriation under this Vote is mainly in respect of Indian education—I just want to point out that until recently the highest rung which the Indian in Natal could reach was the position of principal of a school. But since the take-over Indians have been appointed as inspectors of schools, and it will be possible for an Indian to be appointed to the highest possible post in Indian education, namely that of Director of Education. This is what is happening under the National Party Government. This is proof, Mr. Chairman, that this Government's sincere about assisting the Indians in uplifting themselves.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I am sorry, but I only have ten minutes at my disposal. The hon. member may put the question on another occasion. The Indian community in Natal is realizing to an increasing extent that this Government is indeed sincere about that. When the Government initially announced that it was going to take over Indian education there was tremendous opposition, but within a very short period there was a general volte-face and now they accept it. And why, Sir? Because they realize that such a takeover by this Government, that is sincere in its approach towards them, is to their own advantage. Up to recent times Natal’s contribution towards Indian education was in the vicinity of R6,000,000 per annum. This year R9,800,000 is provided for Indian education in the Estimates of Expenditure. I realize that this amount includes Indian schools in other provinces, in Transvaal, etc. However, 80 per cent of the schools are in Natal. This Government is doing a great deal more. This Government spends R1,200,000 on a programme for building Indian schools and an additional R4,000,000 for taking over Indian schools in Natal. The Indians are coming to accept it more and more that this Government is sincere in its approach towards them.

A few years ago one of the prominent Indians of Natal, Mr. A. M. Moola, visited Brazil to see whether prospects for Indians were not perhaps better in Brazil. He returned and his reply was that one could not make a comparison at all. He said their future was here in South Africa. Just recently another Indian also belonging to the Muslim group, the group which professes to be moderate but which in actual fact has been very hostile towards this Government’s policy, namely Mr. P. A. Pather, also went overseas to Mauritius. Upon returning from Mauritius he also made a statement which sounded much different to his previous statements. He was no longer as hostile.

Mr. Chairman, there is another important aspect which is contributing to this change which is taking place in the attitude of the Indian. The Indians in South Africa are seeing what is happening to their kin in East Africa. There the Blacks have taken over and the Indians now have to leave unless they are prepared to endure reckless exploitation by the Blacks. They see that they have no future as long as they are tied to the idea of Black African Nationalism. They now realize that their very undoing is to be found in that. For that reason the Indians, particularly those in Natal, are now accepting the policy of the Government as the right policy to a much larger extent.

I know that there are cases where incitement contributed to an attitude of hostility in the past. One case was mentioned by the hon. member for Koedoespoort where Indian scholars in Pretoria revolted against the Republic celebrations. But I want to mention other cases where the Republic celebrations by Indians in Natal were resounding successes. In Verulam more than 5,000 Indian scholars participated in the festivities. There we have an acceptance of the policy. The opposition which was experienced to the establishment of the Indian College on Salisbury Island, Durban, was very severe at the beginning. Boycotts and the withholding of co-operation were mentioned. To-day there is proof that there is very close co-operation with the Indian community on every level in the country. They also realize to a much larger extent that the Indian Council which already exists will be able to achieve something positive for the welfare of the Indian community.

Sir, the hon. member for South Coast requested the hon. the Minister to make a policy statement. There is no change in policy. All this fits into our pattern of separate development, namely that the Indian will be developed to the advantage of his own group. And the Indian lends himself much better to the implementation of self-development, Sir, because they have the financial means and also the intellectual means to be able to help themselves to a much larger extent. The area to the south of Durban, Chatsworth, which the hon. member for South Coast mentioned, will eventually probably extend to Klaarwater near Pinetown and to the other side of Shall cross between Durban and Pietermaritzburg. In that area there is ample provision for industrial development to take place. Although Indians in the past did not have many investments in industries, the present-day trend amongst Indians is to make more and more investments in industrial development. They are definitely doing much more than in the past for uplifting themselves and they now accept the position that they are developing within the framework of separate development. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I have listened with considerable amazement to what the hon. member has just had to say. He said a minute ago that the Indian community are now beginning to do more to pay their own way in South Africa, to contribute more to their own welfare. I want to ask the hon. member if he realizes what sacrifices were made by the Indian community in Natal towards their own education by means of money which they contributed in Natal by reason of the fact that the White tax-paying population of Natal were unable to provide the services necessary, because of the relationships between the province and the Central Government. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, who was Administrator of Natal for five years, whether he accepts that when he was Administrator of Natal the financial position of Natal was such that we could not do more to contribute to the education of the Indian community in Natal. We want to say right here and now that we appreciate to the full the effort that was made by the Indian community in Natal towards their own education. It was a very significant contribution.

There was no intention to do anything more.

The hon. member was only a member of the Natal Provincial Council in recent times and he does not realize how long this process has been going on, i.e. these contributions year after year by the Indian community. It was accepted by the White community as being the best that could be done under the circumstances. Approaches were made year after year for adjustments in the relationship between the province and the Central Government in terms of the financial legislation so that we could do more in those circumstances. [Interjections.] I am reminded, Mr. Chairman, that the Government has set up a commission which has not yet reported. We have not yet been able to reach finality on a matter like this. The answer appears to be on the part of the Government to take away services given by the provincial council in Natal in order to relieve them of the burden which has been borne so many years by the people of Natal.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to come back to what I wanted to say on this particular Vote. I believe we are facing here one of the most complex human problems that face us in South Africa, where you have a group of people who are apart, a group of people who are educated, who have a standard of living above that of the Bantu certainly and not as high as that of the Whites. They occupy a position intermediate as it were between the two great population groups in the country. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he realizes the significance of the industrial development which is taking dace in an area such as Mountain Rise in Pietermaritzburg. We have got established there one of the most modern up-to-date yarn spinning factories in the whole world. It was established by Indian capital for the Indian community on the border of the Indian area. I want to ask what the approach of the Department is going to be in regard to technical training of Indians in Pietermaritzburg. Will it be provided soon?

Will it be extended in the near future? Because, Sir, it is part of the policy of the Government that they should be allowed to invest their own money in their own area in their own industries.

Tell us what your policy is. [Interjections.]

Order!

The area there is providing a focus for the Indian population of the whole of the Midlands of Natal. In this particular area at Mountain Rise there is an Indian area set aside for Indian industrial development next to one of the fastest growing industrial developments for Whites in the whole of South Africa, an area which I believe is going to grow more and more; I refer to Pietermaritzburg as one of the greatest and most promising industrial centres of the whole of the Republic of South Africa. This business which is set up there by Indian capital and the Indian community, with the help of the I.D.C., is run entirely by Indians on the business side. At the moment White technicians are training the operatives there in the use of the machinery of the factory. But, Mr. Chairman, I believe that this is something which holds considerable promise for the Indian community particularly of Natal, and I believe that this is something about which the hon. the Minister must have a very clear idea in his own mind as to where it is going to lead. Is it going to lead to competition between the various sectors of the economy in that area? Is it going to lead to any form of industrial strife and industrial upset between the Indians there who will want to work in their own area, whereas they will be vitally necessary to the White industries developing in the Mountain Rise area which serves the White industrial area of Pietermaritzburg?

Mr. Chairman, there is one other matter on which I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question. It has come to my notice that there are a group of the Indian community who wish to see set on foot here in South Africa a defence unit such as that of the recently revived Coloured Corps which will serve the Indian community. I wonder whether that has come to the notice of the hon. the Minister. Is he prepared to accept that as an avenue whereby these people who are prepared now to come to the defence of South Africa should a crisis arise can express themselves in their loyalty for this country of ours, this South Africa?

One other point that was raised was whether cadet training might not be extended to the children in the Indian schools. I would be very interested indeed to know what the approach of the hon. the Minister to that particular point is. I believe that this is an opportunity to notify the world once and for all that we have accepted the Indian community as part and parcel of the population of South Africa, as a loyal part of that population, and that this hon. the Minister and his Department are prepared to accept them on that basis and to make available to them these sort of things, namely the training of cadets in the schools and a defence group of their own, which, I say, would be the visible manifestation of the acceptance by this Government of the fact that the Indian community are part and parcel of the life of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, being an intelligent Minister I anticipated that hon. members would ask me to give a review of the policy of my Department since I have taken over. Before I do so, I want to thank the hon. member for Koedoespoort for his good wishes. I think I need them. It is a difficult portfolio, and although I have had an opportunity now of studying it for the last three or four months, there are many difficulties in this Department. But, Sir, I am glad to say that it is working very well.

Now, just before I give my policy statement, I want to tell the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) that we do give bursaries to deserving Indians, viz. transport bursaries, school bursaries and boarding bursaries, when scholars live over three miles from the school. We do that in the same way as we give them to Europeans.

Mr. Chairman, when the function and the policy of the Department of Indian Affairs came under review by my predecessor last year, indications were given of the services for Indians to be centralized in that Department, which was created for the purpose of catering for the special needs of the Indian community. I may say that marked progress has been made in the various fields concerned, and today the Department is firmly established and is adequately fulfilling the functions for which it was created. The opposition which the Department initially experienced, particularly from the Indian community, has for all practical purposes now disappeared. There is ever-increasing evidence from the Indian community that it has accepted the Department and that it appreciates what it has done and is still doing for them. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana touched on some of those matters.

The Indians to-day are entirely satisfied that the Department is actively promoting their interests and their welfare in accordance with the Government’s assurances that it would create for them the machinery which will cater for their needs in the same way as the needs of the other race groups in our country are being catered for. The Indian community to-day is wholeheartedely supporting this Department of Indian Affairs, and most of those who previously opposed the Department are now actively co-operating with us.

I may say that there is abundant evidence of this. The Department is daily being approached for advice, guidance and assistance by Indians from all walks of life. The Indian Council, which commenced functioning in the beginning of 1964. has proved a very great success. It is, as it was intended to be. the mouthpiece of the Indian community while at the same time it constitutes a channel of communication and consultation between the community and the Government. In accordance with the assurance which was given by my predecessor, preliminary steps are already being taken to explore the conversion of the present nominated South African Indian Council into an elected statutory body to which statutory functions and administrative powers can be assigned. Such a statutory council would be enabled to play a direct and increasingly responsible role in the affairs pertaining to local government administration in Indian areas.

Meanwhile steps are being taken for the participation of Indians in the administration of their own local affairs. Hon. members may be interested to know that local consultative committees are, through the medium of the provincial administrations and the Department of Community Development, being established in proclaimed Indian townships, where, under the initial auspices of local authorities, they are being given a greater share in, and are being consulted in regard to, the affairs and administration of those townships. It is envisaged that these local consultative committees will be developed into management committees which will eventually function in respect of Indian proclaimed areas on the same basis as municipalities are now functioning in White areas. In the Transvaal five consultative committees have already been established. In Natal, where these consultative committees are known as “local affairs committees”, nine committees have already been established. Others are in the process of being established.

At Verulam and Isipingo Beach such good progress has been made with the institution of local governmental machinery for the Indians that the stage has been reached where three of the five office bearers on the local affairs committees can now be elected. These elections will take place in October at Verulam and in November at Isipingo Beach. As a matter of interest, I may mention that at Verulam an Indian has already been appointed as assistant town clerk. Along these lines active steps are being taken to train Indian personnel so that in time to come they will be qualified and experienced to hold in their own areas such posts as town clerks, town treasurers and, in fact, all posts similar to those now being held by Whites in White municipalities.

As is well known, the Department of Indian Affairs took over all education services for Indians in Natal, as well as the Transvaal College of Education for Asiatics in Fordsburg. Johannesburg, as from the 1st April, 1966. The take-over went off smoothly and without any disruption of education services. The overwhelming majority of Indian teachers, and the Indian community, welcomed this change, and are now entirely satisfied that the Government is taking active steps to implement its undertaking that there would be no lowering of education standards. Here I may mention that it was found that approximately 40 per cent of the Indian teachers in Natal were not fully qualified. Steps were, therefore, taken to institute special courses for the training of teachers at the University College for Indians in Durban. Approximately 200 student teachers are now being trained at the University College. These facilities specially provided at the University College for the training of teachers, are additional to those which existed at Springfield and the Transvaal College of Education for Asiatics at Fordsburg. A consultative committee, on which, the Natal Indian Teachers’ Society is represented, has also been appointed to advise the Director of Indian Education on all aspects of teacher training. Adequate funds have also been made available for bursaries and loans to teacher trainees, and the number of such trainees has been increased by approximately 20 per cent. The number of teacher trainees at present enrolled at the University College and at Springfield and the Transvaal College of Education for Asiatics is 1,055. The educational planners of the education section of the Department are presently investigating the possibility of establishing regional centres for the institution of part-time classes to assist professionally unqualified teachers to qualify.

As hon. members know, a Director of Indian Education has been appointed and, for the first time ever, Indian inspectors of schools have also been appointed. Not only were the posts of Indian school inspectors created under the Department of Indian Affairs, but experts in the field of education and school planning were also appointed. I do not think I need go into the details of the services which are being rendered to the Indian community in this field. It is, however, interesting to note that out of the total of 20 inspectors of education already appointed, eight posts are now being held by Indians. There are, in addition, a chief planner and two educational planners, one of whom is an Indian. Various courses have been mapped out, including technical and commercial courses, courses which will give every Indian child the opportunity of studying in accordance with his interests, aptitude and ability. All this planning has been done to enable the Indian scholar to take up his rightful place in life and to use his knowledge and energy to the best advantage of his own community.

The Department of Indian Affairs has also taken over responsibilities for school medical and health inspection services. I do not need to labour the point regarding numbers, but I have the necessary statistics here for any hon. member who may be interested. At the present moment I do not have the time available to quote these in full.

The administrative and clerical staff of the Department now consist of 232 White and 133 Indian units. The corresponding figures during February, 1962, when the policy of the Department was last reviewed, were 77 Whites and 25 Indians. It is clear, therefore, that my Department is making increasing use of Indian employees.

Apart from the educational activities of the Department, active attention continues to be given to the promotion of the economic and social welfare of the Indian community in other fields. As far as employment is concerned, the Department of Indian Affairs is continuously assisting Government Departments and private concerns in the recruiting of Indian personnel required by them. It may be mentioned that private concerns are making more and more use of Indian labour to serve the people of their own group.

In the industrial field considerable progress has been made. Regarding new industries which have recently been established by Indian entrepreneurs in proclaimed Indian areas of industrial areas, I wish to say that various factories have been established. Indian capital has been invested in these industries. In Lenasia, for instance, a file factory has been established, while at the present time they are busy with the establishment of a factory for the production of pliers. Early next year another factory will be built alongside the existing one. This factory will be in production by next year.

In Natal the following factories have been erected or are in the course of erection. The Rosedale textile factory has been completed. The type of cloth produced there was not previously made in South Africa. Prilla Mills, a R1,000,000 textile factory, has also been established. Sublime Investments, a R25,000 clothing factory, is already in operation. Spearhead Paper Bag Manufacturers have commenced operations. This is the first factory in Natal to produce square-bottomed types of paper bags. In addition a soap and edible oil factory costing R300,000 is being planned.

It is estimated that Indian entrepreneurs have invested R20,000,000 in the development of industries and that Indian factories are to-day producing about 50 per cent of the clothing for the middle-and lower-income groups in South Africa. I think that is quite interesting.

Over what period?

I would say it is since the Department came into being, but I am not certain. Most of these factories are in Natal.

Is the figure of R20,000,000 you mentioned the total amount of investments?

Yes.

Where are these factories?

Most of them are in Natal. I will, however, get the exact information.

The Department now administers the social welfare schemes applicable to Indians. These include war veterans’ pensions, old-age pensions. disability grants, blind persons’ pensions and maintenance grants.

Professional welfare services for Indians are still being rendered by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. Some six months ago, however, a fully qualified and experienced professional welfare officer was appointed on the establishment of the Department. He is now planning the take-over of professional welfare services from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. Then we will have taken over everything from the Department of Social Welfare. Meanwhile we are gradually taking over all these services.

Hon. members will remember that my predecessor said that he would see to the possible creation of an Indian Investment Corporation. He undertook to have that matter investigated. Well, that is now being done, and for this purpose a senior officer was recently appointed in the Department of Indian Affairs. He is presently engaged on this task.

Hon. members who are interested in Indian affairs would have noticed that the Department is now issuing a monthly magazine with the object of keeping Indians fully and authoritatively informed on matters which are of special interest to them and their affairs.

Who prints this magazine?

I understand it is being given out on contract. I suppose the lowest tenderer gets it. However, this publication has been warmly welcomed by the Indians, and undoubtedly it has brought about an increased understanding and greater co-operation between the authorities and the Indian community. This can only lead to the benefit of all concerned.

I am sorry I have had to make this review very short, but I was forced to do so because my time is limited. From the review I have been able to give, however, it is clear that much progress has been made, and that the Indian community of South Africa has fully accepted the pattern of development envisaged for them, and that the Government is actively implementing its policy of self-development and equal opportunities within their own areas in the Republic. It is also clear that the Indian South Africans are availing themselves of the opportunities thus created for them as a result of the Government’s policy of separate development.

What political rights will they enjoy?

Well, as I have stated, these local authorities are being established. There will be elections soon. Indians will, therefore, have political rights in respect of the affairs of these local authorities.

Mr. Chairman, I think the speeches which have been made, including that of the Minister, and particularly the speech of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, calls for some comment and investigation. I wonder why the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is laughing. Now I should like to put to that hon. member the question which he would not allow me to put to him earlier. The hon. member has been in the Provincial Council for some time. While being there, did he ever make a speech suggesting that more money should be made available for Indian education?

When I was in the Provincial Council the Government had already decided to take over Indian education and, therefore, it was not necessary for me to suggest that.

Did the hon. member or did he not make a speech asking for more money to be spent on Indian education? Now the hon. member comes along and makes a big song about Indian education, but then he did not say a word, although he had the opportunity to do so and although he was a man of influence. But now he thinks it is politic here in this House of Assembly to make the type of speech he has made here to-night.

Progress reported.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I move—

I move—

Agreed to.

When we adjourned last night I was dealing with the speech of the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs. I particularly wanted to deal with two facets of the reply he gave to the Committee. I had asked specifically whether he would give us a statement of his policy, and in particular I asked for his views in regard to the ultimate political destiny of the Indian community as he saw it. As the Minister in charge of that portfolio, did he subscribe to the views of his predecessor which indicated to us that finally there would be an Indian community electing what was called an Indian Parliament with an Indian Cabinet and an Indian Prime Minister? That was the view of his predecessor and I asked whether he subscribed to it. In that regard the Minister simply went so far as to refer to small local advisory authorities to be established in some of the provinces under the aegis of the Provincial Administrations, but that does not answer the question; it gets us nowhere. Those are little temporary local authorities which must give way to something of a more permanent nature afterwards, and as I say. they come under the Provincial Administrations. What is his policy in regard to the political destiny of the Indians? Secondly, I wanted to get information in regard to the economic development of these people. In his reply to us he indicated their educational development, the money being spent on their education and training. As he put it in his speech, the position would be that all this would enable the Indian scholar to take up his rightful place in life and to use his knowledge and energy to the best advantage of his own community. Sir, the training is to enable him to use his ability for the use of his own community, of his own people. I pointed out that in the case of Chatsworth, just outside Durban, we have an Indian community in an area laid out for habitation by some 200,000 people. Probably by the time they have finished with it there will be 250,000, and as far as I know there is no provision whatsoever for any industrial development. I asked the Minister whether that indicates a policy which will enable the Indian to minister to his own people? The Minister, in reply to that, said there are industries, not at Chatsworth but elsewhere in Natal, R20,000,000’s worth. In reply to a question by the hon. member for Point, the Minister said those industries had come into being since his Department had been created. Sir, I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter. I do not think that is the case. Those factories are in Durban and its surroundings, and some of them have been there for 40 and 50 years. That R20,000,000 was not invested since his Department came into being. There are in the whole of Natal probably three industries which have been established since this Department came into being. But those are old established factories, and the point we want to make from this side of the House is that if you are going to have a policy which will create an enormous town of 200,000 Indians and you are training the Indians to help their own people in their own community, in those areas set aside for them, they will expect to be allowed to establish their own industries in that area, as well as their own commerce and their own skilled professions. What is to be the position in so far as those people are concerned? Sir. nothing can be more frustrating than for folk to be educated up to a point where they expect that they will be given an opportunity to use their gifts and their development to their own advantage, and then to find that there is no opportunity presented to them.

Listen to who is talking.

Well, I am talking and not you, and I am addressing the Minister and I wish that hon. member would keep quiet. Six or seven years ago when I was in India with the hon. the Chief Whip here, the then Prime Minister, the late Mr. Nehru, stated that India had two great problems.

One was the problem of poverty and the other was the problem of the poverty of the partly educated Indian who had no job to go to. He said that they had millions and he blamed what he called the British policy of educating the Indian and then not providing a job for that man in the economy. He said that it was quite wrong to educate millions of people and then to have an economy that could not absorb them. Sir. I mention that because I want to point the issue to the Minister of Indian Affairs.

The Minister is being briefed by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration; he is being told what to say.

In the State of Koralia it was worse; the State of Koralia had more Christian Indians than any other State in India, and it was the first state in which they had a rebellion, in which they had big troubles and in which the government of the State had to be taken over by the central government simply because the state government could no longer control the issue that was growing up there, and it was mainly over this whole question of partly educated people who had no jobs. They were white-collar workers and they were no longer prepared to work at any job other than a white-collar job. I want to ask the Minister again therefore whether his Department is making provision, while giving them education which we are not complaining about, that in their own areas and in their own way, when once they are trained, they shall be given the opportunity of investing their capital and establishing their factories, if that is the policy of the Government? I repeat, Sir, that what we want from the Minister is a statement of policy, not merely the reading of a document which is clearly a departmental document prepared for the Minister and read out to us yesterday. We have had a departmental statement read out to us in so far as the development of the Department is concerned; that is all that this document is. Sir, a departmental document is not a statement of Government policy by this Minister who has just taken over this portfolio. Let him in his capacity as Minister come boldly before South Africa and tell us what his policy is. Let us hear what it is, because these two questions are questions which still remain unanswered: The political future of the Indian and his economic future.

In the first place, I want to reply to one or two points made by the hon. member for Mooi River last night. I understood that the Opposition wanted to finish this Vote at 10.30 p.m., so I did not have the opportunity of replying.

The hon. member for Mooi River raised the question of Indians participating in a military training scheme in the same way as the Coloureds, and he asked whether a cadet system would also be introduced in Indian schools. I am giving my attention to those matters and in particular the question of Defence Force training is being discussed at a meeting of the Indian Council which is to be held here next week, so the matter is a live one with us and it is receiving our attention.

Then the hon. member also raised the question of industries in the Pietermaritzburg area. The information I can give him is that in the last 18 months the following Indian factories have been established at Pietermaritzburg: The Rosedale textile factory, the cost of which is not known but it is quite considerable, the Prilla Mills (R 1,000,000), the Sub-line Investments (R25,000). the Spearhead Paperbag Manufacturers. Then there are certain extensions to the Goodhope Concrete Pipes, costing R75,000 and then there is the Soap and Edible Oil Factory which cost R300,000. I have also ascertained from the Department of Community Development that there are adequate industrial sites and facilities available to Indian industrialists in the Pietermaritzburg complex, so we are looking after them.

The hon. member for South Coast asked me what my views were in regard to the policy of the Government. I tried to indicate last night in the statement which I made that my policy is exactly the same as that of my predecessor, that is to say, that in the case of the Indians we are proceeding along the same lines as in the case of the Cape Coloureds in making provision for their development. In the case of the Indians as I have already informed the Committee, we have started to give them some measure of control in local affairs. There are local affairs committees which have been established and there are consultative committees which have already been established—I think nine in Natal and five in the Transvaal, so we are setting their feet on the first rung of the ladder of development in their own particular areas, and we are starting with local government. I cannot foresee in the very far future how far that development is going to take place.

What is your aim?

The aim is to give them complete control in the administration of their own affairs in their own areas.

Up to what level?

As far as I can see it may be to provincial level; it is possible that it may be to a higher level depending upon their development and how they get on.

Do you not agree with your predecessor?

Yes, I do. I agree with my predecessor.

He spoke of a cabinet and a prime minister.

As I say, it depends on what development takes place, how far they are able to manage their own affairs, etc. That is the policy of the Government.

