Last night the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a speech to which I feel I should reply briefly. I am sorry that the hon. member is not present at the moment, but I shall address myself to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It concerns the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in respect of the future relations of South West Africa with the Republic. I do not want to analyse the matter. I do not consider this to be a convenient occasion for doing so, but I do want to point out that the attitude he adopted yesterday when he spoke of a future federal relationship, he is absolutely inconsistent with the attitude previously adopted by the United Party. I want to advise the hon. member, as well as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to go back a little and to see what their previous attitude was, and not to allow himself to be guided by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout along a course they previously did not take. That is a matter which will be discussed later, especially when we shall discuss the report we spoke about yesterday. That is why I am asking the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to return to the road they followed previously, since I think that as far as this matter is concerned, it is necessary for both sides of the House to think alike.

Then there was a second point he touched upon, and that is in regard to the question he recently asked the Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, in connection with the progress made in South West concerning the development there. The hon. member’s question was as follows: What progress has been made with the implementation of each of the resolutions adopted and published by the Government in 1964 in regard to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into South West Africa Affairs? The reply to this question was that it would entail a vast amount of work to reply to this. The hon. member asked for full particulars about each of those recommendations. I am now in a position to show the hon. member the progress report containing all the information, which I have here with me and which I received recently. It would have taken me two days to give that reply.

May I ask a question? I just want to ask whether the hon. member does not think that it would be a good thing if full reports were made to Parliament?

I am coining to that point. It would have been impossible for me to give, as the hon. member wanted, an oral reply to that question. The contents of what we have done in South West is not unknown, because the Administration of South West Africa is responsible for the implementation thereof. The liaison committee merely makes recommendations. Together with his Budget, the Administrator of South West publishes a White Paper every year. Here it is, another voluminous document and it is a public document. All the minutest details are in that White Paper. The Budget is there, and nothing has been concealed. I can assure the hon. member that those things are known at the U.N. down to the minutest detail.

I am not suggesting that they are being concealed.

The information is known, and if the information is known or accessible, the hon. member should not expect me to furnish him once again with all that information in this House. Then he himself should do that small task of obtaining the information.

I feel that there is something I must mention, and that I should furnish a little bit of information with which the hon. member is not familiar. It is in regard to the rapid progress which has already been made concerning one of the matters he mentioned, namely education for non-Whites. The Leader of the Opposition also said that we had to avail ourselves of this respite to develop the people in South West as rapidly as possible. I can tell you now that the Odendaal Commission estimated that there should be 8,000 Coloured children at school in 1970. Even in 1965 as many as 8,578 Coloured children were at school. At present the number of Coloured children at school already exceeds the Commission’s estimate for 1970, and that is owing to facilities and better institutions which have been provided. As far as the Bantu are concerned, it was estimated that there should be 24,000 Bantu children at school in the southern sector in 1970. There were already more than 19,000 in 1965.

In the northern sector it was estimated that there should be 49,000 at school, and in 1965 the number was already 39,000. If we make such progress, we shall out-strip the estimate of the Odendaal Commission. Their estimate was that 60 per cent of the Bantu children should be at school in 1970, and if we make such progress more than 60 per cent of them will be attending schools then. If we compare this with conditions in the countries of people who are accusing us at the World Court and at the U.N. of neglecting the interests of non-Whites—Liberia, Ethiopia and all those countries—then they compare very unfavourably with us. Mr. Chairman, the same applies to higher education. In 1962, 181 Coloureds were attending high schools; in 1965 there were 471. In 1962, 82 Bantu were at high schools in the southern part; in 1965 there were 440. In the northern sector 65 were attending high schools, and the figure for 1965 was 261. I just want to give the Committee the assurance that as regards progress and the question of making use of this last opportunity, we are doing everything in our power to improve the position and I am convinced that by 1970 we shall have out-stripped by far the mark envisaged by the Odendaal Commission.

The hon. the Deputy Minister, I trust, will bear with me if I do not pursue the South West African line of thought because I want to return to an issue raised by my hon. Leader last night.

The position of South Africa in the field of foreign affairs and more particularly with regard to America is one which causes me great concern. I see South Africa as a small country with a not very numerous people; I also see a country that has played a role in the affairs of the world, a role which is not insignificant. If therefore I look back into the past as a South African I do so with pride. When I look forward to the future I do so with considerable misgivings. There are building up against us pressures of a kind and a magnitude such as probably no small nation has ever faced before. To contend with this will demand much from us. It will call for integrity, for character and also for clarity of thought. It is not emotional outbursts which will help us. In this particular case what we want to bring to bear upon the situation are not fiery arts but clear, cool and uncluttered minds.

