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.