The hon. member for South Coast also spoke about Chatsworth and he wanted to know what opportunities there would be in Chatsworth for industrial development. My information is that there are 36 industrial sites ranging in size from less than one acre to two acres which have been specially set aside as industrial sites in zone 10, Chatsworth, and the types of industry which are to be allowed to be established there have not yet been finalized. but it is expected that they will be light industries mainly serving Chatsworth itself and its environments. In addition there will be certain service industries such as dry-cleaning, for example, which could be established on a limited number of sites at different points in this housing scheme at Chatsworth. Up to date no industries have been established in Chatsworth. But it appears from inquiries made with the City Council of Durban and with leading industrialists that industrialists are interested in starting industries in Chatsworth now. Up to date, as far as industries in Natal are concerned, the 1962 records show that there are 142 Indian controlled industries in Durban. Unfortunately the Chamber of Industries and the Department of Labour cannot let us have these figures immediately; it would take some time to get them, but if the hon. member for South Coast is interested I will let him have those figures at a later date.

Those industries were established before your Department came into being.

Yes, I think most of them were. Let me give the Committee the information in regard to Indian industrial undertakings in the whole of Natal. At Northcoast: Glendale, Rice Mill, Tongaat, Packo food processing plant and a saw mill at Verulam. Pietermaritzburg: I have already given the details of the Pietermaritzburg industries. Then in Durban: Tayclo, at Kingsgate, Enterprise, Comet and Reunion clothing factories, bus body works and footwear, plastic containers and button manufacturing concerns, and a mineral water factory. That is in Natal itself.

New ones?

Yes.

Reunion is not a new factory?

I know the Reunion clothing factory has been there for many years. The industries that I have given in regard to Pietermaritzburg are all more or less new industries.

Packo.

Yes, I know that has been there for some years.

Mr. Chairman, when I last night quoted examples of new factories established by Indians, I intended to convey to the House the extent of active Indian participation during recent years in the industrial development of the Republic. I myself have not had any detailed investigation as to the actual number of new factories and their location. That does not fall under my Department; if falls under Community Development and Economic Development, but the general pattern that I tried to indicate is that Indians are showing increasing interest in establishing industries in their own areas. Let me give further examples, in addition to the factories I have quoted. There are two textile and a pottery factory at Laudium, in the Pretoria district, there is a candle factory established in Lenasia and a plastic bag factory in the Heidelberg Indian township. But the general impression that my Department has gained is that there is a keen desire on the part of Indians of acquiring industries in these areas which have been set aside, and when I mentioned the figure of R20,000,000 last night, the hon. member for Point wanted some information about it. As I have said, we have not undertaken any survey of the old and the new Indian financed factories or industries, but from certain leading Indian industrialists, particularly from one named Moolla, who my hon. friend knows, it appears that in the past two years Indian entrepreneurs have invested at last R20,000,000 in the development of industries and that Indian factories to-day are producing the greater percentage of the type of clothing to which I have referred. That information came from this leading industrialist, Mr. Moolla. He gave us the information about the R20,000,000.

Normal development.

Yes, in the normal development. I think that answers the questions put by hon. members.

Vote put and agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Revenue Vote No. 4 standing over.

Revenue Vote 4,—Prime Minister, R146,000.

Under normal circumstances it is of course, according to parliamentary practice, the prerogative of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to be the first to take part in the discussion on this Vote. If circumstances had been different, I should have liked that practice to have been continued. In view of the present circumstances, however, I have to introduce this debate myself, because I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to make two announcements in which the Committee will be very interested, and because I wish to make a brief statement afterwards. At the outset I want to make it clear that, for reasons I shall mention, it is not my intention to make a policy speech here at the beginning. I shall in fact do so later in the course of this debate, because I should like to give the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity of stating his point of view.

The first announcement I want to make is the following: Hon. members are aware that, as far as our coinage system is concerned, there is no doubt that the R1 silver coin has become our prestige coin. The Cabinet has now decided that the first new issue or series, or whatever it is called, of that coin will be—and rightly so—in honour of the late Prime Minister, Dr. H. F. Verwoerd, and that instead of bearing the head of Van Riebeeck, which appears on our coins at the moment, this coin will bear the head of Dr. Verwoerd. That will be done at the first new issue.

Secondly, it has come to my notice—I have read it in the newspapers and hon. members have probably noticed it too, because it not only appeared in newspaper headlines, but also formed the subject of newspaper editorials—that an interview was published purporting to have stemmed from the Prime Minister of Britain, Mr. Wilson. My assumption is that Mr. Wilson was reported incorrectly, because the version that reached us in our newspapers creates the impression that the late Prime Minister had two points of view, a public point of view and a private point of view. We who knew him, whose leader he was, whose Prime Minister of the entire House he was, knew that he was a man who had only one point of view, be it in public or in private. Mr. Chairman, in that version of the interview reference was made to the fact that there had been correspondence between Mr. Wilson and the late Prime Minister. I would not have raised it if it had not been raised in that report. From the nature of the case such correspondence was confidential. Neither is it my intention to divulge its contents on this occasion. There was correspondence not only between the late Dr. Verwoerd and Mr. Wilson, but also between Dr. Verwoerd and Mr. Smith, the Prime Minister of Rhodesia. I have had the opportunity of examining that correspondence. I am merely putting it to the Committee that what the Prime Minister said in those letters was for the most part—if not entirely—to place in writing what he had said in public. In that correspondence there was an appeal to both, that is to say, an appeal to Mr. Wilson as well as an appeal to Mr. Smith, to see if they could not through mutual discussions solve a problem which he regarded as their domestic problem, but which, if it were to go further, could have far-reaching consequences, also for us and for the rest of the world. I am saying this, Mr. Chairman, because a different impression was created by the newspaper reports.

Thirdly, Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity we shall now have, after my assumption of office, of discussing this Vote. I want to tell the Committee that I am glad that we can do it now and I want to express my regret that, for obvious reasons, it was necessary on a previous occasion to postpone the discussion until to-day. And as regards a basis for this discussion, which I welcome, I am, as I am standing here, in the fortunate position that a very short while ago in this Parliament, and also on the occasion of the Republic Festival and after the World Court verdict, my late predecessor made full and, in his characteristic way, lucid and clear statements on virtually every matter falling under this Vote. As far as I am concerned and as far as the Government is concerned, Mr. Chairman, I want to say—and immediately after my election I had the opportunity of saying this on the steps outside this building, I have had the opportunity of doing so in my radio broadcast, and on this occasion I should also like to tell Parliament—that where we have those clear and lucid policy statements and pronouncements, the policy of this Government remains absolutely unchanged as compared with the policy of the previous one. We accept it like that. All we have to do, is that we should, with due allowance for circumstances as they will from the nature of the case change from time to time, build on that policy, on the foundations laid by my honoured and never to be forgotten predecessor.

As far as I myself am concerned—and with this I want to conclude—I want to say that I hope, pray and trust that this country of ours will continue to develop steadily, that we shall continue to enjoy—and towards that end I shall exert myself—the peace and calm we have enjoyed up to the present, and as regards those of our people who have to make their living out of agriculture, it is my prayer that we may also experience changes as far as natural conditions are concerned and that we may be blessed in that field as well, just as we have been blessed in all other fields in the past. That is my prayer. And in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me give hon. members the assurance that with the limited ability I have I should like to be of service in respect of the affairs of South Africa, just as my predecessor was of service to the entire Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the privilege of the half-hour? This is my first opportunity in this House, Sir, to repeat to the hon. the Prime Minister the congratulations on his assumption of office which I have conveyed to him privately and through the press. As I said, Sir, as far as we are concerned, we approach his appointment in the spirit of South Africans seeking the best for our country and we wish him well in the service of South Africa. I can well imagine, Mr. Chairman, that we may of course differ as to how best he can serve South Africa, and perhaps even as to the capacity in which he can serve South Africa.

The hon. gentleman has had certain decisions to make and certain actions to take since his appointment. One of those is his announcement to-day that certain of the new coins will bear the head of the former and late Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd. I think, Sir, that that is a commendable gesture to a man who made a great contribution, and perhaps it will be something which will become a practice in the Republic.

The second matter, Sir, which I wish to raise with the hon. gentleman concerns the appointment of a commission to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the tragedy which we had in this House about a fortnight ago, namely the assassination of the Prime Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister made his announcement early, and it was one which earned our full approval. We had been seeking means of bringing that very matter to debate in this House. But in the light of his action this is the first opportunity which we have had.

The hon. gentleman has appointed a judge in whom. I think, we all have the fullest confidence, and he said that all aspects of this matter will be investigated and that the judge will bring out a report regardless of the consequences to whoever the consequences may affect. I think, Sir that meets with our full approval. As I understand it, the terms of reference have not yet been drafted. I want to suggest to the hon. the Prime Minister that it is vital that those terms of reference should contain instructions to the effect that not only the circumstances surrounding this event should be investigated but also that recommendations be made to ensure that as far as it is humanly possible nothing of this kind can ever happen again in the Republic of South Africa.

I want to say, Sir, that we on this side of the House feel that there are a number of matters to which attention should be given in the drafting of those terms of reference. The first is, Sir, how the man Tsafendas came to be admitted into South Africa in the light of his record and reports which are now coming to light as to his past. The second is how he came to obtain permanent residence and whether current practices and procedure are adequate to prevent undesirable characters from getting that right granted them. I think we also want to know, Sir, whether he was recommended for employment to this House by the Department of Labour, and we want to know whether there is sufficient scrutiny by the Department in making recommendations, if that is so. I think we also want to know whether the procedures and practices of the various departments concerned in cases of this kind provide for the necessary liaison and keeping each other informed in respect of people of this sort. I think. Sir, of course we want to know how he came to be appointed as a messenger in this House and how he gained access to the Chamber. I think, Sir, we want to know generally what security measures it is thought necessary should be applied in the future in respect of the protection of individuals in high office in the Republic in every, shall I say, sphere of their lives. As one who has studied some of the evidence given before the Warren Commission of inquiry into the assassination of President Kennedy in the U.S.A., I want to say that the evidence given there seems to indicate that precautions taken in the U.S.A, are possibly a great deal more stringent than what we have been accustomed to here in the Republic in the past.

Then, Sir, there is another question which arises from this question of the Commission, and that is whether the evidence should be given in public or not. I want to say I believe that this is a matter which should essentially be left to the discretion of the commissioner, the judge concerned, but I do hope that it will be the general principle that evidence will be given in public unless it has to be given in secret for security reasons or for reasons which the judge thinks necessary for the protection of the witness concerned. Now, Sir, that concerns matters on which the hon. the Prime Minister has taken action since coming into office.

There are a number of other matters which it is my duty to raise with him even at this early stage, and despite the fact that many of them were attended to so closely by the late Prime Minister that they had become almost personal matters with him. Nevertheless, Sir, I feel that the public interest demands that these matters be raised and that the hon. the Prime Minister be given an opportunity of stating his views in regard to them.

Mr. Chairman, I think the first of these is the position in regard to Rhodesia. There, Sir, it is evident that events are moving again and I think I can say that up to now, despite disagreements perhaps between the Government and the Opposition as to the methods to be employed, there seems to have been in my view a general agreement as to general policy. And I think I can say that it was common cause between us that we approached this matter from the point of view of “South Africa first”. I think it was common cause between us that there was great sympathy on both sides of the House for Rhodesia. I think also there was on both sides of the House a very real appreciation of the dangers of possible political changes in Rhodesia which might lead to chaos north of the Limpopo and the breakdown of civilized government in those territories. I think, Sir, that there was also agreement that South Africa should refuse to participate in boycotts or in sanctions. I think the fundamental difference between us was as to whether or not the Government should bring its influence to bear upon the two parties, Great Britain and Rhodesia, to try to get the dialogue between the two countries reopened. Sir, the dialogue has been reopened and I am greatful for the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon which would seem to indicate that the late Prime Minister at least had an influence in getting that dialogue reopened, which, of course, was what we requested in the former debate on this matter. I want to say that insofar as the dialogue is reopened, we are satisfied that it is quite clear that a situation is developing which may involve certain difficulties and which may involve the bringing of international pressures to bear upon the Republic. In these circumstances, Sir, I wonder whether the hon. the Prime Minister is prepared to make a statement on this matter, and in saying so I want to express the hope that the statement he makes will be of such a nature that it will be possible for Government and Opposition to develop a bi-partisan approach to this matter in the interests of the Republic, and, I am persuaded, of the whole of Southern Africa.

Then there is a second issue which is current and of vital importance, and that is the question of the relationships between the Republic and the protectorates which are about to be granted their independence. You see, Mr. Chairman, our relationship with these protectorates when they become independent may well set a pattern for our relationship with certain other emergent states of Africa, and may certainly set a pattern for our future relations with other states on this continent. I appreciate that the relationship is not going to be without problems, because in the case of nearly all these states political independence seems to have outstripped economic viability, What has been created is a series of have-not states.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if I may support this point with just a few statistics, then I would remind the House that in the case of Basutoland its expenditure is running at just under £5,000,000—not rands—a year, and its revenue is running at approximately £2,000,000 a year. The deficit up to now has been covered by the British Government by grants-in-aid. It appears also that between the years 1963 and 1966 some £6,000,000 was given by way of development expenditure in the form of loans for economic development and welfare. Now, Mr. Chairman, what is going to happen after independence? Will there continue to be a subsidization from Great Britain, and, if so, for how long?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope you are not asking that from me.

No, Mr. Chairman, I am not asking that from the hon. the Prime Minister. Because I believe that it is going to be a subject of discussion between Great Britain and Basutoland—or Lesotho, as it will be known—but what is important, Sir, is that 70 per cent of that country’s imports from South Africa and 95 per cent of its exports go to South Africa. And South Africa has a vested interest in its prosperity because of those figures. One thing is quite certain, namely that these countries are going to be subjected to pressures once they become independent. These trade figures may not be identical for Bechuanaland and Swaziland, but the whole picture is very much the same. Once they have been granted independence, they are going to be subjected to pressures from outside South Africa, especially as a result of their membership of the U.N.O. where their help will be sought by certain of the blocs, possibly through their relationship with or membership of the Organization for African Unity, and perhaps their membership of the committee itself. They will be looking for friends. If they do not find friends here in South Africa, and they do not get help, they will be looking for that help elsewhere. Others are already preparing to give that assistance. I want to remind the Committee that there was a resolution taken by the Special Committee of 24 of the United Nations early last year which came before the General Assembly and which was apparently unanimously approved. The Assembly voted to establish a fund using voluntary contributions for the economic development of the three territories concerned. That makes it quite clear, I think, Sir, that assistance is going to be sought and assistance is going to be proffered elsewhere unless the economic ties between the Republic and these areas are as close as possible. It is for that reason that we on this side of the House welcomed the historic meeting between the late Prime Minister and Chief Jonathan of Basutoland on the eve of independence. We felt it was vitally important that the right atmosphere be created at the start. I think we are all very conscious of the fact that all three of these territories may well be members of the United Nations Organization within the year. It would be a wonderful thing, Mr. Chairman, if their relationships were such that they did not join the band of our detractors, but joined the band of those who sometimes plead for the Republic of South Africa in that organization. I think it was very encouraging to notice that Chief Jonathan expressed himself as being against sanctions on South Africa. There was a good beginning. But I think what we want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister is what we are hoping to achieve. What pattern are we hoping to lay down for the future? Quite obviously, much planning is going to be necessary for the best possible relationship to be obtained. I want to say that if we are not planning, I can assure the Committee that a great many other people are making plans, and they are not making plans in our interests. For that reason it is so important that we should have a clear idea of what we are seeking to obtain.

Previous Prime Ministers sought incorporation of the Protectorates. The late Prime Minister made another sort of offer. The sort of offer he made was one in which he offered to lead these countries to independence. He made it clear that if that offer were made, and it lapsed, it would lapse for all time. They would go their own way in growing isolation from South Africa. After a meeting between Chief Jonathan and the Prime Minister … [Interjections.]

I think you are misinterpreting what he said.

I shall give the Prime Minister the reference in due course. His indication was that if that offer was allowed to lapse, it would not be repeated, and they would go their own way. I shall read it to the Prime Minister in due course. I have it amongst my papers here. I thought it was common cause between us. After the meeting between the Prime Minister and Chief Johathan, there was a statement in which there was talk of “vreedsame naasbestaan en same-werking” and no interference in each others internal affairs. That may mean a lot, or it may mean nothing. What plans are there to avoid the obvious pitfalls that exist? There has, in the past, been talk of a common market in Southern Africa. There has never been any definition as to what it meant. There has been talk of a common market, and I believe the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs indicated only a day or two ago in this House that there were indications of a movement in that direction already, although the time was perhaps not now ripe.

A common market involves certain dangers as well. What is the position going to be if there is invested in those territories vast sums of capital from other countries which will compete in the common market area as a result of factories created there with cheap labour, industries established there with cheap labour and finance from outside the Republic? The dangers are there for all to see and I think we must have a very clear idea even at this stage of what we envisage in respect of customs relations, which are still based on the old 1910 Agreement, with very few changes.

I think there are other problems we have to face, Sir. There is the question of transit facilities, overflying and railway links. Some of the problems arising from this situation are immediate. Some can be postponed. We have already had difficulty in respect of people whom we regarded as prohibited immigrants, wanting to get back to Basutoland, and to whom we were not able to give facilities. I think there have already been difficulties in regard to extradition, fugitive offenders and political asylum. This is a matter of the most vital importance, especially since our withdrawal from the Commonwealth. There have already been individuals that we in South Africa wanted, and that we could not get out of the various territories concerned. In some cases they got here by unspecified means. The hon. the Minister in another capacity returned them whence they came. It is not a satisfactory situation.

Then there is the question of diplomatic relations between these independent states and the Republic. How are they going to be conducted? What is the position going to be? Are we going to be able to live in friendship with them without a proper exchange of diplomatic relations? What plans has the Government in this regard? When these officials visit South Africa, are they going to be exempted from the provisions of petty apartheid? The whole picture is one which may affect the situation concerning our relations with the other states of Africa.

Then, Sir, there is the old question of defence of the southern part of Africa, and foreign policy. There must be some sort of understanding and some sort of co-operation.

Lastly, Sir, particularly in respect of Basutoland there may be the question of the joint use of certain water resources, which may have very important results for the whole of the Republic.

That is the question of economic, diplomatic and ordinary trade relations, but what about political relations? The former Prime Minister spoke in the past of co-operation within a consultative political body of free Black and White states. He denied any desire to annex any of these areas. He spoke of linking them further with the Republic and with our own Bantustans when they are free in what he described as a consultative body dealing with mutual political interests as well as another co-ordinating body envisaged to be formed on the basis of a common market. What does that mean? What ideas has the hon. gentleman at the present time? In what direction was the late Prime Minister intending to lead South Africa? Where do we stand now? There was talk originally, when this offer was made—and I concede that the offer lapsed—that there might be a greater Basutoland or Swaziland as a result of their consolidation with adjoining areas ethnically similar. I think we have to ask ourselves whether these proposals are going to solve our day-to-day problems. I am very conscious of the difficulty of giving a reply in detail to the queries I have raised. But it does seem to me that it is vitally important that there must be some understanding with these territories, some pattern worked out, some plan prepared in accordance with which we are moving with the object of peaceful cooperation in, and development of, this portion of Southern Africa. I do hope that these plans, when they are revealed to us, will be of such a nature that it will be possible for this side of the House and the Government side of the House to have a bi-partisan approach in respect of the relationships with these territories, and perhaps also with the territories to the north of us.

I thank the hon. the Leader of the Opposition once again for the kind wishes he has addressed to me. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised the matter of the Van Wyk Commission. In respect of most of the matters raised by him I am in complete agreement with him. I want to give him the assurance that the terms of reference will be wide enough to cover all possible aspects mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, and many more that I may add. but for the purposes of this debate it is not necessary to deal with all those matters; because what this side of the House wants, and what I believe that side of the House also wants, is a searching inquiry, not only into the circumstances which gave rise to the tragic event that occurred in this House but also with a view to preventing any future repetition as far as possible. In this regard I adopt the attitude that the people of South Africa are entitled to know the whole truth in respect of every circumstance, and the necessary facilities will be created to make that possible.

Initially I referred to a commission. It will of course be a judicial commission. I want to say at once that it will be a commission set up under the present Minister of Justice, who has come in as an outsider in this regard. I think it is proper and fair that that should be so. I cannot agree with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at this juncture that we should have a public hearing in this regard. I think the matter is too serious. I think every possible witness should have an opportunity to tell his or her story to the judge without prejudice, and I think hon. members on the opposite side will agree with me that the integrity of the judge charged with this commission is an adequate guarantee that the people will hear the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in respect of this matter. Consequently, it is not necessary at this stage to discuss in detail and to reply in full to the various matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition, such as how the man came here, the question of permanent residence and the question of security. I give the hon. the Leader the assurance that all those matters will be covered by that commission.

Secondly, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me for a statement of my attitude in respect of Rhodesia. He spoke of the sympathy on both sides of the House. He referred to various matters on which we are in complete agreement. I want to repeat, firstly, that my attitude is exactly the same as that which was stated very clearly by my predecessor. Hon. members will find it in Hansard of 25th January, 1966. My predecessor gave a very comprehensive exposition of the attitude of this side of the House. He also lifted the veil slightly in respect of what had been done in other fields in this regard. We know now—we see it in the Press—that consultations are again in progress between the two parties whose domestic affair this is. I think the fact that that is so is a source of gratitude to all of us because by virtue of our neighbourship we are intimately concerned in the matter in the last resort, although we adopt the attitude, as we did previously, that it is a matter in which we neither can nor may interfere, in view of our very clear policy with regard to interference in the domestic affairs of any country.

We have always been jealous of the fact that there may be no interference in our private affairs, and whatever may be said of South Africa, and whatever may be said of us in future, nobody will ever have the right or any reason to level the reproach at us that we have interfered in the private affairs of any other country whatsoever. Whatever our private views may be, or our private attitudes, all countries must receive this assurance from us. As far as this matter is concerned we shall always act correctly. We shall act towards other countries in the way we expect them to act towards us. My predecessor’s attitude in respect of trade is clear. I need not repeat it on this occasion. What we seek, and what I shall endeavour to seek, is good neighbourship with all neighbouring countries.

That also brings me to the third point made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, namely the question of the protectorates. Hon. members are aware of the fact that consultations were held by the late Prime Minister and Chief Jonathan, the Prime Minister designate of Basutoland, which is to become independent on 4th October. As I understood it, the Leader of the Opposition asked me what my attitude was with regard to the assumption of independence by the Protectorates. Let me tell him unequivocally. I find it also in my history and in his history. It is nothing new to us. To us these are not strange phenomena. Nor are they phenomena that give rise to concern. As far as we are concerned they are a natural development, a development that lies at the root of the policy of this side of the House too. I want to repeat what I said in my radio address. As far as we are concerned, we seek nothing as regards the Protectorates. We do not want to harm them; we do not want them, we want nothing from them except the common elementary goodwill that may and should exist between neighbouring states. I make no apology for referring in detail to the communique that was issued; I am doing so because I should like to have it included in the record, on the one hand, and on the other hand because it has to a large extent been obscured by the tragic events. It reads as follows—

It was issued and signed by both Prime Ministers—

If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asks me, as he has done, what my attitude is in respect of the other Protectorates, then I say that my attitude is exactly the same as set out in the first paragraph of this communique. It then reads further—

I know that there is some misunderstanding about this matter, that is why I am mentioning it here—

If. therefore, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asks me, as he has done, what my attitude is with regard to the question of water rights, or to this or that question, then my reply to him is that my attitude is as set out in this second paragraph, namely, that in the first instance one should wait until the independence has become a fact, and secondly, that it is not a question on which one can decide over-night. It stands to reason that it is then a question for experts to deal with; it is then a matter for negotiation at official level and, if necessary, at ministerial level. What happened in Pretoria was therefore that no agreement was entered into between two Ministers, but two Prime Ministers paved the way in friendly fashion for future cooperation to the advantage of both countries. In that regard, Mr. Chairman, you will allow me to refer to the Press statement which was subsequently issued by Chief Jonathan on 4th September and in which he said the following—

He then went further and said—

In that regard it is striking that notwithstanding the fact that South Africa is denigrated to such an extent in the world abroad, and the fact that there are so many misconceptions about South Africa, the neighbours who know us, whether White or Black, have an idea of us which differs completely from the ideas of those who judge without knowledge or those who have been fed on hostile propaganda and lies for many years. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asks me how I see the future relations, then my reply is that I have every reason to presume that the relations between us and the Protectorates, as they become independent, will be very good, just as our relations with any other neighbouring state have been good in the past. If the Leader of the Opposition asks me through what channels we shall render our assistance, then my reply is that these are naturally particulars I cannot discuss here, and then I shall just refer him once again to the fact that all these matters will come about only after there have been consultations on other levels. But if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asks me how we shall render assistance, then I want to give him a reply at once. I gave that reply in my radio address on 14th September, when I said the following with reference to this matter—

If the Leader of the Opposition asks me how I shall do that, then I tell him that I shall do it in the spirit I mentioned in my radio address. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is aware of our policy in this regard. I therefore believe that there is no need for me to say anything further about it, except to refer hon. members, particularly those who did not have the opportunity of being present there, to the policy speech made by the late Prime Minister during the Republic Festival, when he said the following with regard to this matter—

That is our attitude in that regard. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to industries that may be established in the Protectorates. I want to tell him at once: I think it is their concern if they want to establish industries there. I neither can nor may not want to tell them that they should not establish industries there; it is their inalienable right, and it goes without saying that our future policy in that respect will be exactly the same as our policy will be in respect of any other nation that has factories and that establishes industries. It also goes without saying that those things cannot come about over-night. We know that it takes a long time before a country can be developed to that stage, and therefore the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot expect me to go into the details, except to tell him that we shall discuss those matters in the House of Assembly as they develop, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can take it from me that we shall always act with due regard for the interests of South Africa, because they are our first consideration. Despite the fact that our guiding principle will be to place the interests of South Africa first, it will also be our policy at all times, as has always been as far as we are concerned—it is our people’s nature, his and mine—to live and let live. That will be the basis of my policy and within the framework of that basis we shall plan it.