Let me say right away that when I talk about foreign affairs my views are based largely on personal observation. Way back I decided that I wanted to see the world, and as I stand here I can truthfully say that from San Francisco to Singapore and from the Arctic Circle in the North to Cape Point in the South, I have been to nearly all the countries of consequence in the world.

What a man!

What strikes me and what also saddens me is the change and the metamorphosis that has come over the scene. Twenty years ago as a South African you could roam around at will on this globe of ours; you were sought after; you were feted wherever you went. And to-day how different has the situation not become. There is heaped upon us the enmity of most of the outside word; there is estrangement from our parent peoples abroad; we stand isolated, exposed and vulnerable.

Sir, one can hold forth on this issue and try to describe why this transformation has come about but I do not think it would be helpful. Let us not dwell too much on the past; let us rather try to determine where we go from here. I cannot develop the theme fully but I can at least draw attention to one or two salient aspects.

What you want to be successful in foreign affairs is an outward looking approach; what you want also is to have perspective and balance. What you do not want is to cling to a form of bi-lateral diplomacy which became outmoded even in the twenties. What you do not want to do is to be intracentred and inward-looking because when you do so your world becomes confined to what is within the borders of South Africa; then you come to see the Limpopo as the dividing line between the intelligible and the chaotic and you come to think of Pretoria as the fulcrum of the universe, and when you do this, Sir, you must of necessity withdraw and go more and more on to the defensive. But in this course there is for South Africa no future, only certain disaster. There is no sense in seeking the security of this House and to wax heatedly on the intransigence of the outside world. The battle line in foreign affairs is not here, Sir, it is in the capitals of the world, and that is where our point of view must be put. This brings also certain very special obligations upon the hon. the Prime Minister, as has been pointed out. Let me say right away we would not wish him to go abroad and to be subjected to indignities because this would reflect upon the dignity of South Africa itself. But we are playing for great stakes; the urgency of the moment is tremendous and risks might well have to be taken. Let me say also that I think the situation demands probably an unconventional approach to foreign affairs. I do not for one moment doubt it that our existing diplomatic staffs are doing the very best they can but very often their efforts are hampered because they are too closely identified with the official regime. But South Africa has that small cadre of top businessmen who move around freely in the world and who enjoy a measure of rapport denied to most others, and their services also should be harnessed in the interests of South Africa.

But I say that what South Africa probably needs more at this juncture than anything else is some visible manifestation of support from the Western World, and what is not always realized is that the Western World has to-day become largely synonymous with America. Since the end of the war there has been a shift in the point of gravity in international affairs from London to Washington. To-day your diplomatic standing is assessed largely in terms of your atomic potential and America controls more than 90 per cent of the free world’s supply of nuclear capacity. Our future is therefore irrevocably linked up with America. If there were to be another Korea or Vietnam in this part, who in this great wide world has the resources and is likely to show the willingness to come here to contain communist aggression? None other but America.

I realize that this relationship brings in its wake as far as we are concerned certain irritations but this might well be the price we have to pay for future survival. There is therefore no sense in a policy of deliberately goading America, nor is there any sense in trying to convince ourselves that America is plotting the downfall of the White man in this part of the world because this would be a form of political naïveté inexcusable in the dangerous times in which we live. Let us rather project ourselves and also look at it from their point of view. Let us realize that they are playing for tremendous stakes in a world about to be engulfed by another world war, and let us realize also that our existing policies contain elements which are repugnant to them to the extent that if we pursue them further we might well forfeit their goodwill for all time.

Must we change our policies to appease them?

But what we need more than anything else in foreign affairs is to operate from a firm base, a firm base of an enlightened and mature public consciousness. In the ultimate it will be the perceptiveness and the morale of our people which will be decisive. History has shown that there are two classical methods of approach clearly exemplified by the axis powers on the one hand and by Britain on the other, during the war. In the first case the people were brainwashed. Nothing but the rosy was allowed to penetrate to the public mind, and when they were put to the test there was complete and utter collapse. In Britain they approached it differently; they gave them the facts of the situation, and not even in the darkest days of the war did morale weaken or did the spirit of the people falter. This clearly, Sir, is the approach that we also must follow. But it seems to me sometimes that we are moving in a diametrically opposite direction. Look at some of the newspapers in this country. If the president of the United States says anything against us it is relegated to a back page, but if a second-year political science student from Tasmania comes here and pronounces in our favour it is blazoned across the front pages. Look also at that amazing example of a public utility; having gained a monopoly of our radio services it now harangues us day in and day out in order to persuade us that the whole world has gone mad and that all that can save us from the mental and emotional aberrations of a demented world society is that benign genius which emanates from Pretoria and once a year even wafts down here, and who, as part of a divine mission, is masterminding not only our destiny but also that of all mankind. But what, Sir, will be achieved hereby? Do we not see that the moment you come to think yourself right and everybody else wrong, you display one of the first symptoms of a deep-seated psychosis? All that you will achieve thereby is the exact opposite of what we desire, and that is to sap the self-reliance of our people, undermine their stability of purpose, turn them into many empty husks to be whirled about at will by the political winds of our time. That is why I say no, it must not be, Sir; let us have faith in our people and let us give them the facts of the situation as they deserve to have them, and then when we need them they will respond, spontaneously and generously as they have always done in the past, and then the situation might yet be saved.