Matters such as fly-over rights, to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred, are all important matters, but they are matters that will be arranged in mutual consultation, as I read to him from the communique. All the matters mentioned by him will naturally receive attention.

There is the question of fugitives, firstly the ordinary fugitives from the law. That presents no problem to us. Nor do I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to that. I think what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had in mind were the so-called political fugitives. As far as that is concerned, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is of course aware of the fact that no extradition treaty exists. No modern state makes provision for the extradition of political fugitives. It is simply not done, and there is not one single extradition treaty between any countries whatsoever that provides for the extradition of political fugitives. But that, too. will be a matter for negotiation as and when those people become independent. I am merely stating the general principle which forms the basis.

I want to state here, however, that even as Minister of Justice I stated emphatically in the hon. Senate, when this same aspect was raised there, that I wanted to assure neighbouring states, whether White or Black, that we as a Government would never permit South Africa to be used as a breeding-ground for conspiracies against neighbouring states. I want to give the assurance that we shall not permit South Africa to be used as a spring-board for attacks of any nature whatsoever on our neighbouring states. That is foreign to our views, it is foreign to our concept of good neighbourship in any respect. To put it briefly, we shall simply not tolerate that.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the matter of diplomats. Here again I want to tell him that I do not think it is necessary for me to go into details as far as this matter is concerned. The question has not yet arisen—not pertinently, in any event—because the independence has not yet become a fact. But if it arises—and I accept and have to accept that it will arise—then I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that this Government will act within the framework and in the spirit of the very clear attitude stated by my predecessor in this House on 24th April, 1964. His statement of policy on that occasion is still very clear in our minds to-day. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that I have now replied to all the main points raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

I think the Committee will appreciate the forthright manner in which the hon. the Prime Minister has replied to the three points which were raised by the Leader of the Opposition, and I think that under the circumstances it was impossible for us to expect that his forthright reply should be any more revealing than it was.

I would like, if I may, to have a word to say on the third point which my Leader raised, namely the question of the Protectorates. It seems to me, Sir, that it is not always fully appreciated the extent to which we are moving into a completely new era here in Southern Africa, and an era in which the Republic is very intimately concerned and will be very intimately affected. I have no desire whatever, nor has this side of the House, to complicate the tasks of the hon. the Prime Minister which lie before him. At the same time, and he will be the first to admit, we have a vital and a critical interest in the way he tackles that task. Because his success or his failure in tackling it. will affect not only him. not only his party, and not only us on this side of the House, but it will affect the whole country. Therefore we have a very vital and critical interest in this matter. The immediate question seems to me to be in respect of the territories which from now on will be acquiring their independence, and the problems, some of which were referred to by my hon. Leader, earlier this afternoon, the problems which will flow, not bit by bit. but a good few of them will flow immediately on their assumption of independence, are very vital problems indeed. Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister made a declaration of the best intentions, based on statements by his predecessor and based on what he called the natural development between neighbours and of good neighbourly relations, living together with mutual respect side by side, all of which are unexceptionable sentiments. But I have a feeling that the hon. the Prime Minister is rather seeking to over-simplify the problems that lie before us, as if the rest of the world were not there. Of course, we and the Protectorates have been living side by side for generations, and I have no doubt whatever that it would be a comparatively simple matter to hammer out a common way of living which would suit everybody, but, Sir, the position is not that we can simply ignore the rest of the world. I think we have got to start building on the great advantages that we already have and those are the close economic ties which do exist between the Territories and South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister and my hon. Leader referred to water and labour, very important matters. The hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to these matters and said that we should make sure that both sides derive the best possible advantage from those two factors. I think. Sir. one appreciates the hon. the Prime Minister’s declaration of good intentions, but I feel that a declaration of good intentions is not enough, and the real question is how we are going to set about giving effect to those good intentions.

By doing it.

The hon. the Prime Minister says “by doing it”. That sounds perfectly simple, if he is allowed to do it, but in the first place you have got to have the machinery to do it, and it seems to me that the first thing we have got to do, without losing any time at all, is to create permanent machinery for ensuring that the fullest consultation and conferring together will take place on matters of common interest, on the lines which have been outlined by the hon. the Prime Minister’s predecessor in the past. The time for words is very nearly past, and we should without any delay take steps to set up that machinery. It seems to me that we have got no time to waste in setting it up. Because we may think that it is a simple matter to live at peace with our neighbours, but you have got to remember, Mr. Chairman, that there are lots of other people in the world who see it in an entirely different light, who see the coming of independence to these Territories as an opportunity for attacking us, the Republic, and unless we can set up the machinery and build on the advantages which we already have of mutual understanding and mutual interest, we run a grave risk of friction arising and being created by people for their own purposes, people out to create ill-feeling between ourselves and these new States.

Mr. Chairman, we always say that a bipartisan foreign policy is desirable, and I think it is common cause that that is so. When it comes to Southern Africa, I would say that a bi-partisan foreign policy is not only desirable, but that it is a necessity because this new era that we are talking about has the possibilities of such good and such harm for us that to my mind it is a necessity that there should be a national approach and a national policy in dealing with this question.

If we do not, if we allow this question of our relations in all its various facets—and they are going to crop up from now on in increasing numbers and in various directions—to become a matter of pure party politics in this country, we should simply be playing into the hands of our enemies.

Hear, hear.

I would say with respect that it is up to the hon. the Prime Minister to make such a bi-partisan policy possible. The responsibility of course is his and the initiative is his and his Government’s. All we can say is simply this, that we place the interests of the country first, and we believe that in this new era into which we are moving so fast and in which we may find ourselves in deep waters if we are not careful, and even if we are careful, we believe that a bi-partisan policy in regard to Southern Africa is of the first importance. We cannot be expected on this side of the House, representing the people we do, just to follow blindly in this matter. But we would like the hon. the Prime Minister to understand and to know that we do not regard this as a matter for party politics. [Time limit.]

It surprised me that the hon. member for Constantia who surely is someone with a great deal of experience in the field of diplomacy and foreign politics, came along with vague questions concerning our relations with the Protectorates. The hon. member for Constantia ought to know that a policy of peaceful co-existence is not dependent on the policy or the efforts or the fancy of one country only. These things have to come from two sides. These things have to grow between various countries and even if we wanted to follow a policy of peaceful co-existence with our neighbouring states with the best will in the world, it would still to a large extent depend on them whether we were ultimately going to succeed. For this reason I am saying that the questions asked by the hon. member for Constantia cannot be settled in a few words at this stage. It all depends how things are going to develop. The hon. member for Constantia ought to know that it is the policy of this Government to establish good relations, when possible, with all countries in the world. We particularly want friendly relations with the countries situated closest to us because these are first and foremost the things which affect us. For that matter the fact that our neighbouring states have such good relations with us is proof in itself that South Africa has always maintained good relations with them. But good relations do not depend entirely on this Government, they also depend on those various states because the development of good relations is something which has to come from both sides. What is more, to a large extent good relations are also dependent on the behaviour and actions of the Opposition in our country—and now I am referring not only to our neighbouring states, but also to our broad relations with foreign countries in general. Our relations with foreign states do not so much depend, or do not exclusively depend, on the line of action followed by the Government or by the Prime Minister. Who has done more for improving good relations between South Africa and other states than the late Dr. Verwoerd? And has he not succeeded in doing so? There are signs that a great deal of success has been achieved. But the question is: If we want to improve the image of South Africa in the outside world, as hon. members opposite phrase it, what do we have to abandon, what sacrifices will we have to make? I want to make the statement that if South Africa should start adopting the attitude as from to-day that our image had to be improved in the outside world, so as to create a favourable image, the policy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would not succeed in achieving that—not even they would succeed in achieving that, because the outside world continually wants us to go even further. Just consider the occurrences in Rhodesia to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred. Rhodesia is prepared to go further than the policy advocated by the United Party here in South Africa, and is the outside world satisfied with developments in Rhodesia? Is the outside world prepared to wait for 15 or 20 years for the eventual takeover of Rhodesia by the Black man? No, it demands that to-morrow. There is only one thing that will improve the image of South Africa in countries abroad, namely that which Bram Fischer and his satellites advocate. That is the only thing. I now ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout whether he is prepared to go that far. I am not prepared to go that far; neither is the Government nor is the South African nation. We in South Africa have our policy which has been formulated by the South African nation, which has been created in the course of years and centuries and which is based on that foundation on which we believe South Africa’s future may safely be built. The foundation which has been laid, is the foundation of economic prosperity, the foundation of political stability, the foundation of the Western civilization, as we know it to-day. And if hon. members opposite address themselves to the outside world they adopt the attitude: If we criticize the Government we are doing so because we have to act as watchdog over the Government. If we criticize the Government and that criticism is accepted in countries abroad as criticism of this country and of the established practices of this country, then we should not be blamed for it. That is the attitude adopted by hon. members opposite. I admit that it is the task of the Opposition to act as watch-dog. In that capacity it has to keep its eyes open and give frequent warnings; it has to place its hand on this and point its fingers at that, but it should not set on the nation like a hyena without caring what the fate of that nation is going to be. The Opposition should not be a hyena in that it hopes for shocks from outside, as one hon. member opposite phrased it the other day, to force South Africa to its knees. Those are not the tactics of a watch-dog but of a hyena. We have to warn the hon. Opposition against that. I say that the Opposition can make a major contribution to improving South Africa’s image abroad. This I say because the Opposition does have the English-language Press in South Africa at its disposal. [Interjections.] Wait a minute. Afrikaans-language newspapers are not read in countries abroad, but English-language newspapers are. We know that the English-language Press in South Africa has taken the United Party in tow to a large extent. We know that and that is why we are saying that they can make a major contribution to improving our image abroad. What has the United Party done during the past 18 years for improving the image of South Africa? What has it done to get people abroad to think that what is being said about South Africa is not true? The United Party has done absolutely nothing. On the contrary. It concentrated on the very aspects seized abroad in bringing accusations against South Africa that it was following the wrong course. Who has done more for encouraging an image of South Africa as a police state for instance, than the United Party itself by pointing out to the outside world time and time again, whenever we came along with legislation for dealing with subversive elements in this country, what strict measures were being taken by this Government? Who has done more than the United Party to create the image abroad that we were engaged here on a systematic policy of suppression? Who has done that to a larger extent than members opposite? Just take the example of Senator Kennedy’s visit. Who tried harder than the United Party to create the impression that this Government acted foolishly and wrongly as regards its handling of the Kennedy affair? These are the things which are yearned for abroad. In this respect hon. members of the United Party are allies of countries abroad.

But we cannot help it if you do stupid things.

They provide countries abroad with ammunition from their store of ammunition. [Time limit.]

I should like to avail myself of the opportunity of congratulating the hon. the Prime Minister on the great distinction which has recently fallen to his share. He will find that the interest of the Opposition will not be concentrated on him personally, but on his politics. We believe that Parliament is always at its best once personal attacks are avoided and arguments are countered by arguments. It is in this spirit that we shall judge the work of the hon. the Prime Minister, and we trust that we will receive the same treatment from him and his supporters.

Hon. members opposite, including the hon. the Prime Minister, lay emphasis on the desire there is in South Africa to establish friendly relations with favourably disposed states in Africa. We on this side are accepting the good intentions of the Government in this regard. We are accepting that he is sincere and that he would like to do something to bridge the walls separating us from the rest of Africa. Up to the present this has really been a matter of academic interest, since there were no independent African states which were openly desirous of entering into friendly relations with us. A few new factors have now appeared on the scene. Certain countries are on the point of becoming independent, countries which do not only border on us but which, for economic reasons in particular, need and want our goodwill. I am referring to Bechuanaland and Basutoland.

Both of these countries have already intimated openly that they are in fact opposed to the policy of the Government, a view to which they are of course entitled, but that they intend adopting an attitude of non-interference in the affairs of South Africa. The Chief Minister of Basutoland even went as far as to say that he would adopt “an impartial attitude” towards South Africa at the United Nations. He would take a “neutral stand” in regard to South Africa. Both of these countries have also intimated that they will need the assistance of South Africa in a wide field, and that they would like to enter into friendly relations with us. These two countries are therefore meeting the requirements the Government has always laid down for the establishment of friendly relations. The question that arises now, a question we cannot evade, is what will be the formal form in which we will give expression to our good relations with these countries? In international politics there is only one acknowledged form of giving expression to the existence of friendly relations, and that is the establishment of reciprocal diplomatic representation. All of us realize that owing to the many legal restrictions in our country, the Government is faced with certain problems in this respect.

However, my advice to the hon. the Prime Minister is that he should not spend too much time in seeking formulas. He must make exceptions where exceptions are necessary; he must do the correct and the natural thing, and do so gracefully, and he must do it now. In saying that, the consideration we have in mind is the interests of South Africa itself and not so much the wishes and desires of these two African countries. We adopt the attitude that South Africa is a leading state in Africa, and that everything which is happening in Southern Africa and around us, concerns us very deeply. We as a leading state should be informed; we should be on the scene; we must have contact, and for that reason it is to us totally in conceivable that one can have states here, states which are becoming free, and that South Africa will not have permanent representation there. A successful foreign policy, or an effective Southern African policy, is indeed out of the question if we are not conversant with what is happening in these territories, and if we do not have daily contact with the leaders of those territories or with happenings there, by means of permanent representatives. This matter concerns the safety of South Africa as a whole. What is happening there is of vital importance to our country. In both of these countries there are, as we know, strong communistic elements. In Basutoland especially it is the case with the opposition party there. In addition Botswana is a state which has enormous strategic value, since it brings Black Africa deep into the south and borders on the Republic, on South West, on Rhodesia and on Zambia, and is only a short distance from Angola. I repeat that we find it inconceivable that any government will neglect the interests of South Africa to such an extent that it will not establish permanent representation in these states.

But not only that is necessary. I believe that the relations between us and these states are so important that, over and above permanent representatives in these areas, the time has now arrived for the hon. the Prime Minister to consider the appointment of a vice-minister for African Affairs who will make it his duty to maintain the closest personal contact with such territories. But there are other considerations as well for our thinking that the hon. the Minister should not look for postponement or formulas but do the correct thing, namely the exchange of permanent diplomats. Anything else will be seen as an evasion or a circumvention of this acknowledged form of friendly relations. In addition delay will unfortunately be interpreted as either reluctance or refusal on our part to recognize the full status of the state concerned, and that owing to the fact that it is a non-White state. In this regard, more so than in regard to any other matter, our actions will be put under a magnifying glass. And that will not only be the case abroad, but will also have an effect on our internal territories such as the Transkei. The nature of our conduct in regard to Bechuanaland or Basutoland may also determine whether an area such as the Transkei will eventually develop towards us or away from us. We also believe that in the long run we cannot avoid such an exchange of diplomats. Seeing that we cannot avoid this in any case, it is far better for us to proceed to doing that now. Let us do it now, and let us do it magnanimously. That will be much better than our being forced by circumstances into doing so at a later stage. For that reason it is better to do it gracefully and to do it now. We know that a new state is at its most sensitive in matters affecting its status at the moment of its gaining independence.

We know that the former Prime Minister held out the prospect of a formula, one of travelling ambassadors, and, in addition to that, according to reports, that a Minister of a state such as Basutoland will have the right to maintain direct liaison with his counterpart in South Africa. Well, this is good up to a point, and we are not criticizing it. But it can never take the place of permanent representation. There are specific items of international business which can be dealt with by what is called “peri-patetic negotiating missions”. But proper relations between states are not based on periodic meetings, but on daily personal contact with the people of, and on the observations of representatives established in the capitals of states with which the relationship has been entered into. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down tried to present a strong case for the immediate establishment of mutual diplomatic relations with the Protectorates. The impression he created was that that was the only recognized proof which could possibly be brought that friendly relations existed between countries. I admit that that is a recognized method of countries for showing mutual friendship, but I most emphatically want to add that that is not the only way in which it can be shown. Up to this stage our relations with these territories have been on an excellent footing. Just think about the humane actions on our part on more than one occasion. Let me say here that the Whites of South Africa certainly are the best-equipped nation in the world for handling relations with non-Whites. and that is so because we have had the longest experience of living with non-Whites as neighbours. Therefore I believe that in this field, as in many other fields, South Africa can give guidance to the rest of the world. In the past we witnessed that the Government considered every case on its merits when circumstances arose which compelled these people to approach us for assistance. Action was only taken after all consequences had been thoroughly analysed. I am referring in particular to the gift of grain to Basutoland last year, something which apparently met with the approval of the Opposition at that time but which it could not refrain from using as a political platform when addressing audiences in the rural areas during the past election. But I leave it at that.

What I want to say is that we acted on a high level in this case and that we shall continue to do so in future. I also want to refer to the assistance rendered to Sabusa of Swaziland and to the concessions to Bechuanaland. Each time requests were received from these countries South Africa acted as an adult state, considered every case on its merits and adopted a clear and unambiguous attitude. And South Africa can afford to take strong action in such cases, because it remains an irrefutable fact that we are the giant in Southern Africa in the economic, political and other spheres. We can assume leadership in the entire Southern Africa and economically we are so powerful that these countries cannot afford to become involved in a struggle with us. They are so dependent on us in the economic sphere that they cannot afford to arouse hostility. Even a person like Dr. Banda of Malawi adopted the attitude that he could not join the other African states in decrying South Africa but that he had to consider the entire matter calmly and carefully because Malawi was economically so closely bound up with South Africa that he could not join the other African states in a witch-hunt.

Diplomatic relations certainly are a very delicate matter which will call for consideration. I think very clear guidance was given by the hon. the Prime Minister as well as by the previous Prime Minister, namely that first and foremost negotiations on a very high level will have to be conducted with these territories as soon as they were fully independent. At this stage negotiations in this respect are entirely out of the question. As soon as they are free and independent, negotiations will be conducted on a high level, on a high official level or even on Ministerial level. In the interests of both countries and for the advantage of both, it will be decided in what way friendly relations between us can best be served, because the heart of the matter is sound friendly relations and not some outward symbol or impulsive satisfaction of the curiosity or the fits of passion of certain persons who urge a specific form of representation as that which will be the only thing which can serve as an outward symbol whereby we will be able to maintain friendly relations. The view has been expressed in clear terms—and I want to give it my wholehearted support—that it is desirable not to offer assistance but to consider every request for assistance. I think that is the right attitude. At the moment I do not have the references with me, but I recall very clearly that Sir Abubakar Balewa, the late Prime Minister of Nigeria, openly said in his Parliament some time prior to his death that he found himself in the fortunate position of having received—I cannot remember the exact amounts—so many million from Britain, so many million from America and so many million from Russia—and that he was not going to choose sides. He said that he would not choose between Capitalism and Communism because the moment he would do so both sides would cease giving. That is quite true.

One cannot buy those people’s friendship by plying them with gifts. That has not worked anywhere in Africa. It has become evident in Africa that the hospitals and the libraries are built by America and that the necessary information and books in that regard are supplied by Russia. In that struggle for the soul of Africa it has always been so that he who went on giving without displaying any judgment has never achieved any success. I am putting it very strongly. We will not try to compete with any other country to buy the favour of these states. We believe unambiguously, because of the geographic and strategic situation of these states in relation to South Africa and South Africa’s situation in relation to them, that there will always be from their side as well as from our side a permanent desire for close and friendly relations and co-operation with one another without interference in one another’s domestic affairs, without the least injury to one another’s honour or without trying to underestimate one another by thinking that favour can be bought on a temporary basis or with temporary, concessions.

Mr. Chairman, I want to go further as regards the question of the Protectorates. We shall seek the friendship of these people. But we must not become panicky all of a sudden as has become evident in the case of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He said that we should go out of our way at the very outset to establish diplomatic relations immediately, because a state was at its most sensitive during its early stages. That was his argument. There is no reason to panic. The world will not come to an end because they are now going to become free. On the contrary, I think—and that is my honest opinion—that co-operation with those states in future, after they have obtained their freedom, will be much more hearty and pleasant than it has ever been before because those people will have to rely on their own resources and will realize that they cannot do without the giant, South Africa, in numerous spheres. For that reason there is no need to panic. There is no reason for precipitate action. There is time to think about the matter calmly, to let things take their course and to consider what will be in the interests of both, and, above all, to put the interests of South Africa first.

Mr. Chairman, there is actually little one can dispute in what has been said by the hon. member for Randfontein. The matter I raised, however, namely the formal shape our relations should take some time or other, is not a matter of panic. It is a matter of achieving clarity on our position at the psychological moment. The hon. member is not prepared to commit himself on that point. He has been of no help to us. Just before I sat down, I had said that the idea of itinerant ambassadors had its advantages. But that in itself is no solution; it is neither the final solution, nor will it make a good impression. As regards Basutoland, that State has already appointed ambassadors to the United States of America and to Western Germany, while the new President of Botswana, Sir Seretse Khama, said recently—

That stands to reason. I endorse that wholeheartedly.

I am glad the Prime Minister endorses that. The emergent States will not be satisfied with itinerant ambassadors only, but having said that. I want to add that I am not concerned about the wishes of Bechuanaland or Swaziland or Basutoland. Our concern is the interests of South Africa. We should realize that it would be of inestimable value to South Africa if our relations with those two States were of such a nature that their two representatives would rise in the UN for example, or in some other international body, and say a kind word about South Africa. It is almost worthwhile to pay a price in order to achieve that. I can hardly think of anything that would be worth more to South Africa than that those people, who are our immediate neighbours and who should therefore know the situation in our country, should reach the point where they would rise in an international body and say a kind word in defence of South Africa. We believe it to be in our best interests to do the right thing and to create sound and normal relations with those States. Mr. Chairman, that entails, of course, that if we deem it in South Africa’s interests to be represented there, we should provide reciprocity. But I believe we simply have to do that. We have to make the necessary exceptions as far as treatment of those people here in South Africa is concerned. I am convinced that the people of South Africa are quite mature enough to appreciate the necessity for that. When the United Party was in power we had an Agent General for India in South Africa. Those relations were subsequently broken off by India. The Coloured Agent General played a prominent role in South Africa, and the public accepted that in goodwill. If it was possible in South Africa even then, I believe we would not be mistaken in presuming that the people of South Africa are mature enough to accept such a step in respect of our neighbouring States. And if they are not mature enough—and I believe they are—then it is in any event time to take steps to educate them as to what is in the best interests of South Africa. That can best be done by setting a practical example.

I admit that there is the hazard of incidents. Let us face that. Incidents will occur. The fact that the acting Prime Minister of Basutoland was shown out of the White section of a bank in Bloemfontein last year, has had an adverse effect as regards the propaganda made on that score by the Basutoland Congress Party against co-operation with South Africa. That kind of thing will happen, but perhaps we shall simply have to learn the hard way that the continued existence of White civilization is not dependent on ostracizing and humiliating people of other colours.

Even if we did not enter into diplomatic relations with Basutoland and Bechuanaland at all, the Government will in any event have to review the position of foreign representatives in South Africa. Whether a man has the status of ambassador, consul or trade representative, he is representing his country and in that respect he is an important person. In the times in which we live we can no longer afford the kind of incident that occurred some years ago. Some years ago Mr. Hamilton Wright, of the Hamilton Wright Organization, an organization of public relations people in New York, had a contract with the Government to assist our information service. Subsequently he said in evidence before the Foreign Relations Committee of the American Senate that he was no longer prepared to work for South Africa, because he also had a contract with the Government of Nationalist China, which had told him “that the Chinese Government was hurt about South Africa”. When the Committee questioned him about the matter, he said that the Government of Nationalist China was upset by the fact that he was also working for South Africa “because the Chinese consul in South Africa was treated like the Blacks were in respect of the apartheid policy”. China has an important vote in the Security Council, and that is how it felt about the treatment of its representative in South Africa. It is clear to me that we cannot speak of friendly relations with other countries as long as we are indifferent to the treatment their representatives receive in South Africa, or rather the impression they receive about that treatment. That is a matter which will have to receive the attention of the Government and the new Prime Minister. I believe it is time for the Government to make a frank statement and to give more active guidance to the public of South Africa on how we should act in all respects towards all local representatives of foreign countries.

As regards the hon. member for Middelland: We are getting rather tired of the old story about the image supposedly created by the Opposition of South Africa. He creates the impression that people in New York and London virtually trample each other every morning to buy the Cape Times or the Argus to read what is happening here. That is ridiculous, of course. There is nothing of the kind. Most of those people hardly know where South Africa is.

They merely extract the gall and venom from it.

Have those people so much interest in us that they select only the bits about South Africa? Take the New York Times. It is so thick that one can sometimes hardly carry it. The bits about South Africa published in it are insignificant. The important fact is that the Western countries have ambassadors here who study local matters carefully and report to their governments what the Government is saying and doing. That is how the foreign leaders obtain their information and determine their attitude—not from what the Opposition says. [Time limit.]

I do not want to elaborate on what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said. He said that if the representatives of Botswana and Lesotho said a good word for South Africa in the UN it would mean a great deal to us. It is clear from recent developments that the best of relations exist between South Africa and these former Protectorates, and that there is every indication that these relations will continue in future, provided they are not deliberately disturbed.

I do not want to say that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout tried to do so today, but if he continues to stress such trivialities and to make these out to be the principles which are at stake, he can quite easily succeed in this manner to provide a basis for upsetting these relations.

I am more interested in what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Constantia said in connection with the bi-partisan policy which we should apply in our foreign relations. The Leader of the Opposition said that with regard to foreign affairs we should follow a bi-partisan policy. The hon. member for Constantia also used this expression, but at a later stage used it with reference to Southern Africa. I do not think the two things can be divorced, namely our foreign policy in general and our policy as regards Southern Africa. Now I want to say immediately that if we should have a bi-partisan approach as regards foreign affairs, it should in the first instance be based on simple patriotism. Then each of the two parties always has to place South Africa’s interests first and both parties should have the express understanding that when we are dealing with foreign hostility, whether military or propagandistic, these two parties stand together on the sole basis of South Africa’s interests. But now we are fully aware that many of the foreign problems facing South Africa are based on the very endeavour to interfere in South Africa’s domestic affairs. We are aware that there are forces in other countries, and we are aware that there are international organizations whose entire approach rests on interference in South Africa’s affairs with the object of effecting a change here. Consequently it is aimed at the domestic policy and at the policy of this Government for the purpose of effecting a change. Where we are now faced with these things, foreign endeavours directly aimed at changing the state of affairs in South Africa, let the Leader of the Opposition now tell us very clearly what attitude he adopts in this regard.

We have had many of these international conferences during recent times in anticipation of the International Court’s verdict when people most probably predicted that the verdict would go against South Africa and that plans had to be made for taking action against South Africa. Time and time again we have had discussions in the UN and the adoption there of resolutions against South Africa. Will the Leader of the Opposition at all times when these things occur, this interference in our affairs to make South Africa’s position in the outside world as difficult as possible, join our ranks to combat these things? If he speaks of a bi-partisan approach then I want to give him an example. I have here a book, “African Battle Line”, written by Waldemar A. Nielsen and published by the Council of Foreign Relations of America. Waldemar Nielsen is the President of the African-American Institute. I just want to read out what is stated on page 135—

According to him this is what the role of American diplomacy should be in Southern Africa. On page 139 he states—

I am quoting this to illustrate very clearly that there are powers in the world whose entire aim is interference in the affairs of South Africa, not solely for defeating this Government, but for changing the order in South Africa. I want to put it very clearly to the Leader of the Opposition that if he says that we should have a bi-partisan approach, and that the gesture should come from the Prime Minister, then we have to know very clearly where they are standing in these matters.

There is another consideration. The United Party has to be very realistic if it comes along with this approach to-day. It is fully aware that its policy, whatever policy that may be to-day, is just as unacceptable to the outside world as the policy of the National Party. It is fully aware that even the policy of the Progressive I Party was rejected by the Myrdal Commission of the UN. If he does not want to believe that, I have here the report which appeared at that time in the Rand Daily Mail of 21st April, 1964, in which the following was stated by the group who made the study—

These were the proposals by the Progressive Party, and they were rejected. Then they mentioned all the Acts which had to be repealed in South Africa—

All these and many other Acts had to be repealed. Therefore the United Party should be fully aware that not only its policy and the National Party’s policy, but also the policy of the Progressive Party are rejected by these people who wish to interfere in South Africa’s affairs. If we are requested to make the gesture that there should be such an approach, then in the first place we request the United Party, as opposed to what it has done in the past, to indicate clearly to us where it stands when it comes to patriotism when we are dealing with these things in future; and not to act as it has done in the past when South Africa was running the gauntlet of hostility, when it rejoiced in the setbacks suffered by South Africa.

Mention one example where we rejoiced in those setbacks?

Where did the United Party stand when South Africa attended the Commonwealth Conference of 1961? Was it standing on the side of South Africa, which made a lone stand there, and on the side of the Prime Minister, or did it remain sitting here without doing a thing, and then on the Prime Minister’s return keep him in his bench for nearly a week calling him to account and blaming him for not having submitted to Nkrumah? If that was not rejoicing then I do not know what it was. Hon. members opposite presented that occurrence as something to be held against the Government and therefore as something redounding to the credit of the enemies of South Africa. What else is that but rejoicing in a setback for South Africa? Where did they stand when Mr. Macmillan made his “winds of change” speech in this building? Did a single member opposite get up and contradict Mr. Macmillan in the name of South Africa? There was not one. Therefore I am saying that if we are to have a bi-partisan approach we must know in the first instance that we can rely on the undivided patriotism of the United Party at all times and under all circumstances.

It seems to be my unenviable job always to follow on the hon. member for Innesdal or to precede him. I want to say at once that the hon. member for Innesdal and I disagree profoundly on our interpretation of the word “patriotism”, and this is perhaps why we are always at such odds. The hon. member for Innesdal interprets the meaning of the word “patriotism” as love for one’s Government. [Interjections.] I interpret it as love for one’s country. Hon. members, and particularly the hon. member for Innesdal, should surely accept that it is possible for people to differ profoundly with him and his party’s views as to what is best for South Africa. I happen to be one of those people who do in fact disapprove profoundly of Government policy. While I am prepared to correct and contradict where I find them overseas, misrepresentations of what is going on in South Africa and exaggerations about what is happening here, I am not prepared to defend the actions of the Government where I profoundly disagree with those actions. I do not consider that to be unpatriotic, because according to my lights and my judgment many of the things the Government is doing are not in fact in the best interests of my country. That is where the hon. member for Innesdal and I profoundly disagree.

I am not much concerned about the findings of the Myrdal Commission. I know perfectly well that some of the proposals which even my party puts forward did not receive favour with that commission and, indeed, with the Afro-Asian states, but I am not concerned with that at all. What I am concerned with is trying to get a system which I believe approximates to social justice in South Africa, and I am also concerned with attempting to make the task of our Western allies easier when they attempt to resist the efforts of the Afro-Asians to push the rest of the world into hostile action against South Africa.

What did they say about the decision of the World Court?

I will deal with it now if hon. members are so interested. The United Nations session has not yet started. The World Court decision will probably make it easier for our allies to resist demands on the legal basis of World Court findings than had the decision gone against South Africa. To that extent the task has been made easier. But the over-all policy of South Africa remains the same, and in fact the attempts to get at South Africa via South West Africa is simply an indirect way of getting at South Africa because of her own internal policies. Hon. members must realize that. This was the international lever which could legally have been used had the World Court decision gone against us. But it does not alter the fact that our own policies are still profoundly disapproved of in the eyes of the world. That is the point.

Now I want to come to the hon. the Prime Minister, and I must say at once that it is going to take me a little time to adjust myself and my relationship with the hon. member in his new role. I am used to having a rather different relationship with him. I extend him my best wishes in his new capacity, but it will take me a little time to treat him in a rather different way from the manner in which I have been used to dealing with him.

I hope you will survive the ordeal.

I am going to put on my usual brave front in the situation and I will do my best to survive the ordeal. I hope the Prime Minister will also survive the ordeal. I must say that he was always in his previous capacity very accessible. It was not quite so noticeable during the last few months, I must admit, but before then he was accessible in his role as Minister of Justice. I want to say at once that I want to take the earliest opportunity to ask him in his new capacity to use his influence with his own party not to proceed headlong with the implementation of official Government policy. [Interjections.] I want to ask him to adopt a statesmanlike approach and to realize that South Africa finds itself in perilous times.

Is yours the only statesmanlike approach?

The Minister should concern himself with his own portfolio of sports and all the difficult problems of Japanese rugby tours, and those vastly important aspects of his portfolio, and I will deal with my affairs. I say that I believe that this country is facing perilous times. I believe that the situation in the world, as far as Rhodesia, for instance, is concerned, will not make it easier for this country. I say again that it should not be our objective to pursue policies at a headlong pace at this stage which can only make the task of our allies more difficult for them. I think that is very important.

The Prime Minister has said this afternoon in his policy statement that his policy remains precisely the same. I accept that. I did not expect any changes at all, but what he can change or influence is the pace of the implementation of that policy. I think it is desperately essential at this stage that we do not proceed headlong with this policy. Let me give him a few examples of what I mean.

At the moment it is Government policy to clear the Western Cape of Africans, or to try to. We know it is failing. We know that the whole system is now being turned into dependence on migratory labour, which I might say even the D.R. Church Commission has commented on most unfavourably.

Have you read the whole report?

No, but I have read extracts from it. I do not have the actual pamphlet which was put out, but I have read what was available to me. I have read a translated report of the Commission, which I believe to be the full report but I may be wrong.

Why do you say “even” the D.R. Church?

I say so because I would say that this religious body by and large anyway, is in favour of the Government policy of apartheid, but having examined this particular aspect of apartheid it does not approve of it. That does not surprise me because I think it is a terrible system, sociologically and economically. And if the Prime Minister came face to face with some of the individuals involved in this policy, he might know what I mean. It is very easy for people in high positions here, like Deputy Ministers, to stake their political future on a reduction in the numbers of urban Africans by such-and-such a date and to give orders to their Bantu commissioners to carry this out to the letter of the law and to make as few exceptions as possible, because they do not have to take the consequences to the individuals concerned. I come into contact with some of these individuals. If the Prime Minister had any idea of the devastation of the lives of these people, he might perhaps say: Let us at least implement this policy with as much compassion as possible towards the individual.

But we do.

No, we do not. I want to give just one example. Take the Rhodesian Africans. There are many of them who have been here for 20 years and who are married to South African women and who are being told that they have to leave by December. This will not make the task of Rhodesia any easier, to have thousands of Africans coming back from South Africa unemployed, to be a further burden on their economy. [Time limit.]

I should like to tell the hon. member for Houghton that she will probably be the last person on earth whom I would allow to instruct me in regard to what partriotism is. To us patriotism is an absolute concept, and it is a word which has recently been used very lightly in this House, particularly by the United Party as well which is still trying, as an American put it the other day, “to out-Nat the Nats”. For us patriotism is very much more than mere love for a Government. For us patriotism is, inter alia, the love for one’s own and entails doing or saying nothing which can damage or defile the good name and the honour of one’s country and one’s people overseas, or whatever the occasion or the place may be. Surely that is the essence and the basis of patriotism and not those things with which the hon. member for Houghton has so often occupied herself, i.e. pleading the cases of people who have occupied themselves with trying to overthrow "this Government and this State. I would describe that as the’ very antithesis of patriotism, not only in South Africa but throughout the world; But the United Party has been trying so hard to don the mantle of patriotism that I may shortly feel myself compelled to ask the hon. member for Constantia to go and deliver a party rally speech in my constituency if I do not feel well. The hon. member for Constantia, when he castigated this Government in this. House five years ago in regard to the course which the Government had adopted then, said that at the rate at which this Government was moving the farmers in South Africa would within five years not be any safer on their farms than the farmers in the Highlands of Kenya. The hon. member who waxed so eloquent here this afternoon on the new word “bi-partisan” got up here the other day and exclaimed: “What hope is there for the future?” Mr. Chairman, a leopard cannot change its spots, and while we appreciate the fact that the United Party is also making progress along the road South Africa is following and while the hon. the Prime Minister, and also in particular the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs, probably have every reason to be thankful for that, I just hope that it is not merely a case of “some people falling for everything but standing for nothing”. We shall put them to the test and we shall see how matters progress in this regard.

Some people have fought for South Africa and others have sabotaged South Africa.

I want to make the point in this House this afternoon, because it is a debate dealing with foreign affairs, that South Africa is the most anticolonialistic power in the world and that it is also the most anti-neocolonialistic power in the world, and I believe that Africa and the outside world will still come to realize this. Some countries already realize this and we are grateful for that. A study of the newly-independent states in Africa indicates unmistakably that they already realize how meaningless political freedom can be without economic independence. Africa and these newly-independent states will have to revolt against this, and that is why we, as National Party, were so correct in our policy over the past 16 years in having continually upheld the point of view, with the purpose of maintaining good relationships with our Bantu in South Africa, as well as with these other states in Africa, that the development of our own homelands, as well as assistance to other African states—as our former Prime Minister stated very clearly time and again—rests on the principle that it should take place without interference on the part of private White capital and without interference on the part of private White initiative. With that policy which we have always adhered to we gave proof of the fact that we are the most anti-colonialistic and the most anti-neocolonialistic state in the world. In a recent and very enlightening book on Africa mention is made of a “penetrating analysis of the cruel African equation: Rich resources plus foreign development are equal to poorest living standards.” This writer then continues—

Tell me, Mr. Chairman, what nation will in the long run be satisfied with that sort of thing? Our own nation was also exploited, and that is why, if these African states are begining to understand our policy, if they are beginning to comprehend how, for the past 18 years we have stood for that most fundamental of things, the creation of good relationships between people, then they will to an increasing extent be compelled to be more favourably disposed than is the case at present.

But a second point which I want to make is that our Government has always adhered to a principle which is universally accepted throughout the free world, i.e. the principle that one claims for oneself one should be prepared to give to one’s fellow man, whoever he may be. That is the principle on which our whole policy rests, and that principle is not only a defendable one, it is also a principle which can be stated positively in all the council chambers of the world and it is a principle which the world is increasingly coming to admit as the principle which South Africa is applying in its policy towards Bantu people in South Africa and the African states. Mr. Chairman, I have here a book which has just appeared, “Britain and South Africa”. It was written by Professor Dennis Austin of the Institute of International Affairs in London, a man who is of no little consequence in Great Britain, and I just want to read to what conclusion he has come in this, in my humble opinion, brilliantly scientific work. He says the following—

In his last chapter entitled “The Rhodesia Parallel”, he arrives at this conclusion—

I want to conclude by saying that there ought not to be the least doubt about our future.

There is no justification for fearing for our destiny, provided we stand shoulder to shoulder. [Time limit.]

This debate initiated here this afternoon by the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister, is taking place under circumstances which I think we would do well to recognize ab initio. If we have not got the background of present circumstances in our minds when we are speaking here, I am afraid we may be led into making the kind of speech which we heard here this afternoon from the hon. member for Middelland.

He should be ashamed of himself.

The position is that not only have we a new Prime Minister in South Africa, but we have new conditions in respect of so many of the matters in which we are directly concerned as a nation. We have not only got the difficulty in regard to Rhodesia and the aftermath now of the judgment of the World Court at The Hague, but we have the imminent independence of two of the so-called protectorates which are right here in our midst. Geographically one is completely in our midst and the other is so closely associated with us as to be no different. Sir, these are the issues which are impending upon and influencing the destiny of South Africa right here at this moment. Sir, in my notes about the few words that I wanted to say this afternoon I had, I hope, followed the line of thought of the hon. the Prime Minister and of my own Leader, the Leader of the Opposition; I had intended making an appeal at the start that in dealing with foreign affairs, in dealing with our foreign policy, in dealing with our approach to all the outside influences which are now being brought to bear on South Africa, many of which are unfavourable to us and some favourable, that we should start off on the basis of approaching all these problems on the basis of accepting the bona fides of the other side. While allowing for the difference in party principles in so many of the things which radically divide us from the Government side, I had hoped to appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister and that side of the House that we should accept as a basic principle, when we are discussing these matters, that our approach should be along the lines of accepting the bona fides of the other side; that we should accept the bona fides of that side and that that side should accept our bona fides, and that is why I regret the speech of the hon. member for Middelland. The hon. member tried to make some political capital; I am not going to do that now; I think it was out of place; I think it was very regrettable and I do not know why he made that speech. The point I want to make is this: In the course of his speech he referred to this unfortunate phrase which is used nowadays, “our image with the outside nations”. Does he really think that the speech he made here today in regard to hyenas is going to produce a good image for South Africa with the outside nations? Does he not realize that his speech is going to be one of the speeches which are going to be quoted against South Africa? Do we not want to show the world a united South Africa when we are dealing with external people who may wish to stick their fingers in our affairs here? Do we not want to present a picture of a united South African nation saying, “If you interfere in our domestic affairs, South Africa will stand together”? My Leader has said so in the clearest possible terms, not long ago.

It serves no purpose for an hon. Whip on the Government side, an hon. member representing South West Africa, to try to present a picture of a complete, deep-cleavage between this side and that side of the House. That is not accepting the bona fides of both sides, Sir. I want to go forward from that point to say that we are heading for shipwreck in South Africa if we do not accept the bona fides of both sides and make it clear that as South Africans we stand together in the face of many threats. We have one Prime Minister for the whole of South Africa. The Prime Minister is not the Prime Minister for the Nationalist Party or the Prime Minister for the Government; he is the Prime Minister for the whole of South Africa. He is our Prime Minister as much as he is the Prime Minister of the Nationalist Party. And if the Prime Minister slips and his policy goes wrong then the whole of South Africa goes wrong with him. The United Party, the Opposition, cannot dissociate itself from the consequences of a foreign policy adopted by the hon. the Prime Minister which lets South Africa into the troubles and the difficulties and the tribulations which are facing us at the present time, and then stand back and say, “It is a Nationalist Prime Minister, it is a Nationalist Party, it is a Nationalist Government, that is the trouble”. That has never been our attitude or our policy, not since the days of 1914 onwards.

You have come a long way.

Hon. members opposite may say that we have come a long way. Sir, I fought in 1914. The hon. member over there did not fight in 1914. Let us not mock one another in these matters. This is vital for South Africa, and with the proclamation of independence of those two protectorates, the issue is right here on our doorstep. It is not sufficient for us to proclaim the fact that we intend to live in amity with them. Sir, that has never helped anybody in this world. I was very interested just now in the hon. the Prime Minister’s reply when he asked—I do not know whether it was a direct question but he answered it—how he was going to shape up to this policy of his which he had now adumbrated. His reply was, “by doing it, by carrying out that policy”. Fair enough; I am prepared to accept that and I am prepared to accept it at face value, but what is he going to do? That, without embarrassing the Prime Minister or the Government or showing any cleavage to the world, is what we want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister. Let us just look at the issue for a moment or two as far as the protectorates are concerned. Sir, here is one of the classic cases in modern history to show that a decision to try to live in amity and peace with your neighbours is not sufficient: The British Broadcasting Station in Bechuanaland. Bechuanaland does not want to quarrel with Rhodesia; Bechuanaland does not want to quarrel with South Africa; but the British have erected that broadcasting station just over the border to broadcast to the people of Rhodesia. Hon. members have probably all had documents quoting from the contents of the broadcasts which it is alleged come from that broadcasting station, guarded by a detachment of British troops, in one of the very protectorates that we hope will be our friend when they attain independence on the 4th of next month. Sir, these are the realities of the situation here in South Africa to-day so far as our external affairs are concerned, so far as our relations are concerned not with countries which surround us but one of which is completely surrounded by South Africa. Sir, let us take this question of the economies of the protectorates. Speaking for, myself personally, this is one of the things that fills me with the deepest misgivings. It has been pointed out by one of the hon members on this side—I think it was the hon. member for Constantia—that Basutoland have their water and their labour. In this world of the “haves” and the “have nots”, we must realize when we look at the immensely strong economic position of South Africa, that Basutoland is certainly one of the “have nots”. How it was created and how it has come about are matters which are quite beside the point. The fact remains that they are one of the “have nots”; we are one of the “haves”, and here we have to do something practical with a view to creating a situation in Basutoland where we can help them economically without making it look that they are dependent upon us and that therefore we are assuming the mantle of a neo colonialist power, the wonderful new phrase which is nowadays used by people to apply to anybody with whom they disagree—it is a sort of political machine gun that you turn on your enemies; you call them neo colonialist powers. We do not even want to assume the appearance of being a neo colonialist power, but we have to help these protectorates economically so that they will not be left amongst the entirely “have nots”, continually looking over the boundary and saying “The grass is greener on that side of the fence than it is on this side”. They become a prey then to the machinations of the strong countries who would use them as a catspaw, who would use them as a peg upon which to hang an attack upon South Africa. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for South Coast has just made an appeal to us to respect one another’s good faith when we discuss foreign affairs. I do not think there is any member in this House who would differ with him on that point, but there is unfortunately a “but” in regard to the matter. I want to know whether the Opposition has always respected the good faith of the Government in these matters in the past and whether it still does so to-day. Let me mention a few examples. What did the hon. member for North Rand say less than a year ago when we were discussing this very question of our overseas policy and defence? He said inter alia that this Government could only be brought to a fall by a shock from outside. The hon. member for Wynberg has not said this in the House but she has said outside, from a platform in her constituency, that she is of the opinion that if the outside world does not step in then we are entering the abyss.

Shame!

It is of no avail talking about good faith as long as the Opposition is always adopting the attitude that it is as a result of our domestic policy that the outside world regards us with disfavour, as the hon. member for Houghton did once more this afternoon. Since we have to present a united front to the outside world it is not a sign of good faith if the reproach is always being cast in the teeth of those on this side of the House that it is our domestic policy which has made matters difficult for us abroad. That does not attest to the fact that the good faith of the Government and of this side of the House is being accepted.

I want to return to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said in connection with diplomatic relations. The hon. member was mainly concerned about roving ambassadors. I want to make the hypothesis here this afternoon that there are three requirements for the existence of diplomatic relations. The first requirement is this: Before there can be diplomatic relations between one country and another there must be bonds of friendship, a spirit of friendship must prevail. One cannot have diplomatic representation in a country which is hostile; that is obvious. There are for example numerous states in Africa which are treating us with hostility to-day. It will not benefit us to enter into diplomatic relations with them. There is no country in the world which has ever entered into diplomatic relations with a country which is hostile to it. There must be mutual friendship between the states in question. I can mention many examples.