Since last night I have had a little problem, and in this regard I should like to address myself to the hon. the Prime Minister. My problem is the following: Have we had here a manifestation of a change of face or a change of tactics as far as the Opposition is concerned? I found it very conspicuous that a few of the members of the United Party were not very keen on wearing political masks—I am thinking for instance, of the hon. member for Durban (North), the hon. member for Musgrave and even the hon. member for Hillbrow who were not occupying their seats very faithfully yesterday during this extremely important debate.

Mr. Chairman, deep in my heart I am convinced that this change of face is not as general as it is now made out to be. Neither do I believe that the harmony and the patriotism to which reference was made here and to which hon. members tried to appeal is as well-founded as is so often being pretended here. I found that two strings were harped on in particular. The first is the string of fear; apparently the attacks of the outside world and the possible implications they may hold for us are tending to give rise to an obsession of fear on the part of some of our hon. members. The other string which is being harped upon is that of patriotism. But through all of this we heard of the need and the aspiration as well as the recommendation that it would be a good thing for us to leave our own trenches and to go to the trenches of the major cities of the world. Mr. Chairman, my personal point of view is this, that we are not concerned with changing the soul of the world, but what we are in fact concerned with in the first place, is retaining our own souls. That is why we prefer, for the time being at any rate, not to forsake our own trench, and we shall also be consistent in our refusal to be misled in this regard.

Since last night I have also been gaining the impression at times that we shall perhaps soon—1 am referring to the change of face which has come about in the ranks of the Opposition in regard to our border industries—have the experience that our Bantustan policy as a whole will be accepted by the Opposition. Mindful of that, the thought has occurred to me whether we shall not soon have a Minister without portfolio, and that, no less, a person with an impressive British title.

Mr. Chairman, the debit side in the discussions as led by the Leader of the Opposition is, however, that people are not yet prepared to carry through this principle to its full consequences, particularly as regards the fundamental joining of forces with our Government. We heard here and it was even suggested that we should seek, if not buy, the goodwill of the Protectorates. I am referring to the suggestion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in this regard. But in the same breath the Leader of the Opposition observed that we had to be cautious in regard to the implementation of the recommendations of the Odendaal Commission as regards the development of the Bantu areas in South West, as it might present us with international problems in the sense that in one respect we want to promote freedom and in the other we want to try. to combat independence. I fail to find logical continuity in this argument and that makes me feel a little uncomfortable. It seems to me as though this is still a matter of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. The fundamental point of view has simply not yet penetrated fully to these people, and it is my conviction that we are still having too much to do with tactics—the propagation of the unprincipled modern diplomacy, as was propagaed here by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, is still to me the weakness in the ranks of the Opposition and its point of view. The mustiness in the thinking and the point of view of the Opposition is also proved in the point of view of true patriotism vesting in the illogical readiness to make war—the dear old theme of “the last war”. Mr. Chairman, as far as I myself am concerned, I want to adopt the attitude in passing that we are sick and tired of this “bundu” argument. We have people here who become hot under the collar, and the moment they are unable to raise a new argument, they refer to their bravery and heroism in the previous world war. I want to remind those friends that a great deal of precious blood, South African blood, flowed on the black, barren rocks of Ethiopia, that power which, in recognition of and in gratitude of what South Africans had done in the interests of its independence, plunged a dagger into our backs and laid a charge against us at the World Court. One would expect that if those people are feeling so strongly about this matter and want to think somewhat more logically, they would, as the so-called freedom fighters, consider the establishment of a fund for restoring the bones of those patriotic and loyal South Africans to their own fatherland, the symbol of the only true freedom-loving country in the world at present. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow the hon. member for Randburg in what he said here. I want to start by saying that I am personally grateful for the high level of the debate conducted under this Vote yesterday. I am grateful to have seen signs of goodwill on both sides to conduct this debate on a high level, for the good of South Africa. I am sorry that the hon. member for Randburg is questioning the patriotism of this side of the House … [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I am really and truly able to continue without the help of some of the hon. members. In listening to the hon. member for Randburg, I wondered whether he really wanted the support of the whole of South Africa and the whole of the House. If he wants it, why does he not accept that we on this side of the House are just as good patriots as hon. members on the other side? As the hon. the Prime Minister himself said, patriotism cannot be measured by taking note of the party whose principles one endorses.