For example, it will not benefit us to have diplomatic relations with Tanzania which is rather hostile towards us at the moment. A mutual friendship must exist before one country can enter into diplomatic relations with another. There is a second requirement. The two countries in question must also have mutual interests. We do not have diplomatic representation in all countries because we do not have interests in common with all countries, but that does not mean to say that we are hostile to those countries. We only have diplomatic representation in countries where we have interests and where there are mutual interests. We only have diplomatic representation in certain countries, not in all countries. But there is also a third requirement before one can have diplomatic relations between two countries. Can the country in which one wants to have representation afford to have representation in one’s own country? It will not pay us in South Africa for example to have diplomatic representatives in every country in the world. We simply cannot afford it, and if we cannot afford it, can a country like Basutoland, to take the example mentioned by the hon. member of the Opposition, afford it?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has just mentioned the critical financial position of Basutoland. He mentioned the figures here at the beginning of his speech. Would it be fair to require Basutoland for example to enter into diplomatic relations with us? Can she afford it? Can we afford to have diplomatic representation in every state? We cannot afford it and that is why the former Prime Minister, the late Dr. Verwoerd, suggested that we should approach this matter in a practical way. Would it be fair on our part to require that the Protectorates, which are on the verge of independence, have diplomatic representation in South Africa when they are here on our doorstep? The former Prime Minister said repeatedly that the obvious solution under these circumstances was that their specific ministers could reach us in a day’s time and that our ministers could do the same. We could then discuss our problems back and forth without going to the expensive length of establishing permanent diplomatic representation. If one approaches the matter in this light then one comes to the question of roving ambassadors to which the former Prime Minister referred. We shall be able to afford such a roving ambassador, but if we have such a roving ambassador then there is no question of our requiring each one of those countries to create a similar institution. No, we simply send a roving ambassador there to go and take care of our interests there and then they can in turn send a roving ambassador here when it becomes necessary and when they can afford one. It seems to me the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is under the impression that we do not want to establish a diplomatic representative in Basutoland because we are afraid that we will then have a Basutoland ambassador in South Africa. That is not the consideration at all. I hope the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not going to hang this matter on the peg of colour again because colour plays no part in this matter as far as our policy is concerned.

I hope the hon. member for Heilbron will forgive me if I do not follow him immediately in his argument. With certain of the points he has raised it will be possible for me to deal with in passing later on. Sir, for the sake of the record, I was queried when I made mention of the former Prime Minister’s offer to the protectorates and said that I understood it had lapsed because it had never been put to them. Here I have the report from which I got it—

Page 17.

Yes, page 17—

That is what I was referring to. For the sake of the record, it is not necessary to carry the argument any further.

You put a different interpretation on it. The offer did not lapse. It is for them to accept it or to reject it. We cannot force them to accept it.

Sir, I do not want to argue about the hon. the Prime Minister about a thing of this kind. Be that as it may. If the hon. gentleman feels that such an offer is still open under his leadership I would be very interested to hear it.

Under my predecessor’s leadership as well it was always open.

Why then did he see Leabua Jonathan?

This is something a little different from what the hon. the Prime Minister said when he replied. I specifically put these questions to him. I asked him how he viewed the relationship of the future from the economic as well as from the political point of view and the question of consolidation with neighbouring ethnic groups. It was noticeable that the hon. the Prime Minister in his reply did not deal with these specific issues. Well, it may be that he did not want to commit himself but must I take it then that in so far as the protectorates are concerned on their coming to freedom the offer is still open?

At all times, as my late leader said.

Can I then take if from the hon. the Prime Minister that the direction in which we are moving is not just in the direction of “vreedsame naasbestaan” and of non-interference in each others’ affairs but that the direction in which we are moving is in the direction of a common market, relationship and participation in a political relationship with other independent Bantustans as stated in the original statement of the Prime Minister?

The essence of the reply is to be found in the communiqué.

I am afraid the communiqué leaves that matter out and we are left with the impression that this standpoint is being departed from. But I do not want to argue with the hon. the Prime Minister. What I should like to know from him is where is he going and if he can give me a guide on this I shall be very happy indeed.

I want to come back to this question of the Protectorates and to say to hon. gentlemen who have spoken, including the hon. member for Heilbron, that if there ever was a country in the world with which Basutoland was justified in having normal diplomatic relations, and not just an itinerant minister on an aeroplane so many days a year, that country is the Republic of South Africa. One of the tasks of a diplomatic representative is to look after the well-being and solve the problems of these people. That is why it is so important from our point of view to put this thing on the right basis from the very beginning.

What about Malawi?

I am not talking about Malawi. I am talking about the Protectorates. Let us get that right now. I spoke about the economic relationship with Basutoland and I was told by the hon. the Prime Minister that we were not prepared to buy anybody’s friendship. That I accept, Mr. Chairman. At the same time, however, I want to point out that if we are not making plans to assist in the development of these territories other people are and these are making these plans with the specific intention of excluding us. Furthermore, they are making these plans with intentions which do not seem to me to be entirely friendly towards South Africa.

I have before me the White Paper laid upon the Table during this session of Parliament containing discussions which took place in the United Nations during 1965 on questions affecting South Africa. The Department of Foreign Affairs is responsible for this White Paper. Chapter 5 deals with Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland and under the sub-heading “Report of Three-man Mission” the following is reported—

Then on page 38, under the heading “Resolution of Committee of Twenty-four” it is reported—

This is, of course, absolute nonsense. It is stated further—

Then he goes on to the resolution to which I referred briefly in passing. On the 16th December, 1965, the General Assembly adopted a draft resolution which includes inter alia a decision—

Then it reports on various conditions within the territories and refers to the “grave threat to the territorial integrity and economic stability of these territories constituted by the policies of the present régime in the Republic of South Africa” and asks for a report thereon to the General Assembly. Here therefore we have it already. There is no independence as yet but they are already interfering in the affairs of these territories, and they are not interfering in order to do South Africa a favour but they are interfering in the hope of weaning these territories away from any influence from the part of South Africa. They are trying to undermine the good relations between these territories and ourselves. That is why I have said that if we are not planning, others are. And as I have said, they are not planning in our interests. That is why I regard it as being very important that we should attempt, if it is at all possible, to work out an agreed policy in respect of the Protectorates. As has been said by the hon. member for Constantia and as I have implied, we on this side of the House are prepared to be consulted on these issues. The initiative lies with the Prime Minister, If he wants an agreed policy he will find us very receptive for any proposals with that end in view. [Time limit.]

I do not intend following up the argument of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because other hon. members on this side will do that. In the short period at my disposal I should like to refer to the hon. member for South Coast and his appeal that we should accept their bona fides. The United Party has now emerged as the super-patriots. They are now the high-priests of morality, and as such they want to read us a lecture. But the question I want to ask is, why now? We should like to accept the United Party’s bona fides in this matter, but unfortunately it is not as simple as all that. We make one condition, and that is that certain damaging things that have been said by that side of the House should first be repudiated. There will also have to be a very explicit declaration of policy by that side about certain things said in this House, things that have never been withdrawn. I shall give some examples of what has been said and on what we based our relationship in the past. Mr. Ross, the previous United Party member for Benoni, said in a letter published in The Star of 22nd September, 1964, that the “English-speaking are not prepared to sacrifice their sons for Dr. Verwoerd and his present politics”. This is a statement which is aimed at wounding, a statement which has never been repudiated by the Opposition in this House. It is statements like these that have to be wiped out before we can accept this new offer from the hon. member for South Coast. But there are further statements. Mr. Cadman, the previous United Party member for Zululand, got up in this House and said “death by torture is becoming commonplace in South Africa … death by torture is regarded by the Minister of Justice as a matter of hilarity. Death by torture is the biggest joke that 100 Government members have ever heard in their lives”, Until words such as those have been withdrawn, we shall first have to turn over a new page, no matter how much we should like to accept the bona fides of the hon. member for South Coast.

There is another matter I should like to raise, however, and that is that I want to plead that the people of South Africa should contribute their share to the implementation of our policy in practice. During the past two decades the development of population groups in South Africa has gone through certain phases. When the National Party Government took over in 1948, it was a period in which the circumstances of war were still enjoying priority. There was chaos that had to be cleared up. It was necessary to place the regulating of relations between population groups on a sound basis by means of legislation. When the late Dr. Verwoerd became Minister of Native Affairs, we entered a new era. We then adopted a positive course, and the development of the various population groups was gradually guided into certain channels. In due course development according to character took shape more and more, and became a living element which emphasized the positive aspect of that development. When the late Dr. Verwoerd became Prime Minister of our country we once again entered a new phase, where the most positive aspects of this development were presented to the people with an indication of their further channels of development. In keeping with these phases of political development, legislation was introduced from time to time to regulate matters and to place them on a sound basis. And at every election the voters of South Africa declared themselves more and more in favour of all the steps that had been taken up to that stage. It was therefore accepted by the voters of South Africa, and not only by the voters but also by all race groups concerned in the matter. We now have to go on to the next phase, and that is the phase in which the people of South Africa have to make a larger contribution and a contribution of their own, in more and more fields, to the implementation of this policy which has already been placed on a sound basis by means of legislation. Measures that have already been put into operation marked this process out clearly. Emphasis was placed on a right of existence, within the space available, for all population groups, and we are experiencing an ever-increasing measure of cooperation on the part of the other population groups as they grasp these principles and come to appreciate the advantages they will bring them. From now on the White section of the population of South Africa will also have to search in itself for ways and means to further this clearly indicated development in practice. We can begin in our own homes. We can begin on our own doorsteps. Each of us can begin by regulating his personal relations with the other population group. That is the next phase we shall have to enter. Where the spade-work has been done, it is now the task of South Africa to shoulder the burden, particularly at this stage, and to help us advance from here, in that direction.

Mr. Chairman, I think there are one or two other matters arising from the original proposals made by me. The first has to do with the Van Wyk Commission. Here I want to say that I regret it if it was the hon. the Prime Minister’s intention to imply that the general rule would be evidence in secret. I think it is important that the general rule should be evidence in public, but secret where the judge thinks it should be. I think also that it is important that it be made absolutely clear that witnesses summoned by the Commission—and I presume the Commission will have the right to summon witnesses—should have the right to legal representation.

Of course, as you know, according to the Act, that is entirely in the discretion of the judge, and I will not fetter that discretion in any way.

If the hon. the Prime Minister intends to leave it that way, then I am satisfied. It is left to the judge concerned. But I think it is right that it should be placed on record that as far as we on this side of the House are concerned we think that where witnesses are summoned by the Commission they should have the right to legal representation.

Now, Sir, the suggestion has been made that I have pleaded throughout for a bi-partisan foreign policy. I wish that such a thing were possible. I do not believe it is. But I believe that there are certain aspects of our foreign policy on which we can have a bi-partisan approach or an agreed approach. And I believe that for us to have that, it is necessary, as the hon. member for South Coast said, that there should be an acceptance of the mutual bona tides of each side. I am sure we will get that, Mr. Chairman. But I do not think that it is going to help matters if we have the sort of speech which we have had from certain hon. members on the other side of the House calling in question the patriotism of this side of the House, because I think that if there has ever been a party in South Africa which has put patriotism and love for South Africa first, then it is the party on this side of the House. And I think that is shown by the actions of this party throughout its period both in office and in opposition.

I have said to the hon. the Prime Minister that we want to judge him on his activities as Prime Minister. I do not see any point in dragging in the history of the respective parties at this stage. If we cannot accept each other’s bona fides then heaven help South Africa at this stage of our development. But I think, Sir, we can say that we on this side of the House have never departed from one fundamental principle, and that is that we will not tolerate the interference of other powers or the outside world in the internal affairs of South Africa. That has been our policy throughout the existence of this party, and we showed it when the U.N.O. tried to pass a resolution interfering in our internal affairs, and I stood up in this House and supported the protest by the then Prime Minister on behalf of the Opposition.

I can go further, Mr. Chairman. I can draw attention to many occasions when I myself in public speeches and members on this side of the House have made it absolutely clear that whatever our differences might be with this Government, they were differences which we intended resolving here in South Africa and that we were not tolerating interference from anybody else in the world.

Unfortunately, Sir, hon. members on the other side of the House seem to regard a test of patriotism as a readiness to defend every action of the Government in power. I am afraid that that is impossible. You can put the best construction you can on some of the actions of this Government, but you cannot defend them because you cannot justify them to yourself, let alone justify them to the outside world. When you deal with things here like the High Court of Parliament and other ridiculous things which we have had from that side of the House, how can you justify them? We believe that they were harmful to South Africa, that they did untold harm to our image in the outside world, and we cannot defend them because we love South Africa and we believe that they were unworthy of South Africa.

Do you compare it with your Senate plan now?

If you compare it with my Senate plan, Sir, then you will decide that the Senate plan was a most intelligent one. And besides, Sir, it would not have been declared illegal by the courts of the country. It would not have been necessary for responsible Ministers to go around and talk about “six old men of Bloemfontein”.

Did you drop it because it was too intelligent?

I am trying to raise some serious matters with the Prime Minister. Sir, I pleaded for an agreed approach to the protectorates and I pleaded for the possibility of a bi-partisan approach to the Rhodesian problem which I believe is reaching what may be a very serious stage. The hon. the Prime Minister told me that he stood by the statement made by the late Prime Minister in January in this House. As the hon. gentleman knows, there were certain unsatisfactory elements in that statement. The hon. gentleman spoke about normal trade relations. He was very chary of the question of how long it would be possible for him to be kept out of the matter. He spoke about not being drawn in as long as it is possible to stay out. And he was very unwilling to commit himself at all on the question of the advisability or otherwise of taking risks in the interests of South Africa in regard to that matter.

But, Sir, he did apparently do one thing. He did use his influence to bring about a reopening of the dialogue. I think for that we are all grateful. If we can start from there, Mr. Chairman, if we can start from the desirability of the dialogue being continued, the desirability of finding a solution as rapidly as possible, and we still have as common cause the four principles I outlined at the commencement of my address, then I believe we have a foundation on which we can build. And it is possible that if the hon. the Prime Minister is prepared to consider that matter, we may find ourselves in a position where we have a united approach to this Rhodesian problem and stand as one man behind the actions of whatever government is in power. That was the objective which I had in view and I submit it to the hon. the Prime Minister for his reply.

Mr. Chairman, it has almost become a novelty in this Parliament to-day for us to hear proclamations of United Party patriotism, and I think it is time, Sir, that we should test this patriotism of the United Party and see to what extent it is based on a solid foundation. First of all I should like to say that I do not doubt that the United Party are quite serious when they say that we must accept their bona fides when they say that they are patriotic. I accept that they will stand up for South Africa whenever the need arises. I accept that they have done it in the past, and that they will do it in future. But, Sir, the important thing is not so much whether they will only stand up for South Africa under attack. The important thing is that we should realize on what fundamental basis, on the basis of what fundamental policy, are they patriotic to South Africa.

We have seen that a country like Australia has a fundamental policy on which all parties are agreed, a policy called the White Australia policy, a policy which is fundamental to the very existence of Australia. I also think of the time in 1939 when Britain was threatened by the rise of Naziism in Europe, when it was most important to Britain for all her people to stand together on the one fundamental issue affecting their very existence.

Sir, we must now ask ourselves what our fundamental policy affecting our very existence is. And I maintain, Mr. Chairman, that the fundamental policy of our very existence is to find a satisfactory solution to our race relations. Unless we can agree on the fundamental policy affecting our race relations, that test of patriotism fails. [Interjections.]

Hon. members must give the hon. member an opportunity to make his speech.

Thereby I do not mean that they must accept all the details of every aspect of our policy. But they must accept the fundamental basis of the policy whereby we stand or fall.

Mr. Chairman, there are two possible approaches to our race policies. Either we accept the policy that is followed by most other countries in the Western World, namely one of increased integration, of moving on a path towards integration, or we accept the policy of South Africa of separate development. And, Sir, I maintain that the policy of integration which has been accepted fundamentally in the United States, has been a failure. I need do no more than to quote from to-night’s Cape Argus, where in an article one reads—

There we have the latest development in the U.S., where it has become a political burden for them to support even watered down civil rights. And that, Sir, is also the burden that would face us in South Africa, if we were to embark on the direction towards more integration. We accept that the United Party, the Progressive Party, the United States, and Mr. Kennedy do not ask for immediate “one man, one vote”. The United Party said that their policy is more acceptable to the West. They have only one reason why their policy can be more acceptable to the West, and that is that it is a movement in the direction of integration. And that, Sir, is why their policy might be more acceptable to the West.

Now, the fundamental basis on which we can accept patriotism is whether we accept the one thing that is essential to our future existence—and I maintain that our future existence depends entirely on whether we accept the fundamental principles of the policy of separate development—I repeat, Sir, not necessarily the details, but the fundamental principles—and whether we will work in that direction. And that is the test that I ask the United Party to reply to.

I should also like to refer briefly to the fact that they claim that they have been patriotic in the past. I know that in 1939 they immediately supported the war effort, but I must also add that their unanimous support of the war effort was not necessarily for South Africa; it was for South Africa within the context of the British Empire. Is their patriotism now for South Africa first on the basis of our fundamental existence?

It appears that the Nationalist Party has run out of speakers. A statement of political philosophy has just been made officially from the Government benches on which I now turn in all seriousness to the hon. the Prime Minister. I ask the Prime Minister to state whether it is his view as Prime Minister of South Africa that the condition of patriotism laid upon the Opposition in this Parliament is an acceptance of the political policy of the Nationalist Party? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Umhlatuzana laid down as a condition for the test of patriotism and stated as a specific fact that you will never have patriotism in South Africa unless and until the Opposition accepted the political racial policies of the Nationalist Party in broad principle. [Interjections.] He said we may differ in detail.

I am sorry he did not speak in Afrikaans. Then you might have understood him.

If the hon. member had been at home we would have been speaking German and perhaps he did not express himself very well. He has the opportunity to restate this in another language, if he had difficulty with Afrikaans. The hon. member made it quite clear that it was a condition of patriotism and that there would be no true unity or a common approach until the Opposition accepted the broad principles of Government policy. It was quite clear, and I challenge that hon. member to produce his Hansard. I will give the hon. the Prime Minister the Hansard, and I will also give him a dictionary if he needs assistance, to point out where he disagrees with what I am saying. I now ask the Prime Minister to repudiate that because this is not an isolated instance. This is a common expression of opinion among members of his party. It is quite clear from the sort of attacks you hear from members of the Nationalist Party that they in fact believe that you cannot have a united approach as patriots of South Africa until you have accepted the political philosophy of the Nationalist Party. We on this side of the House reject that. We believe that a true patriot is big enough to have even fundamental differences in regard to internal affairs.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana is a member who supports the policy of the Nationalist Party, a policy which envisages a Commonwealth of States or a Confederation of States—I use the late Prime Minister’s original expression—a Commonwealth of South Africa and other Black states in Southern Africa. I want to refer to a newspaper issued by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, with his name on it, in a by-election less than two months ago. a newspaper which sets as a choice before South Africa “Nats, or U.P.: Separation or Integration”. Associated with it the member for Umhlatuzana carries a report on the threat to kick Britain out of the Commonwealth and has, illustrating it, a photograph of Mr. Arthur Bottomley, seeking to promote Commonwealth solidarity and showing him kissing a Bantu girl at a wedding. [Laughter.] They laugh, Sir, but to me this is a matter of deadly seriousness that a politician in South Africa can descend to this sort of low filth in the conducting of a political campaign, and to using this sort of thing to embarrass South Africa in our dealings with other countries with whom we need friendship. That a member of Parliament, as he was then, can resort to this kind of propaganda which embarrasses South Africa, is shocking, and it is time, firstly, that he was repudiated and, secondly, that an appeal was made—and I ask the Prime Minister to make this appeal to his supporters—to stop using this sort of filthy propaganda which may win them votes in South Africa, showing a White man kissing a Black girl, and labelling it as Commonwealth solidarity, but by implication indicating that the United Party is a party which wishes to go in for this sort of physical solidarity. [Laughter.] That is the implication and the reason is that some members cannot rise above that level. Their thoughts cannot rise above Black and White. I raise this matter because I believe that this is an insult not only to the standard of our politics in South Africa, but this sort of thing can do harm to South Africa in any attempt to seek a common approach to our foreign affairs. If it is the view of the Nationalist Party that this sort of photograph and this sort of propaganda is going to improve our relationship either with the states of Africa or with Britain, then we are wasting our time when we talk of seeking common ground in our approach to foreign affairs. What can we hope to achieve in South Africa in seeking friendship when the basis of our friendship is the exploitation of news of this type in order to assist a political party and in order to amuse members of the Government who evidently find it extremely funny, and when two Deputy Ministers regard this as a matter for mirth, a matter which should sicken them down to their boots and which should make them feel ashamed to belong to a party which tolerates that sort of thing. To them it is a matter of mirth but I think it is a matter which calls for the strongest condemnation.

A new word has made its appearance in the political terminology of the United Party, a very well-known word to us on the Government side of the House but a quite new word to them, namely “patriotism”. In saying that, I want to admit at once that the United Party has over the years definitely progressed on the road of patriotism, that it has progressed from the days when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who is now sitting in that Party again, landed in hot water with his party leaders because he caused resolutions to be taken at a youth congress which asked that the youth should be made more nation conscious, and that they should have a love of South Africa’s own institutions, and when he pleaded for the recognition of our own flag. I say that they have made progress since those days, but at present, in these times in which we are living and having seen the trend of the election results, they are finding it expedient and convenient to fasten upon the word “patriotism” and to pose as great patriots. Together with that fine word “patriotism”, they have fastened upon another expression and they now want to claim it for themselves, a principle against which I want to test them, namely that which specifically refers to our relations with foreign powers, the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of South Africa. In the election publications of the United Party the following point is mentioned specifically (translation)—

The Leader of the Opposition also said so today. I want to repeat that I appreciate this of them and I assume that they are observing this principle under normal circumstances, but the test I want to apply is this, and I apply this test because it is so important, as was said by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana as well, namely that if one wants to take common action as far as the outside world is concerned, there has to be at least certain fundamentals on which the country as a whole can come to terms. I say that it is an absolute fundamental necessity, if we want to present a united front to the outside world, that we should not merely pay lip service to this principle of patriotism and of non-interference in our domestic affairs, but that we should observe it in all respects.

The Leader of the Opposition said that his party believed in non-interference in our domestic affairs, but let me remind the members of the Opposition—that Opposition which after the Rhodesian declaration of independence was very quick to adopt a resolution to support that Government—that when our former Prime Minister left the Commonwealth for the sake of South Africa’s prestige, there was not the same alacrity on their part to range themselves on the side of the former Prime Minister. On the eve of an election six months later, the Leader of the Opposition said: Put us in power and I shall take South Africa back to that Commonwealth.

Where did he say that?

Does the hon. member, who is the counsellor of the United Party, not know what the programme was on which they fought the election of 1961? It was a plank in their platform that they would take us back to the Commonwealth. I did not know that memories could so conveniently become short!. But I want to remind the hon. member further of what the hon. member for Orange Grove, the official propagandist of the United Party, wrote on 1st December in the official publication he managed. He reproached Dr. Verwoerd, the former Prime Minister, of having been the cause of our being out of the Commonwealth, and that was after the election.

Yes, but that is a different matter.

No, that is not a different matter at all. Let me read out what the hon. member said. He reproached Dr. Verwoerd of not wanting to yield to the insistence of Mr. John Diefenbaker that we should make a concession, and what was that other than allowing interference in our domestic affairs? The concession was that we had to admit four Bantu representatives to our Parliament, then we could remain in the Commonwealth. In regard to that the hon. member for Orange Grove then wrote the following comment (translation)—

Now they are also saying that there should not be any interference in our domestic affairs. Here a delicate matter comes to the fore, Rhodesian independence, and to-day it is being admitted everywhere in the world that the former Prime Minister handled this matter brilliantly in all respects. But for the sake of a few votes at the previous election, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition saw it fit to reproach the Government for doing too little. He thought that he could exploit the sympathy of South Africans for our Rhodesian friends for the sake of a few cheap votes. But what does Mr. Ian Smith himself have to say? I have here an edition of a Natal Sunday newspaper, the Sunday Tribune, of 6th March, 1966. In a personal interview with that paper, Mr. Smith said—

As the United Party wanted—

For the sake of a few cheap votes, they were prepared to interfere in the affairs of another country. I can remind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of a letter which was written by a prominent person in Mr. Smith’s party and which appeared in The Cape Times at that time. In pursuance of a speech made by the hon. member for Pinelands, he wrote on 4th March, 1966—

Rhodesian Front that they had written to Sir De Villiers Graaff personally asking him to refrain from dragging Rhodesian affairs into local politics.

Not only do they embarrass us with their attitude, but also our good friends in Rhodesia. Now I say that if the Opposition is sincere about the principle of non-interference, they should adhere to it at all times, even shortly before an election and even if it is to the detriment of their interests, because then we shall indeed be helping one another to make South Africa strong, just as this Government has made itself strong against the attacks from the outside world, because when we are saying that there should not be any interference in our affairs, we also mean that there should not be any interference in the affairs of any other country.

Listening to the debate this afternoon I begin to appreciate the difficulties the hon. the Prime Minister has facing him in this new responsibility which has recently been placed on his shoulders. I can see clearly enough, as this debate goes on this afternoon, how the Prime Minister can get the complete support and backing of his own side of the House, the political party which he as its leader represents here in the narrowest possible political sense. He can get the loyal support of his side of the House, but I hope that the Prime Minister and the more responsible members on his side of the House and on this side of the House, where all the members are responsible … [Laughter.] He will find that we want the Prime Minister not to get the unanimous support only of his side of the House but to get the unanimous backing of South Africa. That is what I am pleading for and I say after this debate here this afternoon I realize how difficult it is going to be for him to get that. Sir, we are not going to get anywhere by carping criticism of bits and pieces of each other’s past history. [Interjections.] I hope that hon. members on that side are going to hold their interruptions and leave me alone. I was in the army and I can answer them in the language they use to me and in stronger language, if they want it. Do not let them tempt me. I am trying to deliver a very serious and a sincere speech primarily for the hearing of the hon. the Prime Minister.

Sir, on the 4th of this coming month when those two protectorates get their independence they will be the focal point of vast, worldwide forces which will concentrate on these two focal points in Southern Africa, and they cannot touch on Basutoland, for example, without impinging upon South Africa in some sphere—in our air space, in wireless programmes, in publications, in economic measures, in the threat of military measures. Sir, all these forces are going to impinge on South Africa. These are the considerations which weigh with me when I say to hon. members, if necessary on both sides of the House: Let us in these matters forget the small and the trivial things; let us forget that we have a good case to answer the other man’s case which we think is a bad case. Let us leave that out. Let us start by accepting the bona fides of the other man. We accept the bona fides of the Prime Minister. We accept that he is going to do his best for South Africa. I believe that he can only get benefit for South Africa by consulting with my hon. Leader here. I sincerely and honestly believe that. In that way we can then get together to formulate a policy which will give the outside world a picture of a united South Africa. Sir, it might amaze hon. members to know that I was born among the Bantu; I have lived among them all my life; I speak their language. It may amaze hon. members to realize how large a section of the Bantu are behind the White people in the Republic of South Africa, a section of the Bantu who will willingly take the line that they will not take interference by other countries in the domestic affairs of South Africa. They have no direct or indirect representatives in Parliament, although I always reckon that the Bantu in my constituency are free to come to me. I can go to the hon. the Deputy Minister with any case which comes to me as the result of representations from one of the Bantu in my area. I see no difficulty about that.

I agree with you.

It is on that basic principle that I like to stand here this afternoon. I come back now to the point where I mentioned this neo-colonialism. Sir, this is one of the most dangerous things. I saw it at Commonwealth conferences in the past. I could quote glaring instances. I can think of one when we had a meeting in Barbados, where the representatives of nations that were then on the point of getting independence stood up in the light of day and accused Britain of colonialism. They blackguarded her uphill and down dale for her exploitation in the years when they were colonies, and in the very next breath they turned round and said: “We want a loan now of R2,000,000 or R5,000,000 or R10,000,000 for the development of our country.” I remember one case where I stood up and said: “I want to ask these Afro-Asian representatives what the difference is between a development loan and exploitation by a capitalist country that is pouring in money?” If a capitalist country develops an underdeveloped country and they have not yet got full government, then it is called colonialism; it is called exploitation, but if a country has so-called de facto independence and you then make a loan to them, then that is called “aid”, and that is a bottomless thing and you can keep on pouring in money. Sir, we have such countries in the three protectorates, right here, facing us now. They are people who will require aid. They must get it from us or the must get it from somebody else but they are bound to seek it. I doubt whether the rulers of these new states, with all due respect to them—these are three of the leaders whom I

do not know well; I know many of the rulers of these African states, but unfortunately I do not know these three very well—I doubt whether they realize what vast forces in this hostile world will be set in motion when they get their independence and whether they realize precisely the guise under which the most favourable offers will come to them, which will tempt them to take advantage of those offers. South Africa must stand firm and be prepared to be owed something, definite and positive, in terms of a policy which we have set ourselves as a nation to follow and get these people with us. That is the only way I which we will be able to keep out the hostility which will otherwise come creeping in until we are suddenly faced perhaps with a condition where South Africa will be put to perhaps the final test as to whether we are to continue to exist or not, not because of any policy which we have followed towards outside people. Sir, but because of the policy followed by outside nations towards us, where they have used what at present are only tendencies on the part of Great Britain as the focal point on which they can concentrate. Sir, I do appeal to Parliament.

I say again in all humility that I recognize the load that the hon. the Prime Minister has accepted at this time of crisis, without warning, without preparation, without an opportunity to be able to deal with the matter. His Minister of Foreign Affairs is also carrying a tremendous burden at the present time. There are speeches which are made here with which he is going to be faced when he goes to those outside nations. He will have to use his tact and his ability to try to present our case in a good light. Sir, cannot we be careful with our tongues on these issues of such extreme importance when we think of the task he is going to have when he goes to face those nations on behalf of South Africa? He is not going to face those nations on behalf of the Nationalist Party; he is going to face them on behalf of South Africa. Surely, we can make his burden, his load as light as possible and not increase the difficulties which he is going to find there. He has a lot of explaining to do, and I am quite able to throw taunts and gibes and accusations across the floor of the House, but that is what I seek to avoid and I hope others will seek to avoid it, because when we do that we merely add to the burden of the people who, whether we wish it or not, are those elected to represent us. Sir, we do not criticize our rugby players. We do not criticize our Springboks; we do not criticize the Gazelles. We line ourselves up behind them as South Africans; we applaud them; we do not start criticizing them. Why in the sphere of international sport should we be more generous than we are in regard to such fundamental issues and political considerations, where the very life and death of our nation may be hanging upon the capacity of a man who has gained the responsible position of Minister of Foreign Affairs who, together with the Prime Minister, sooner or later, and together with our ambassador in London, will have to carry the responsibility. Sir, these are the men who are carrying the responsibility, but I say to the hon. the Prime Minister that the Leader of the Opposition can help. I ask. the hon. the Prime Minister to get the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to help; he can do so. It can be of advantage to South Africa. Do not let us belittle one another; do not let us worry about those matters where we necessarily have to differ. Let us take the big points upon which we can agree, and the safety, the security, of our country based very often on our external relations, is one of the fundamental points upon which we should seek agreement.

You and I will soon be sitting in the same party.

For my part I should like to say that I think that we are standing before a new phase in our foreign relations. The Government has always adopted the attitude that we are welcoming the existence and the gaining of independence by Black states in Africa. It is true that we said that the colonial powers had in some cases, and perhaps in all cases, abdicated too soon. They handed over those states to Black Governments before they had become virile states, but there can be no doubt about the fact that this side of the House is welcoming the emergence of Black states and the emancipation of such states. That is part of our policy as a whole. Here on our border and in the heart of South Africa a prototype of what we envisage with our own Bantu homelands in this country, is about to emerge. A prototype is about to emerge here which was not created by us but by Britain, a prototype which is representative of the aim we in South Africa also have in regard to our own Bantu homelands. That is why I say that we are faced with a new phase in our history. I want to say at once that we want to welcome the establishment of these states; that we want to wish them every success; that we are offering them our friendship. The previous Prime Minister, who died a short while ago, also demonstrated that in a practical manner. In a practical manner he showed that we want to offer them our friendship and that we want to live with them in neighbourliness, because we admit that they, just as us, have the greatest interest in the safety of Southern Africa and the progress of Southern Africa. That matter concerns all of us and that is why we say that we want to co-operate with them, but in the impetuous manner the Opposition wants to suggest to-day, we cannot cause that cooperation to take place on a firm basis. These states will be fragile in structure; we do not know what will happen in those states in the near future. We are hoping that there will always be governments which are favourably disposed towards South Africa, but we know that those states will be affected by certain influences, that attempts will be made to influence trends in those states, and for that reason South Africa should be cautious in its relations with those states. That is why I want to welcome the words we heard from the Opposition to-day, but I do not want to accept those words at their face value. I think that the Opposition has shown over the past weeks and months that they differ from us on many fundamental matters as far as our foreign policy is concerned. I want to mention a few things. I think that if the Opposition is making this offer, they should reply to this: During this Session the Government has been presented as a Government which removed democratic liberties one after the other; as a Government which is creating a police state, a Nazi state, in South Africa. We know that the Opposition has never had the courage to oppose the Press in South Africa, which has over the past years injured our cause so tremendously, in an outright manner. Before we can accept this offer made by the Opposition, I should like them to show that they are breaking with those things of the past which we have against them.

They must confess their sins.

But I want to go further than that. When we discussed the Information Vote here, I pleaded that we should accept that neither their policy nor our policy nor that of the Progressives would satisfy the Black states in South Africa. Why must this Government’s policy continually be held up to the world as the bogy? Is that the manner in which the Opposition wants to cooperate with us? If the United Party’s policy will not be accepted in the world, if our policy will not be accepted, and if even the policy of the hon. member for Houghton will not be accepted by the Black states in Africa, what is the use of making us an offer if they are continuing with this sort of propaganda in the world?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Constantia made the statement that I must not over-simplify matters. Let me tell the hon. member for Constantia that I do not for one moment want to oversimplify matters. If I do that I will make a mistake. But on the other hand we must guard against over-clouding the issues. I think that we must take a very realistic view of what is happening in Southern Africa and what is happening in the world. The hon. member went on to say that we must create permanent machinery to meet the developments that are now taking place in Africa and in Southern Africa in particular. Let me tell the hon. member that we have created that machinery. It is in existence already. As a matter of fact, Sir, it has grown—if I may use that expression—into existence over the years. The hon. member talked about sanctions. I am not over-simplifying matters, I am not forgetting that we are threatened with sanctions. We all know what the position was and what the position is. It is for that very reason, because it is so obvious to each and every one of us, that I did not talk about it. We have discussed that over and over in the House before. Perhaps it is only necessary again to refer to the attitude of this side of the House in the past, which will also be the attitude of this Government. It was so clearly expressed by the late Prime Minister on the 25th January, 1966. I refer to the paragraph in the speech of the late Dr. Verwoerd in which he said—

That was the attitude of the late Prime Minister. That is the attitude of this Government.

*Further to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said, I want to say that in saying that we are not challenging anybody, we are not provoking anybody, we are not looking for trouble, because our attitude is very clear. We seek peace and we seek friendship. I say that in the full realization that we are a small nation, but small nations also have their self-respect. I say that in the full realization that we may be regarded as insignificant compared with larger peoples and larger nations, but even to smaller nations there are things that they value more than life itself. In saying that, Mr. Chairman, I am speaking not only on behalf of this side of the House, I am speaking not only on behalf of the people who support me, but I make bold to say that I am speaking on behalf of all the people who love South Africa and whose home it is.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout concentrated in particular on the question of diplomatic representation. The hon. member adopted the attitude that our relations—that is how I understood him—with these emergent independent states will now be measured virtually solely in terms of whether or not diplomatic representatives will be exchanged immediately. It is true, Sir, that the mutual exchanging of diplomatic representatives is to some extent an indication of the friendship, the good relations existing among nations and peoples, but it is not the alpha and the omega as far as those matters are concerned. I want to go further and say that it is not the test of friendship among peoples and nations. We are all aware of the fact that there are nations which are directly opposed, which are noised to fly at each other’s throats at any moment, which are armed to the teeth, but which maintain mutual diplomatic representation. That is not the test.

Friendship may perhaps be measured to some small extent by the exchange of diplomatic representatives in the sense referred to by the hon. member. But the test is how they get along with one another. That is the test, and it is a very simple one. The truth of the matter is that essentially we have been thrown together here in Southern Africa, that economically we are so closely interrelated on the one hand, and on the other hand—and here again I am speaking not only of my side of the House, but of all of us; and the hon. member for South Coast in particular will understand what I mean by that—that we understand the mentality of the Black man and the Black man understands our mentality, and as long as the matter is based on sound understanding, I have no fears for the future.

In that regard there have also been references to the so-called Common Market, for example. The economic ties between the protectorates and us extend much further than the ties of the E.E.C. in Europe. Our economic affairs are much more closely interrelated than will be possible for Europe in the next 20 or 30 years. We have grown like that. Our history has brought that about Therefore, as far as the question of exchanging diplomatic representatives is concerned, although I do not want to minimize it, I want to adopt the attitude that there are other and perhaps more suitable methods of establishing contact with one another than in fact by the stereotyped method of exchanging diplomatic representation. The hon. member pointed out that these Black states which are becoming free were opposed to our policy. That may be so, for the purposes of my argument I even want to concede that it is so, but, Sir, that does not bother me. It has never bothered me if people differ with me. It has never bothered me if people are not prepared to accept my policy, and I now want to declare that to the world as well.

I can understand very well and I can fully appreciate the position that there are nations and countries throughout the world that are opposed to our policy, because they do not have our problems. They have not had the experience of the 300 years which English and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans have had here in South Africa. They are not faced with the problems that face us; I can therefore understand that they are opposed to it. I want to go much further even. I want to adopt the attitude that I can also appreciate that they cannot even understand why we adopt this or that line of action, or why we formulate our policy in the way we have formulated it. And for the purposes of this argument I do not mean only my policy on this side of the House; I mean even the policy of hon. members on that side of the House, because those nations and countries will not understand that policy either, once again because they are not faced with the problem as we are faced with it Therefore, whenever I come into contact with the outside world, as my position demands that I shall, I want to adopt the attitude that I cannot hold it against them that they are not prepared to accept our policy. I will not even hold it against them that they are not prepared to understand it, but as the Prime Minister of South Africa I have the right to expect that we shall be given credit for being sincere and for seriously meaning to arrange matters here in South Africa in such a way as to serve the best interests of all population groups. If we are conceded that, I do not think we shall need to ask anything further of the world or of anybody.

Then I come to the hon. member for Houghton. I want to thank her for her congratulations. She has had a local quarrel with my friend the hon. member for Innesdal. I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that she can love South Africa without loving me. In fact, Sir, if you will allow me to say this across the floor of the House, she would embarrass me if she began to love me. In passing the hon. member for Houghton levelled the reproach at me that whereas I was very accessible in former years, I had been less accessible in the past few months. That is true, and I shall tell the hon. member why—because the hon. member tried to take over my Department. The hon. member will understand that.

I now come to my friend the hon. member for South Coast, and I want to deal at length with what the hon. member had to say. The hon. member said: “We must accept each other’s bona fides.” I want to tell the hon. member that I am pleased that he has adopted that attitude. It comes from the hon. member, who is a senior member of this House. If that is to be the spirit and the character of our politics from now on. I shall welcome it more than anybody else. But, Sir, we shall have to prove that by our deeds. We shall not be able to leave it at mere words; we shall have to prove it by our deeds. Throughout my political career I have never flinched from fighting in this House and outside if it was necessary, but there is a way in which we may do so. While the hon. member was speaking about this matter, it occurred to me that we should search our own hearts in this regard. Now the hon. member must forgive me if I mention one example from the past to illustrate what I mean by saying that the future will have to show us whether these sentiments will merely remain words or whether we are going to translate them into deeds. Because I am personally concerned in it, I want to mention that example.

Does the hon. member remember how. when we introduced the Separate Universities Act—and I was personally concerned in that—I pleaded from these benches and gave the undertaking that what we wanted to create for the Coloureds in the Western Cape, for example, and for the Indians in Durban, would not be lesser institutions, would not be inferior institutions, but would be of an equal standard in all respects, that we were not doing that to deprive the people of educational opportunities, but that we wanted to establish those institutions, apart from the fact that it was our policy to do so, because we wanted to give them an opportunity to be students and human beings in the full and true sense of the word. Then we heard the argument of “bush colleges”. Can the hon. member remember the unsavoury incidents we had in that regard? Then the hon. member was not prepared to accept our bona fides when I gave him the assurance that they would be full-fledged institutions in every sense of the word. To-day they are standing there, the University College of the Western Cape for example, as a monument to the policy and the vision of the National Party, but what is more important, to its integrity when it founded those institutions. The same applies in respect of all the other institutions we have established.

Some of them are training colleges for teachers.

Mr. Chairman, in saying that the hon. member merely proves that he has never gone to the elementary trouble of making any inquiry into or investigation of the matter. I handled the matter for years and I can still remember it because I started with it, and because I was in charge of it I have maintained the closest contact with those institutions. I want to say that now, after a few years, those institutions have made more progress than had been made by our White universities after 20 or 30 years. Naturally one cannot expect them to achieve immediately the status of the Universities of Cape Town or Stellenbosch or Oxford or Cambridge, which are old universities. That is not the criterion. The criterion is the opportunities that are created, the quality of the instruction that is provided, the material that is made available, the progress that has been made in a short space of time, and the quality of the institution. I challenge any hon. member to point a finger at the quality of the education provided at those institutions. I shall return to this later, because other hon. members have also referred to it. I therefore say that if the spirit of accepting each other’s bona fides takes root, and if we translate it into deeds, it will bode much good for the future of South Africa.

I now come to the point that has been made, namely that everybody should now accept the policy and the ideology of the National Party. Sir, have you ever considered what life here would be like if the hon. member for Durban (Point) were sitting in my Party? Surely the atmosphere would be intolerable if we had such complete agreement? As I have said, I shall return to that later.

The hon. member for South Coast referred to the broadcasting station in Bechuanaland. I want to agree with what he said in that regard. I am almost tempted to speak not only about that broadcasting station, but also about the B.B.C. Speaking of the B.B.C., Sir, I want to refer to a hilarious incident as far as I am concerned. The B.B.C. put out a broadcast which happened to be about me, and I quote it as I received it. This is what the B.B.C. told its listeners—

[Interjections.]

I now come to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He referred once again to a passage occurring in the speech made by the late Prime Minister. It is to be found on page 17 of the published version of that speech. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition again that with the best will in the world I cannot agree with his interpretation. This is how it reads—

Sir, within the framework of the circumstances obtaining at the time, the Prime Minister made an offer to the protectorates. The essence of that offer was assistance. As I understood him, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now means that the attitude was: Because you would not accept the assistance at that time, you cannot expect any assistance from us at any time.

No.

Then I misunderstood him, because I honestly believed that that was what he felt. That is why I told him by way of interjection that the offer of assistance had been made within the framework of our policy, as already formulated. It still stands. But if the hon. the Leader will now concede that, there is no need for us to discuss it any further.

That is not the meaning.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition emphasized the fact that we should plan. He said that if we did not plan others would plan for us. Sir, but we have planned. Hon. members have already seen the plans we have made. They are included in the communiqué issued after the discussions between the late Prime Minister and Chief Jonathan of Basutoland. It is therefore not a question of our still having to plan. Just to refresh the memories of hon. members, I refer to the second part of the communiqué, which I did not have the opportunity of reading out this afternoon. It reads as follows—

In this regard I should like to appeal to employers to make it possible for those among their employees who want to attend those celebrations to do so. For our part, we shall carry out the further undertaking given in this regard. The communiqué then continues—

In other words, Sir, here it has already been stated very clearly as an example to the other Protectorates that the discussions can and will be conducted between officials and also at ministerial level. Therefore it is not necessary to create special machinery, because apart from that machinery there is the Africa Division of the Department of Foreign Affairs, which Division already has permanent machinery, has already come into operation, and has proved itself in practice in respect of these matters which hon. members on the opposite side have in mind.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the UN document relating to interference in the Protectorates. The hon. Leader is aware, of course, that that attempt at interference was rejected, not only by Great Britain, but also by the Protectorates themselves. One is very grateful for that. We are therefore not minimizing it. We know that there will always be attempts at interference. I now want to go so far as to say that if they have rejected them in the past, so much more reason will there be to reject them in future, because they will realize that it cannot bring them any good, but that what can bring them good is sound co-operation with South Africa, in spite of differences in outlook on policy. What we will have to prove to the world—and it is my profound belief that not only we in South Africa will prove that, but also we as independent states in Southern Africa—is that it is possible for race groups with different views and for nations following different policies to live in peace alongside one another in the same geographic area, despite those differences. I think that is the contribution we have to make to the line of ideas that nations are from time to time called to contribute to the ideas of the world. But I am grateful for the reiterated assurance of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he, just as we, will tolerate no interference in our domestic affairs.

The hon. Leader referred to Rhodesia once again. He levelled an oblique reproach to the effect that we would not have been prepared to take any risks ourselves for the sake of Rhodesia. Sir, the attitude of the National Party was very clear. I have read it to you. I do not want to repeat it, but when it is stated, as our previous Prime Minister stated it very clearly in this House, that we will even be prepared to resist pressure and force for the sake of the principle of maintaining trade, when that is said by a Prime Minister, I believe he has said as much as can be expected from any Prime Minister who seeks to serve the interests of his country. That proves how strongly a Prime Minister feels about such a matter, because those are big words, if one studies them objectively. I therefore say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that not only are we prepared to take risks for the sake of South Africa’s interests, but that living dangerously comes naturally to us—and I believe to all of us—when the interests of South Africa demand it.

I now come to my friend the hon. member for Durban (Point). How I wished, while he was speaking, that I was still a back-bencher! Then I suddenly remembered my present position, and now I cannot join him in his line of debate. I want to make it very clear to the hon. member for Durban (Point) that I have never adopted the attitude—and I know of nobody who has adopted the attitude—that a person is patriotic only if he joins the National Party.

Your members think that.

Sir, let us be fair. We have always adopted the attitude that we can be at one in the broad sphere of service to South Africa, of love for and loyalty to South Africa, without necessarily belonging to the same party. Now I want to be a politician again, together with the hon. member for Durban (Point). Of course, when we fight an election we set up each other’s policies in opposition and we ask the voters to judge which is the more patriotic policy, this one or that one. Then I have not the least doubt which policy to recommend.

You are dodging the issue.

No, Sir. The hon. member can accuse me of many things, but he can never accuse me of dodging any issue. I meet it as it comes. Of course. I could not agree more with the hon. member—and I am glad he mentioned this—that we should raise our standards in politics. I want to thank the hon. member for South Coast for, when he entered the debate a second time …

You have now approved of it.

Mr. Chairman, I honestly do not know what is wrong with my good friend. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana spoke English and I spoke Afrikaans, and he still does not understand what either of us meant.

That is not only untrue, it is nonsense.

The hon. member may take up the matter again at any time if he wishes, if he wants to make an issue of it. I have now told him repeatedly that we did not say, nor are we saying now, that a person is unpatriotic simply because he does not belong to our party. But I now want to tell the hon. member that the mistake made by many people is to equate the National Party with South Africa, and to think that if one strikes South Africa, one strikes the National Party.

Sir, I want to come back to the hon. member for South Coast. I am a young man who has been called upon to fill this position. I appreciate it that the hon. member adopted the attitude that I should enjoy support from everybody, and from all quarters, in view of the office I hold, and not for the sake of my person. I thank him for adopting that attitude. That does not necessarily mean that when policy is being formulated and when a standpoint is being adopted, I have to consult the Leader of the Opposition before the Cabinet and I formulate a policy. It means that I am called upon, with due regard for the dangers ahead of us and the times in which we live, and as it befits a Prime Minister to act towards a responsible Leader of the Opposition, to inform him from time to time and to discuss with him the dangers which threaten all of us. That was done by my predecessor. I intend following that practice. It will depend on the circumstances, but I want to assure the hon. member that there are no personal bad relations between the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and myself. It does not mean that we must draw closer together. I just want to say that we must understand one another and that we must approach those problems as responsible people—because it is the interests of all of us that are at stake. That is the spirit in which I, for my part, shall act towards the Opposition and in particular towards the Leader of the Opposition.

As regards aid to the Protectorates, let me say at once that we in South Africa cannot and will not and do not want to bid for the favour of anyone, as other people may perhaps be prepared to bid for the favour of others—and nor do I think that is what the hon. member for South Coast had in mind. I want to tell the hon. member how I think we should go about matters in that regard, and I want to take an example from our social work in the past. The hon. member for Umbilo in particular will know what I mean. In the past we regarded social work as a dispensing of alms. One salved one’s conscience by thinking that if one had given a man an old suit of clothes or shoes or a ration of food, one had done one’s duty by him. But in that way one did not perform upliftment and social work in the true sense of the word. One has performed social work in the true sense of the word only if one has rendered assistance in such a way as to help the man to be able to help himself and to retain his self-respect. I do not want to mention names, but I once spoke to a person belonging to a certain nation and I asked him: “Why do you hate another nation whose hand is virtually feeding you?” He said, “Yes, Sir, it is true; they do feed us, but you don’t want to be reminded morning, noon and night that you are being fed.” To me that was a great warning. We should take care not to call forth that reproach against us in our relations with those people. I believe that the active assistance we should render, depending on the circumstances, is that where there is famine, we should help with the means at our disposal to relieve that famine, and we have already proved that. That is the Christian charity that one should display, particularly if one is a neighbour. But when it comes to enduring assistance, one’s assistance should be such that that man, with due regard being had to the stage of development he has reached, is helped to help himself. That is enduring assistance, and assistance of true value.

It is an impossible task to reply to all the matters raised by the opposite side. I believe I have replied to the best of my ability to all the essential matters raised. It is in the spirit that I have tried to set out that I hope to discharge the duties attaching to this office of the responsibilities of which I am deeply conscious. It is in that spirit that I believe we shall best be able to serve South Africa and its interests.

May I ask for the privilege of the second half-hour? I raised originally with the hon. the Prime Minister a number of subjects which I felt, while they might not be entirely non-controversial, were at any rate less controversial. I want to proceed now to a number of more difficult subjects, and some perhaps more controversial.

The first of those is the question of the territory of South West Africa. I think that without any doubt at all the whole country welcomed the judgment given by the International Court at the Hague in respect of the case brought by Ethiopia and Liberia over South West Africa. I think we were all extremely relieved at that judgment and delighted at the decision that had been taken and the manner in which our team had comported itself. But I think there is no doubt that that judgment has resulted in certain very real advantages to South Africa. I think the first of those advantages is that it has deprived our detractors of a legal basis for demanding action by the Security Council of UN against us in respect of that territory, action which undoubtedly is much more likely to have been taken as the result of and in accordance with the decision of an international court than what we lawyers call ex meru moto, or as the result of action unsupported by a legal decision. I think to that extent the judgment has given us a big advantage. I think, secondly, the judgment was to our advantage in that it has made it clear that former members of the League of Nations, qua their membership alone, have no right to bring us before an international court and demand that we give an account of our stewardship in respect of South West Africa before that court, and to charge us with an alleged breach and seek a mandatory judgment from the court. I think there is a third advantage, and that is that even though the judgment has been dubbed a technical judgment, it is without doubt a very strong weapon in the hands of our friends. It is without doubt a weapon which those nations of the world who want to befriend us can use with great effect. Also, even though that judgment is technical in the sense that it did not pronounce on the issues basic to any successful legal action against South Africa, the judgment has the effect of gaining very valuable time indeed for the Republic to carry out its sacred trust of promoting to the utmost the material and moral welfare and the social progress of the inhabitants of the mandated territory. I think those are all advantages, but at the same time we must be careful not to read too much into that judgment. I believe it means probably a great deal more than the interpretation put upon it by the State Department of the U.S.A, in the statement given out by it after the judgment. I believe it means a good deal more than that and I think there is clearly much merit in the reply given by our Government to the State Department, in which emphasis was laid on points which were dropped by the plaintiffs and their acceptance, particularly, of the accuracy of the facts advanced by South Africa in that case. I think it was a great achievement for us, something of which we can be very proud indeed, that we finally reached the position in the court that those bringing the case accepted without question the accuracy of the facts put forward by South Africa in the memorial or the pleadings before the Court. I think there we made progress.

But I want to sound a word of warning because under certain clauses of the Statute of the International Court any judge giving judgment can add a declaration to his judgment, and in fact a declaration was added to his judgment by the President of the Court, Sir Percy Spender, whose judgment I think we all approve, more particularly since it was so clear and so decisive on the grounds on which it was based. What was interesting about that declaration was, first of all, that it does not seem to have found its way into the Press at all, and, secondly, that he deals very trenchantly with the importance to be attached to the individual opinions of judges, whether they are dissenting opinions for merely separate opinions. He concludes with the words in paragraph 23 at page 60 of the declaration—I cannot, however, agree that a separate or dissenting opinion may properly include all that a judge thinks the judgment of the Court should have included.

Then he goes on, in paragraph 24, to say—

I think that is a warning to us and a warning to our opponents in respect of the use which can be made of what we in common parlance might call obiter dicta. There are one or two judgments which have most remarkable statements in them which do not redound to the benefit of South Africa. There are one or two more responsible judgments, also, which unfortunately I feel we cannot use as the result of this declaration. Therefore we must not feel that we are out of the wood. The battle is still on; it is certainly not over. While I have said that the judgment in its present form has certain advantages, there is no doubt that it also has certain disadvantages.

The first of those disadvantages is that it seems that this dispute is now moving from the judicial field into the political field, because the impression has been created that recourse to legal action in what would seem to be pre-eminently a legal dispute is now denied to the aggrieved nations, whoever they may be; and because that is so, one can expect that political action will be invoked, in which legal principles and that nice regard for facts and law will be disregarded entirely. Political action will be embarked upon in respect of which there is a risk that it may be more damaging to South Africa than the legal dispute could ever have been.

Do you agree that that action would be entirely unjustified?

I wish the Deputy Minister would listen. I said there are certain disadvantages. This is one of them. Now the Deputy Minister asks whether I agree that political action would be unjustified. Sir, I have always taken the view that despite the fact that this territory has an international status, we have certain rights under the mandate and any attempt by political as opposed to legal action to interfere with those rights is not justifiable legally in any way. But unfortunately when people seek political action they do not look for legal justification. When they look for political action they are not worried about the legal niceties involved. The point I was trying to make was that because of the fact that there is now no legal recourse, they will take political action which will have no regard to the facts and to the niceties of the situation and probably also to the moral basis involved.

But you agree that it would be unjustified?

It depends on what the political action is. If it is to support us entirely, I cannot agree. Will the Deputy Minister get up here and say it is unjustified if UN now passes a resolution unanimously to the effect that it has no control over South West Africa and it agrees that we can go on administering it? [Interjection.] I wish the Deputy Minister would keep quiet. I said there were certain disadvantages. There are three points we should notice in this regard particularly. The first is that in a political attack on South Africa, justifiably or unjustifiably, the realities of the situation are that great emphasis is going to be laid without any doubt on the political development of the indigenous inhabitants, despite the fact that the mandate over South West Africa, in common with other C mandates, does not impose any specific duty to promote the political advancement of the nations under mandate. There it is in sharp contrast to the A and the B mandates. I am afraid that despite that we are going to find emphasis being laid on the political advancement, because that seems to be the only thing that interests certain people who are not well disposed towards South Africa on this issue.

I think the second disadvantage is that in a political attack on South Africa emphasis will be laid on the discriminatory legislation, some of the so-called apartheid legislation, which discriminates against the indigenous inhabitants, whereas in the legal sphere the mandate itself incorporates certain discriminatory legislative provisions. For instance, it provides that no liquor can be supplied to the Native inhabitants. It provides that no Native may form part of the armed forces. What is interesting is that despite the fact that there was discriminatory provision in the original mandate, it was never disapproved by the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations and the manner in which we administered the mandate was considered to be in the spirit of the mandate as laid down by the League of Nations.

I think the third point we have to notice is that in the political sphere undoubtedly action is going to be directed to trying to remove the mandate from South Africa. We see it already in the resolutions which the Afro-Asian bloc are trying to take at UN. We see it already in the entire manner in which they are setting up their strategy. We realize, of course, that in the legal sphere under the Statutes of the old League of Nations there was no provision by which a mandate could be terminated. It did not exist, but despite the fact that it did not exist there will be this emphasis on trying to bring pressure to bear to embark upon a course with that result. That all means that whereas in the legal sphere—and here the hon. the Deputy Minister anticipated me—argument had to be based upon fact and upon law and upon legal conclusions, in the political sphere it will be subject to sweeping moral generalizations. We will be subject to the use of emotion and arguments entirely divorced from reality in an attempt to inflame emotions probably in an entirely unjustified manner. But unfortunately here lies the real danger in the light of the nature of the organization, which at present is important in that regard.

But despite these disadvantages we have earned an important respite for South Africa. I think the problem we have to discuss to-night is in the light of these advantages and disadvantages and how we are going to use that respite. What are we going to do with the time we have earned, and what is our course of action going to be? While the case was before the Court, the political recommendations of the Odendaal Commission were put into cold storage. The hon. the Prime Minister at the time indicated his approval of them. They were put into cold storage while progress, and I believe some quite remarkable progress, was made in respect of economic and other material development in the territory. As I have already indicated, unfortunately it is going to lead to development in the political sphere, and it is to that that attention will be directed by our detractors in the outside world. It therefore now becomes of the utmost importance for us to know, and for the world to know, what the attitude is of the hon. the Prime Minister and this Government in respect of those political recommendations of the Odendaal Commission. Not only must we know what their attitude is towards them, but I think we must inquire into the question as South Africans whether they are the wisest steps that could be taken in respect of South West.

What are the alternatives?

I have suggested alternatives before on many occasions. They stand in Hansard. I will repeat them for the benefit of the hon. member later, if he so desires. I also repeated them in South West Africa. I went there in order to give the inhabitants an idea of what the alternatives were, and I think that stands on record. But I want to make this distinction. I think we have to examine their wisdom not only in the light of what is good for South West Africa, but we have to examine the wisdom of advancing the political recommendations of the Odendaal Commission at this time, when there is a tense international situation developing as the result of the judgment.

Now, one has watched what has been happening in South West Africa, although because of the agreement reached between the late Prime Minister and myself the matter was regarded as sub judice while the case was on and we virtually never discussed it in this House. But the time has now come when we have to see what is now happening. I think that so far the only political steps which seem to be immediately envisaged concern the White section of the population, in respect of whom, as hon. members will know, a co-ordinating committee was appointed to prepare the way and to examine the advisability of the administrative integration of certain portions of the territory. I believe that committee, presided over by the hon. the Deputy Minister, has submitted its report, and I want to say at once that I have no knowledge of the contents of the report, but obviously it is going to be of tremendous interest not only to the inhabitants of South West Africa but also to our detractors in the outside world. I think it is a matter which has to be considered very carefully indeed. It is in these circumstances that I think we are entitled to an indication from the hon. the Prime Minister as to what his attitude is to the political recommendations in respect of South West and what the contents of this report are, and as to how far he accepts those contents, and whether we will continue to administer South West Africa in accordance with the old policy of administering it in the spirit of the mandate, or whether there will be some other line adopted in that regard. Here may I say that the late Prime Minister, when he spoke on this matter in South West Africa, indicated the danger of certain international repercussions bound up with the political recommendations. He referred specifically, I think, to the Afro-Asian countries, but I leave it there. I believe that danger still exists. Perhaps in the present tense situation they may be as great as they were at that time.

But now there is not only this issue which arises. South West Africa as such falls under the control of the Prime Minister through his Deputy Minister, and is therefore part of this Vote, and there are a number of matters which I think it is necessary to raise. The first is that I believe, if I am rightly informed, that of the 341 farms it was intended to purchase for the creation of homelands for the various groups, some 314 have already been purchased. I believe the overwhelming majority of them have been leased back to perhaps the former owners or perhaps other farmers, but so far only one, if I am correct, or one small block, is used for the benefit of the Native population. I think what is worrying many people is how these farms are being cared for, whether they are being maintained properly, what the intentions are with regard to them, what the position is in respect of many of the former owners who accepted prices equivalent to the value of the farm at the time and have leased them back but now find that in a rising market, a market caused to rise by the high prices paid by the Government, it is very difficult to find alternative farms for themselves. I think one also wants to know whether this committee has recommended the transfer administratively of the control of certain departments to the Central Government in Pretoria and just how the various departments are going to be financed. Are they still going to be financed out of revenues from South West, or are they going to be financed from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Republic? I think one also wants to know, if this committee has made those proposals, what the taxation structure is going to be in South West Africa and whether it will be affected by those recommendations or not, or whether South West is going to continue to enjoy the type of taxation structure it enjoyed in the past. I think one also wants to know whether there will be a continuance of the payment of subsidies to the oil companies to keep down the prices of petrol and oil inside South West Africa, and if so, who is going to pay it? The justification at one time for the transfer of the control of these departments to the Central Government was that it was expected by the Odendaal Commission that by the year 1967 the income in the territory would only be of the order of approximately R43,000,000, and the justification was that we were going to pay the bill and therefore we could call the tune. I believe I am correct in saying that the expected revenue for 1967 in South West Africa will be of the order of some R68,000,000. I believe there is a surplus from the previous year of some R20,000,000. I believe I am correct in saying there is a loan from the Republic of R11,000,000. Thus there is made available for expenditure nearly R100,000,000 for the year, coming from South West Africa and not coming from the Republic. I think when one speaks of the taxation structure and when one asks questions about why there should be control, these figures have to be borne in mind.

I cannot fail to raise, also under this issue, the question as to what the plans are in respect of these homelands with or without the acceptance of the political plan. You see. Sir, the homelands, as envisaged in the report of the Odendaal Commission, have as inhabitants a very small proportion of the total inhabitants of the ethnic groups concerned. I believe in the case of the Herero only 11,000 of the 43,000 Herero are at present inhabiting the proposed homeland. I believe in the case of the Damara only 5,000 out of the total of 56,000 are at present in the proposed homeland, and one wonders what the form is going to be in respect of the proposed movements of population in order to establish these homelands. because nothing can be more explosive from the international point of view than trouble or difficulties in that regard. I think we are entitled to ask the hon. the Prime Minister not only what the plans are in that regard, but what hope he has of these areas becoming viable.

One remembers that when the good offices committees visited South West Africa in 1958, one of the arguments put forward by South Africa in respect of the territory was that it could never become economically viable and that it could not therefore be separated from the Republic. Sir, here we have plans for the establishment of ten independent homelands. If South West Africa itself could not become economically viable what hope is there for the ten so-called separate homelands to become viable in any way? Then one is also faced with the difficulty that there is a distribution of the ethnic groups without regard to the proposed homelands. I am not referring now to the northern area. The hon. the Deputy Minister and I know that the northern area is peculiar to certain tribes beyond the police zone; it has never been administered in any close manner by the Legislative Assembly, and in any event the homelands there envisaged already exist. But in the southern portion we find ourselves with something like 17 Native reserves; we have the Hereros distributed over 13 of them, the Damaras over eight, and the Coloureds over three and a large number in ethnically mixed areas reserved for non-Whites. Sir, it looks then as if in the police zone something like 166,000 non-Whites will have to be moved, of whom only some 25,000 are in the existing Native reserves. My figures may be out of date. They are the last available figures. I believe they were accurate when the last debate on this matter took place in this House.

I think this has become a matter now of some urgency in which it is vital that we have a clear statement from the hon. the Prime Minister, first of all as to his policy in respect of the political recommendations or his plans for the political future of the territory and then as to the wisdom, from the point of view of the territory itself, of applying these political recommendations and, lastly, as to the question of the possible exacerbation of international tensions in carrying out the plans envisaged by this commission. Sir, what I have said here makes one realize how important it is that we should have friends in the outside world, friends who can assist us in the political sphere. It is now no longer a judicial matter; it is now no longer a case where we can stand on the law and face the world and say that the law is on our side. It has now become a political matter and the result is that we have to adopt political strategies in order to get help and in order to get our point of view put across and accepted in the international councils of the world. It is for that reason that I have been so worried by what seems to me, as an observer, to be the deteriorating relationships between the United States of America and the Republic of South Africa. Sir, one judges the friendship between nations by the manner in which they tend to treat each other. Our trade relations with the United States of America are good; we import a great deal from them; we do a lot of business with them. But in recent months and years there seems to have been a number of unfortunate incidents which have exacerbated the position and, I am quite sure, have led to misunderstandings on both sides as to our relationship. [Time limit.]

If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not finished yet, I should like to afford him an opportunity of speaking for another ten minutes.

I want to express my very real gratitude to the hon. the Prime Minister. I feel that if I could round this off it would perhaps not take the full ten minutes but it would conclude the argument.

When I speak of unfortunate incidents which have exacerbated our relationship then I want to name some incidents in which I think perhaps our own actions have been openly criticized and some incidents in which I have no doubt whatever that the actions of the United States Government have been open to some criticism, very severe criticism indeed. I am at a loss to understand why this sort of situation should have been allowed to develop if there were a proper conduct of the relations between us. I say this in no spirit of criticism of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. These matters arise sometimes with the best of intentions in the world. Sir, let us look back over the past year or two. What do we find? We find this unfortunate incident of the Independence, that ship that was going to fight the communists in the Far East, and the refusal, amounting finally to a matter of principle, to allow them to land on our airfields in order to dock the ship unless there was a guarantee given that there would not be mixed crews, and the unfortunate remarks of the late Prime Minister at the time blaming the American people for the incident, and the very unfortunate broadcast over Radio South Africa suggesting that the whole thing might have been a propaganda stunt organized by the ship’s company and by the American Ambassador in South Africa. I know that attempts were made to put it right but it certainly left a most unfortunate feeling.

Then there was another incident. The late Prime Minister found it necessary to warn the American people that he could not tolerate their manning tracking stations in South Africa with mixed personnel. As far as I know there was never any intention to do that. I believe it would have been a most undiplomatic thing to do. I do not think there was any suggestion that it was going to be done. Why, Sir, provoke arguments on an issue of that kind?

Then there was the public criticism of the actions and activities of certain diplomats representing the United States in South Africa. Surely there are other ways of dealing with such a matter? Surely the right thing is to talk to the Ambassador about it or to make representations to the Government? Then there was the question of the recent visit by Senator Robert Kennedy to South Africa. The visit was a controversial one. It was a controversial one perhaps because of the people who extended the invitation. The visit was a controversial one perhaps because we do not understand the political methods of people in that great continent which to-day, despite all our criticisms, is the strongest bastion in the world against Communism. Whether we approve or whether we do not approve, whether we like the methods or whether we do not, here is a man who may well become President of the strongest state in the world. Here is a man who may have a very great influence in influencing the nations of the world in their attitude towards South Africa. Was it necessary for it to be decreed that he should meet no member of the Government and no public servant, as appears to have been stated? These are things which take a bit of justification.

On the other hand, Sir, I cannot criticize too strongly the refusal of the American Government to make available to us Cessna aircraft which we had ordered for sea reconnaissance and O’Reilly aircraft for the same purpose. Sir, those were not weapons of war. They were not weapons that we would be using for what they call the enforcement of apartheid; they were to enable us to play our part in the Western world against Communism. And then there was the interference by the United States of America in our purchase of Mystère aircraft from France, because they had American engines, Mystère aircraft intended to be used for civil purposes. It is inconceivable that a nation could drive its disapproval so far. Then, Sir, there was the statement made with all that unctuous rectitude, before the judgment of the International Court at The Hague was given, about the rule of law and how vitally important it was to observe the rule, the law of international affairs, and then no sooner was the judgment given when there was a post-judgment statement by the State Department of the United States of America, doing its best to write that judgment down to the absolute minimum. Sir, I am well aware that much criticism can be levelled at the activities of the United States of America through its State Department towards South Africa, and this is a formidable list; I know it is not exhaustive, but I think it must be common cause between us that the relationships between the two countries have deteriorated over the last 10, 15 or 20 years. It seems to me, in the light of the times in which we live, in the light of the circumstances in the world to-day, that it is absolutely vital that that deterioration should be arrested. This is not just a matter for one Minister. This is a matter for the hon. the Prime Minister, because it may mean the very difference between existence and non-existence to the Republic of South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister has made a number of statements since he has assumed office indicating his willingness to sacrifice on behalf of South Africa; I believe he will. I believe that one of the things he has to consider doing is himself visiting the capitals of other countries in order to see that our case is put and that our attitude is made known, even if it is not understood, even if it is not approved. I believe that it is vitally important to take some steps along these lines. That is why I raise it in this context, particularly because of the political stresses and strains which I foresee arising in respect of South West Africa and possibly also in respect of Rhodesia.

I am not rising to participate at length in this discussion, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will be able to understand. As far as the details of this discussion, which has now entered this phase, are concerned, there is the Deputy Minister for South West Africa Affairs, who is well-informed about these matters, matters with which I have of course not been able to acquaint myself in this short time. I want to admit candidly—and it is not a disgrace to confess that one does not know—that there are many matters the details of which I am not acquainted with and with which I shall have to acquaint myself in the course of time. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the report, for example. The report has just been laid upon my table; I have not even had an opportunity of untying the ribbon and glancing at the report, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will realize that it will take me quite some time before I will be able to get around to it. I shall get around to it as soon as possible.

I am confining myself to a few brief remarks about the verdict of the International Court. Those of us who are lawyers will realize what I mean when I say that the verdict of the World Court put me very much in mind of a will where the survivor died first. And when one has said that, one has said just about everything there is to say about that verdict. I would rather, very briefly, concentrate on matters in regard to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I are in agreement, and we are in agreement in regard to many matters which he mentioned here. At the present moment I do not want to go into those matters on which we differ with one another. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to certain aspects of the case which did not receive sufficient publicity. I think that the entire case received insufficient publicity and the Government also thought so, and that is why we gave immediate instructions that the best possible publication be prepared in order to give full publicity to that verdict. Hon. members are all aware of this book which has recently been published. I hope that this book, which is authoritative and which covers the case in all its aspects, will enjoy wide publicity. I hope that people will buy it and that in this way, together with other means which we shall employ to give the maximum publicity to that case, we shall achieve what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I would like to achieve.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the fact that it was being said that what we achieved was merely a technical knock-out. He also warned us not to read too much into the verdict—and I want to agree with him there. However, we must not read too little into that verdict either. My attitude in respect of the verdict is that our victory does not lie only in the matters on which the Court decided, but that our victory also lies in the matters on which the Court did not decide, because we were prepared—and this is the essence of that court case—to defend ourselves before the World Court entirely on the merits of the case. We went to the Court and said that it should judge us according to the merits of the case. We submitted the merits of the case to the Court. But our opponents ran away from them, and not only our opponents. Our opponents were really just a personification of the entire world group which opposes us in this sphere. It was not only Ethiopia and Liberia that were present in the Court; they were merely the agents of all those who have been up in arms against us in the past.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is quite right when he says that the case has now shifted from the judicial sphere to the political sphere; that is correct. In other words, in the respect that we are now back in the purely political sphere we are back again where we were in 1959, and we are prepared to meet this situation to the best of our ability. Hon. members have noticed what deputation we have sent to the U.N.—the best which we could send under the circumstances—to state our case clearly there. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs will join that deputation as soon as he is able. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, as hon. members know, is first going to attend the Bechuanaland and Basutoland celebrations. We deem it important enough for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to have to represent us at those functions in order in that way to set the seal on our standpoint. I have said that we were prepared to defend ourselves on the merits of the case, and we all know what happened. We know that the applicants ran away from the merits of the case. As a matter of fact, not only did they abandon the merits aspect, but we have to accept, and every thinking person in the world will also have to accept, that they conceded that the accusations which they had made against us were not correct. But in spite of the fact that they did that in the Court, they are going to dish those allegations up again outside the Court as being the truth. I think very few members are aware of the fact that our conscience was so clear and our case before the World Court was so sound that we made the offer to the applicants that if they wanted to call witnesses we would pay the costs of bringing those witnesses to the Court. I myself did not read about this offer in the Press; I only discovered it now in the records of the case. Where have you ever heard of a defendant going so far as to offer to pay the costs of his opponent’s witnesses? For the sake of the record I am just reading what was said officially before the Court in this connection by our advocate—

That is what our advocate said to the Court and, as the expression goes, “there were no takers”. One can understand why.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also referred to the United States of America. I want to say nothing more or less than that we are of the West—nobody has ever had any doubt about that—and as such we regard countries like the U.S.A., France and Britain as the leaders of the West. We shall, as we have always done, go out of our way to preserve and to maintain friendly relations, as far as it is possible and to the best of our ability, with those nations. Although we are of the West and the West need never conjecture as to where we stand, although these nations are much greater than we are and we want to treat them with the necessary respect with which a small nation treats a great nation, there is one thing which we cannot understand and which sometimes makes relations difficult, and that is that sometimes the necessary realization is lacking that we cannot allow, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has also said on previous occasions, ourselves to be dictated to as to how we should direct our domestic affairs. Any misunderstanding that occurred in the past, occurred on this basis and on these grounds. But I think that is a matter which can be more profitably discussed under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who at this stage is more intimately acquainted with the matter than I am. As far as I am concerned, I just want to say that that will be my attitude and my point of view. As far as those things which belong to the past are concerned, we have already stated our attitude and I find that there is no use in repeating it on this occasion.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the homelands policy. I just want to say a few words about that before I sit down, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will then have to excuse me for not participating further in the discussion. The Deputy Minister will then carry the debate further. The homelands policy is of course contained in paragraph 21 of the White Paper which was previously laid upon the Table. The White Paper goes into the details in that connection. There are two reason why that matter has not been proceeded with. I do not think the term “cold storage” was the correct one. but I shall let the matter rest there. One reason was of course the pending court case, because we would have come under fire in the Court and might even have run the risk of getting an interdict against us if we had done anything further in that connection. The second reason was the stage development in which these people found themselves. Other problems were inter alia the demarcation of areas The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is aware of the various practical problems which blocked the way. Now the court case is a thing of the past and attention can be given to those problems, but I want once more to make my attitude clear in this House as I did over the radio.

Our fundamental standpoint is very clear and we shall not depart from it because we believe that it is the correct one. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must accept my assurance that it is not only on philsophical grounds that we believe in it; it is our profound conviction that it is the only practical way of obtaining an arrangement where various race groups live together in a geographical area. But in that connection I just want to state my personal belief, namely that one must be very careful with these matters. It has always been the approach of the Government and it will also be my approach as head of the Government that one should not place the burden of responsibility on anybody’s shoulders until he has developed far enough to be able to carry that burden. That will be the cornerstone of my policy in respect of these matters. As I have already said to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the debate will now be taken further by the hon. the Deputy Minister, who is pre-eminently equipped to deal with matters affecting South West Africa.

I shall not confine myself to the court case and the exposition which the hon. the Prime Minister gave here in such an efficient manner. I shall confine myself to the questions asked by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in connection with my task as chairman of the various committees on which I serve. Mr. Chairman, the White Paper is very clear. The White Paper which was tabled and discussed here in 1964 dealt with the report of the Odendaal Commission. That White Paper states that there are three groups of recommendations. The first group of recommendations concerns the economic development of the territory, and in this connection the Government decided to proceed with such development without delay. The bodies charged with the implementation of those recommendations are in the first instance the Administration of South West Africa and in the second instance the departments administering certain matters in South West Africa, such as the Departments of Railways and of Bantu Administration. It was decided at that time to appoint a liaison committee to serve as a link between the Government of the Republic and the Administration of South West Africa and to see to it that that work would be carried out as soon as possible. This liaison committee consists of representatives from the South West Africa Administration as well as from the Republic. I may say that the liaison committee has met on six occasions and that particularly good progress has been made with that work which has to be carried out in South West Africa in terms of the Commission’s recommendations, so much so that we are up to date with the first five-year plan with the possible exception of the Kunene scheme in respect of which we have to conduct international negotiations with the Portuguese. We have made much progress in this regard. But I must tell you that this is an expensive scheme, a R49,000,000 scheme, and one simply cannot proceed headlong with its implementation without first having conducted a thorough technical examination and a very thorough survey of the entire matter. I may tell you that this technical examination is in progress now and when we are able to proceed with the scheme we shall do so. In the meantime a company has been formed—the South West African Water and Electricity Corporation—which has been charged with the implementation of that scheme and it is conducting all the necessary investigations and negotiations. The Corporation is well-equipped technically. As regards other developments the hon. Leader said that he understood that a great deal of progress had been made, and I may say that that is in fact so. Progress has been made in the field of education, health and the development of roads and airports. I only have ten minutes at my disposal and there may be other hon. members from South West Africa who may be able to shed more light on this.

Mr. Chairman, then I come to the second group of recommendations. These are the recommendations which required prior examination. I think that it is in this connection that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to a committee. The matter is very involved and on that account the Government decided at the time to appoint a committee, a committee consisting of experts and representatives from the various authorities. The committee has been appointed and consists of myself as chairman, the Secretary for Finance, the Deputy-Secretary to the Treasury, the Secretary for Inland Revenue, the Deputy-Chairman of the Public Service Commission, and the representatives from South West Africa are Mr. Du Plessis, M.E.C., the Chief Accountant of South West Africa and the Secretary for South West Africa. In order to do the best job possible I appointed a number of study groups, sub-committees, from every department and from every division of the Administration. They are officials with a thorough grounding and have been able to work out all the implications which I then submitted to my central committee and on which we based our main report. As regards finances I may say that it is no easy task to make an analysis of such a territory’s finances and to work out a rearrangement without the assistance of experts. Now, Sir, I may say that the report has been completed. I forwarded it to our former Prime Minister during May. He has had no opportunity of submitting it to the Cabinet—you are aware how busy he was during the Festival and subsequent to that he had to prepare for Parliament—and for this reason no decisions have as yet been taken in connection with the report. I presented it to our hon. Prime Minister yesterday and one surely cannot expect him to have studied it by this time.

As this is a report of a committee appointed by the Government and as I had to submit that report to the Prime Minister for his consideration and for consideration by the Cabinet, I do not believe that it can be expected of me to divulge the contents of the report here and now. And, Sir, even if I should divulge the contents, it would not mean that the Government would accept the committee’s recommendations. For this reason the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will forgive me if I do not discuss the contents of the report here and now. I hope he understands.

Then we come to the third group of recommendations concerning the constitution and the development of the homelands. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked what we were going to do in that connection. Now I have to refer to the White Paper to which the hon. the Prime Minister also referred. For certain reasons we have been unable to proceed in this respect. In the first instance it was necessary to acquire land for the purpose of enlarging those homeland areas. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was correct in his statement about the farms which had been purchased, but this is not something which has been completed and for this reason we are unable to say at this stage exactly where the borders are going to be. However, in the light of the recommendations of the Odendaal Commission we do have a fairly general idea. But until such time as the purchasing of farms has been completed—up to now it has gone very quickly and I do not believe that it will take very long to buy the rest—we will naturally not be able to take any final decision.

He asked, however, what was going to happen to those farms. When we decided to purchase the farms we made it quite clear that we would not force anybody to sell. We were going to buy when the owners offered their farms for sale. Their offers came very fast, so fast in fact that we could hardly keep up with buying. The fact that we have purchased more than 300 farms is proof of this statement. It is true that land prices increased at that time. It is a fact that prices go up when the Government buys.

The prices were surely not too bad.

The prices were not too bad, although many farmers maintain that they are bankrupt and cannot buy other farms. The matter has two sides: The man who sells is always dissatisfied and the one who buys is dissatisfied too. The one who sells says he is receiving too little and the one who buys says he is paying too much.

Then why do they sell?

Go and ask them. Personally I think that they have received very good prices. I think they have received very reasonable prices. We have a very good method of valuating farms—first we determine the “prairie” value and then make a separate valuation of all improvements with the result that the farmer is paid for all improvements effected on his farm by him. We paid more than R20,000,000 for those farms.

Have you given them an option to lease the farms?

We cannot buy a farm and then ask the farmer to move immediately. The farmer is not only cultivating the farm itself but also farms with livestock. We have to afford the farmer an opportunity of disposing of his livestock. In addition we were experiencing a period of drought at that time. It was simply impossible to ask those people to move. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I am sure we are all very interested in what the hon. the Deputy Minister has got to say about South West Africa and I should like him to go on.

Mr. Chairman, we either had to buy the farms and leave them unoccupied or lease them to the previous owner thereby affording them an opportunity of making other arrangements. The conditions were that we would buy the farms, pay for them, lease them to the sellers thereby affording them an opportunity of making other arrangements. You can appreciate. Sir, that because of the drought conditions in that area those people simply could not move away, because even if they had purchased other farms grazing was just not available. Consequently we leased the farms on a monthly basis, and not on a long-term basis, so as to enable us to obtain the farms on reasonably short notice when we require them. Sir, I want to say here that I myself am a farmer and that we most definitely will not be unreasonable and tell people at short notice that they have to move within a month’s time.

What are the rentals?

They pay 2 per cent of the purchase price. I conceded that that is reasonable. Now, Mr. Chairman, in the meantime those farms are either leased to the previous owner or to someone else who moved there on account of the drought. We are satisfied that under the circumstances we have acted in the best way possible even though the farms may not be looked after as well as the owners themselves would have done. The hon. Leader said that he had learned that transfer had already been taken of one small farm or one small group of farms. That is not the case. We have decided that we will not take transfer until such time as we are prepared to do so. In the meantime we are also leasing emergency grazing in that area to the Bantu who require emergency grazing. That is what is happening there.

We have one farm, a particularly beautiful and particularly well-cultivated farm, situated in the north which has been vacated by the owner. We immediately placed a superintendent on that farm and he is engaged in breeding bulls and rams for the Bantu who are in the vicinity in the Bantu territories. This farm will be a stud farm for those Damara homeland. The farm is situated at Grootberg near Kamanjab.

Now, Mr. Chairman, as regards the constitution of the homelands the hon. the Prime Minister explained and it was clearly stated in the White Paper that it was not solely as the result of the pending court case that we were unable to constitute the homelands, but that there were other reasons too, inter alia, the fact that the people simply were not ready to take over and to govern themselves. The hon. the Leader said that we understood that to be the position in the northern territories. Even the Ovambo are not capable at present of electing a legislative assembly and of establishing their own government. We are engaged on initiating and promoting that political development, just as we did here in the Republic in the Case of the Transkei. We commence with the lower levels and develop them into tribal authorities and in due course—it may still take a long time—they will be capable of being constituted. I think the group who will first be capable of being constituted will be the Ovambos. I cannot see other territories being constituted soon. I also have to say that the people will have to move from certain parts. One also finds that many people are living outside the homelands, as the hon. the Leader said. There are many who will have to vacate the area where they are living. We are not going to force them to do so. But I think that we will succeed in persuading them to move, especially if we remove them from those agriculturally exhausted places such as the Warmbad and the Bondels Reserves which are totally over-grazed to that part in the Gideon district where one has well-developed farms and an abundance of water and grazing. They do not take much notice of houses in any event. But this will not happen so quickly. One cannot be hasty with these people. But I am convined that they will move there in due course.

The population group with whom we will experience difficulty, of course, is the Hereros. But we have to expect that. We have to be patient with the people and we shall have to induce them to move by means of persuasion and the development of those areas. And, Sir, in this connection I may say that the areas are developing rapidly. We know. Sir, that one attracts the Bantu to places where one has water and grazing. All these people in South-West Africa are stock-farmers and they move to wherever they can find grazing for their stock. I am convinced that if we are not hasty and unreasonable with these people, we will in due course succeed in getting these people to go there Those who live amongst the Whites will perhaps find it difficult to move away. You know, Sir, they are earning good money there. However, I may say that the Department of Bantu Administration and Development is engaged on establishing proper settlement schemes for the Bantu who will have to move to those areas which we have purchased. All those farms are farms which have been planned by the Agricultural Department of South-West Africa. There may be a small percentage of farms which have not yet been planned but more than 90 per cent of the farms in South-West have been planned. The Department of Bantu Administration and Development is taking over those farm plans and on the basis of these plans it is now engaged on working out a settlement scheme whereby Bantu who move to those areas will be enabled to become well-established settlers. They will be under supervision and will start farming with a few head of stock because they simply cannot farm with just a windmill and a fence. The Department of Bantu Administration and Development is engaged on working out that scheme, and I really think that we will make a success of it.

I have to point out, Mr. Chairman, that we were informed in the White Paper at that time that we anticipated that a section of the population will not be ready in good time. I quote from page 12—

On page 14 it is stated—

And that, Sir, is one of the considerations which still holds good even though the Court case has been concluded. We realise only too well that we cannot allow pressure to be exercised on us to force the people into the homelands while the time is not yet ripe.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks further to the points made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the dangerous position which could develop in regard to South West Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister is entitled to know where he stands with his Opposition in regard to every major question affecting our country. Now, there is at the moment perhaps no question which is of greater importance than the question of South-West Africa. And I think we all know why that is the case. It is clear, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated, that the verdict at Den Haag was welcome and brought us great relief, but that it did not bring us much closer to a solution. On the contrary. Fervid plans are at the moment being made in various world bodies to take, as they call it, “effective steps” against South Africa, so that one is not always certain what to expect. In such circumstances the Prime Minister—and particularly since he is a new Prime Minister—is entitled to know where he stands with his Opposition, just as the country is always entitled to know where it stands with its Prime Minister.

Now, as far as this side of the House is concerned, I think it is necessary to remind hon. members of the fact that no party in South Africa has a longer tradition of protection afforded to South West Africa than this side of the House. It was the leaders of the old South African Party who fought in the field for South West Africa and who made certain at the conference table at Versailles that South West Africa would be joined to the Union. It was the leader of the United Party who in the second half of the decade between 1930 and 1940 gave a most decisive “no” as answer when Hitler began to threaten and claimed that South West Africa should be transferred to him. In 1938 South West Africa stood on the verge of a Nazi Coup d’état in the interior. And once more it was the United Party who put down that insurrection and which sent an armed contingent to South West Africa to protect the territory against a domestic take-over. Ultimately, when the Second World War broke out in 1939 and Hitler’s plans for world domination became clear, it was once more the United Party which did not have the least doubt about what the interests of South West Africa required from it. Now, the governing party of to-day opposed all those things and opposed them bitterly, but I shall let the matter rest there.

My point is, Sir, that in regard to the South West Africa affair the whole history and tradition of this side of the House is one of resolution and of protection, as no other party in South Africa can show. It has consistently stood out for the defence and the protection of South West Africa. And that is why there can never really be any doubt or uncertainty as to where this party will stand in times of trouble, if there has to be trouble. But it is also obvious, Mr. Chairman, that a party with such a tradition will observe very narrowly and with much concern the way in which the Government of to-day deals with the question of South West Africa.

Now, we on this side believe that the question of South West Africa can be solved peacefully. And the key to such a solution is in the hands of the population of South West Africa itself. When I speak of the population then I mean the people of all races. We have this advantage to-day for South Africa that the foremost nations of the world, particularly the leaders of the West, have bound themselves irrevocably to the concept of national self-determination in respect of territories which are not self-governing. That is to say, Sir, that the wishes of the population, of the people living there and who are involved in an international dispute, that they and their desires have in the long run to be the decisive factor. Now, it is to our advantage that this is so. Because it means that as long as the inhabitants of South West Africa, or at least the majority, want to remain with South Africa politically and economically, want to remain associated with us politically and economically—as we believe the case is—we will have nothing to be really worried about. And that is why I have said that the key to the solution of the question ultimately and on a long-term basis, lies in the hands of the inhabitants of South West Africa themselves.

In 1946 General Smuts held a referendum on the matter, and 83% of the non-Whites then voted in favour of political association with South Africa. A year or two ago the then Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, Mr. De Wet Nel, in replying to me said that, if such a referendum were again to be held to-day the result would be even more favourable. Why, whether that is so or not is a matter of opinion, Sir, but what we do know is that a population group such as the Herero’s, which has always been the strongest opponent of the South African Administration there, are singing quite a different tune to the one they sang at that time. Their fear of Ovambo domination under the system of “one man one vote” has now caused them to abandon that idea themselves, and they themselves are now asking for guarantees and means to avoid domination of one group by another.

What was the UN reaction to that referendum?

The UN reaction was that, in view of the fact that there had not been any international supervision it was unacceptable ….

No, they said that they were not competent to judge.

Yes, amongst other things they also said that, but that is not my point, Mr. Chairman. My point is that I think that the majority of the population of all races of South West Africa wish to remain joined to South Africa constitutionally and I think that sooner or later the solution will lie therein that, this being so, we must seek, at the right and proper time, the means to prove it. That is all we have to do. It is for that reason that I have said that the key does not ultimately lie in our hands so much, but that it lies in the hands of the inhabitants of South West Africa themselves.

That is why, Sir, our advice as Opposition to the hon. the Prime Minister is as follows. In the first place, concentrate on the people, the population of South West Africa. Give them all the education and all the training it is possible to give. Help them to develop. Help all the people of all the race groups to develop as quickly as possible. Let them obtain a share in the economic prosperity of South West Africa. That is extremely important. We believe that there must be economic partnership according to the Rupert recipe, and that that should be the guiding principle. The people should continually be made aware of the social and economic advantages which they are enjoying as a result of their political association with the Republic.

But, Sir, I also want to say that the Government must let the world know what is being done there in the direction of development, of economic development. A few weeks ago I put a question to the predecessor of the hon. the Prime Minister. I asked him to report to this House on the progress which had been made with the economic and social development plans which had been accepted two years ago by this Parliament. Parliament had accepted the economic proposals made in the Odendaal Report. And there was for the Government an opportunity of informing the country and the world in regard to the major economic development which is being planned, but I did not receive any proper reply. (Time limit.)

When the news was released that we had been successful in the South West Africa case, there was of course great jubilation in South West Africa. We realize, naturally, that the matter will not end there. On the contrary. We are well aware of the difficulties which lie ahead now that this matter has again been dragged into the political arena. Mr. Chairman, we are inclined to overlook what is actually the crux of this matter and, what is more, we only remember vaguely the true content of the mandate in respect of South West Africa. We are inclined to forget its details. For this reason I think that it will do no harm to study the section which has particular reference to this matter, viz.. Section 2, which reads as follows—

I want to draw particular attention to the words “as an integral portion of the Union of South Africa”. The original version was “as if it were an integral portion of the Union of South Africa”, but when the instrument of mandate was being drawn up, General Smuts himself changed these words to read as they read at present, viz., “as an integral portion of the Union of South Africa”. Accordingly, it is undeniably true that the Republic has the absolute and exclusive right to administer and govern South West Africa, and can manage it as an integral part of South Africa. In former years, perhaps because South West Africa is situated so far from South Africa and was at that stage not so important to South Africa, it was true that the Government of South Africa did not pay much attention to the government of South West Africa. The last legislation regarding the territory was passed in 1925. South West Africa was simply allowed to drift on without the provisions of the mandate being complied with. Notwithstanding what was said by the hon. member for Bezui-denhout—that it has only been his party that has done anything for South West—the first constitutional development as far as South West was concerned took place in 1949 under Dr. Malan, leader of the National Party, when South West was given its own constitution in terms of which South West obtained representation in this Parliament. The next important step, once again taken by this Government, was the appointment of the Odendaal Commission which, after a thorough and comprehensive inquiry, stated that it would be in the best interests of South West if the recommendations of the Commission were implemented.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout gave us to understand that the future of South West must be determined by all the inhabitants of the territory. I want to point out to him, however, that the indigenous peoples there, just as is the case here in South Africa, have not as yet undergone the development necessary to enable them to be able to decide on involved constitutional and economic problems. Accordingly, the developed Whites there, as here, have the task of making and determining the future for all population groups. It was for this reason that the recommendations of the Odendaal Commission were submitted to the electorate of South West through the medium of a referendum, and the vast majority of the voters approved those recommendations. These recommendations were subsequently approved in the Legislative Assembly by 17 votes to 1, and in this way the Government of South Africa was requested to implement the recommendations of the Commission.

I should like at this juncture to put a few questions to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the attitude of his party towards the future constitutional development of South West. It is of vital importance to us in South West to know where the Opposition in this Parliament stands in this connection. We notice that attempts are being made to effect a coalition between the United Party here and the United Party in South West. This development is, of course, not unexpected because the United Party here and the United Party there are virtually the same. Let me mention a few examples of this agreement. Like the United Party here, the United Party there was opposed to South Africa’s becoming a Republic, while the non-White policy of the United Party there is the same as that of the United Party here. Their political methods are the same: we find in South West that the mouthpiece of the United Party tells the world that we “are doing much too much for the kaffirs”! A few months prior to the past election the Leader of the United Party in South West went around there with the story that we begrudged the non-Whites a place in the sun. He gave to understand that they would not be allowed a place in the sun. But as the election drew nearer he, together with his candidates and organizers, shouted from the roof-tops that we were doing too much for the non-Whites in South West! The policy of these two parties is therefore virtually the same and that is why it is not surprising that they are seeking a coalition.

As far as the policy of the United Party of South West Africa in regard to the territory itself is concerned, I just want to point out that their attitude is that the mandate still exists; they acknowledge UN supervision over South West. We are therefore, according to their view, compelled to submit reports to UN in regard to our administration of South West. That is their official policy. Furthermore, it is their view that South West must develop to a degree of self-sufficiency where it will be able to approach UN with the request to become independent. Allow me to point out to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the consequences of such a policy. Rhodesia approached her own blood-brothers in England with a request for independence and what was the reply she received? The reply was that she would receive her independence as soon as the non-Whites there formed the majority in the Government. I wonder what the United South West Party expects will happen when they approach UN with a request for independence for South West Africa? On what conditions do they expect to be given that independence? I should like to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition what his party’s attitude is in regard to the termination of the mandate over South West? Everybody knows the attitude of this side of the House in this regard. We opposed the recent court case on South West on the principle that the mandate no longer exists. That was the most important submission in our defence in that case. We are in favour of a larger South Africa, that is to say, including South West, as soon as it becomes at all possible to achieve this end. We declare furthermore that we will not tolerate interference on the part of the UN. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Omaruru has contradicted himself. First he said that the two parties were the same and that their policy was the same, but immediately afterwards he pointed out the vast differences between the United Party and the United National South West Party in South West. The hon. member should know better. Surely he knows what the position is. Surely he knows that the Party in South West was founded in 1926, i.e. long before the United Party was founded in South Africa. Surely he also knows that no speakers of the United Party in South Africa appear in South-West [Interjections.] The hon. member tried to create the impression that as regards constitutional matters, the two parties are of one mind. In actual fact the two parties are separate parties altogether.

With regard to policy too?

Of course each Party has its own constitution and programme of principles. There is a radical difference between us as regards the question of the relationship between South West and South Africa. That has been put down in black and white. What they advocated was that the Territory should become independent and should then decide whether or not it wanted to join South Africa. We, however, rejected that because it is unacceptable to us. We have consistently adopted the attitude that South West should remain coupled with South Africa. With a view to that we prefer the federal or semi-federal system, but constitutionally it should nevertheless remain coupled with South Africa for all time. If our leader goes there to speak, he does in fact go by invitation, but he says what he wants to say in respect of his own policy. Surely there is nothing wrong about a person being invited to address a congress i.e. if he wants to go and is allowed to say what he wants to say.

I do not want to dispute the legal points raised by the hon. member, but I want to emphasize once again that this side of the House has consistently adopted the attitude that South West should remain part of a greater South Africa. We differ about methods. But I am less interested in legal points than in the practical steps to be taken in the future. Legally the matter has been more or less settled, and we are now faced with the political situation. We therefore believe that the Government should now concentrate on endeavours to ensure that it keeps the people of South West on South Africa’s side.

But we already have virtually all the United Party members on our side.

That hon. member can think no further than his party politics. That is why we are in so many difficulties today. I am not dealing with parties, but with South Africa’s interest in South West.

As the hazards mount, we shall reach a stage where we shall have to find some means of proving that the population of South West wants to retain its bonds with South Africa. The day we can prove that to the satisfaction of any observer, the world abroad will have no leg to stand on. America, Britain and the other Western countries are irrevocably committed to accept the principle of national self-determination. If we can therefore prove that it is the wish of the population groups of South West themselves to retain their bonds with us, then we have achieved the final solution. My advice is therefore that we should concentrate with all our power on the economic and social development of the Territory and on the upliftment of people of all races in South West to such an extent that they would want to remain with South Africa.

As regards the political situation, I want to suggest to the hon. the Prime Minister that this is not the time to come with negative measures regarding South West. I do not believe the conditions obtaining at present offer an opportunity for large-scale political initiative. We know that in South West the position as regards race legislation is somewhat different from that in South Africa. For example, no measures such as race classification, group areas and job reservation are in force there. South West is as yet free of those, and the Whites are contented and the Territory is enjoying a boom period. I therefore contend that it will not be advisable for the Government to produce controversial political measures at this stage, particularly not of a racial nature. In view of the difficulties we are experiencing at present, I trust the Government will not place Parliament in a situation where it will have to deal with contentious legislation with regard to South West. I therefore feel that the hon. the Prime Minister should move in these two directions: Firstly, he should see to it that all the people remain favourably disposed towards South Africa, and secondly he should refrain from contentious legislation as far as possible. If he does that, he will have a united Parliament behind him as far as South West is concerned, and he will also be able to rely on the future support of the inhabitants of the Territory.

I find it particularly strange that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout should now come along here and say that as far as South West is concerned we should not indulge in politics now. After all. he was the person who, when this matter was raised, began indulging in politics by referring to the particular contribution made by the old United Party in regard to South West Africa. The hon. member said that his advice was that we should uplift South West economically. But may I remind the hon. House of the fact that during the discussion of the report of the Odendaal Commission with its recommendations of economic development that hon. member together with all the other members of his Party voted against the adoption of that report? Now, however, they come along and talk about the economic upliftment of South West. If that is not political hypocrisy then I do not know what political hypocrisy really is.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the expression “political hyprocrisy”.

Very well, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it, but I have no option but to repeat it outside this House.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask whether the hon. member must not withdraw that expression unconditionally.

Order! The hon. member has withdrawn it unconditionally. Of course, I have no control over what he is going to say outside this House.

Progress reported.