When did he say that?

The hon. the Prime Minister said here in this House that he did not expect, nor did he believe, that patriotism was confined to members of the Nationalist Party alone, and that one had to be a supporter of the Nationalist Party to be a patriot. That is the way I understood him, and I think that is what he said. And, Sir, that is so. We may differ from one another, as I shall now try to indicate, but, Mr. Chairman, there are some matters on which we may not differ, and that is the continued existence of a safe and happy country, South Africa, for your children and mine.

Become a Nationalist.

There the hon. member says again that I should become a Nationalist. Why, Sir? I shall presently try to indicate four elementary prerequisites which I believe we in South Africa will have to provide and after which we shall have to strive if this country is to remain a happy country for all of us. I believe. Sir, that White trusteeship will have to be retained in this country for many years, for the good of each colour group of the country. In that I believe. I believe that my Nationalist Party friends also believe in that. I believe in national unity between English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners. I took the Prime Minister at his word and trusted him, and I am accepting what he said in his speech, namely that he will exert himself for national unity between English-and Afrikaans-speaking people. I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister now that it made a great impression on me when he indicated his first and foremost policy for the people and used these words.

If we agree with one another on these two fundamental, major principles, how widely do we differ from one another on the other two I want to mention? I believe that we as Whites in this country will have to conduct ourselves in such a manner, will have to make such laws and will have to govern in such a way that we retain the greatest confidence of the large majority of the non-White races in this country.

We have accomplished that.

The hon. member says that we have accomplished that. I do not want to argue about details now. We can talk about that for a long time. I can accuse you, and you will in all probability be able to accuse me. But once we have finished, what shall we have done for South Africa? I do not mind leaving this House and never returning as a member, as long as I am in a position to know that my children will remain safe in South Africa for all time. Mr. Chairman, I am saying that we shall have to conduct ourselves in such a manner that we shall retain the greatest confidence of the large majority—because we shall not get it from all of them—of the intelligent, average and decent Coloureds and Bantu in this country. That will depend on the manner in which the White man conducts himself in this country.

There is a fourth point I want to mention here, Mr. Chairman, namely that, although it is sometimes difficult to understand everything that is happening in the outside world at present, and if it is true that there are as it were two conflicting ideologies, that of the West and that of the East, we shall have to regain the friendship and the confidence of the Western powers.

If you will permit me, Sir, to elaborate a little on some of these points, may I just remind you of a speech made by a great leader of South Africa, General Smuts, a speech he made abroad many years ago under very difficult circumstances. He said that it was interesting to note how easily people were talking about the emancipation of the Coloured races, and that many years ago an attempt was made by Europe, by the so-called Western civilization, to civilize this Black Africa. Of those attempts nothing remained except the ruins in the North. Our ancestors came to the Cape 300 years ago, and while we were living with the Coloured races, we developed in those 300 years a policy here in South Africa, a policy which has withstood the test of time for 300 years. That is why we are now, after 300 years, able to look back with pride, irrespective of the political party to which we may belong, and irrespective of the sort of government which may have governed here, and to say, “There is the monument”. Our efforts over the past 300 years have effected the greatest monument as regards Coloured races in the entire world, because one has merely to look at the level attained by the Coloureds and the Bantu at present as against that of the Black states in Africa.

Who is talking now?

I am talking, Mr. Chairman. I am as good an Afrikaner—and my ancestors have contributed as much to make this country a happy one—as any of those hon. members who are now trying to laugh so scornfully. Sir, it makes me sad that when a person, as I am trying to do here this afternoon, is trying in all sincerity to see whether there are not ways in which we can get to know one another and work together for the good of South Africa, that kind of attitude one finds. It makes me feel sad. And I think, Mr. Chairman, that when we talk about co-operation, and we see the attitude manifested by some hon. members, one is made to feel despondent about the future of South Africa.

I am saying, Sir, that we as Whites should conduct ourselves in such a manner that we retain the respect and the confidence of the large majority of the Bantu and the Coloureds in this country. We can do that. If I am not presumptuous, Sir, I want to say that our actions in our everyday lives should be such as to enable us to gain that confidence and friendship which will be so necessary for the future. Sir, I wonder whether the time has not arrived that we should give South Africa a respite, that we should only introduce these Colour Bills if it is absolutely in the essential and urgent interests of the safety of South Africa. [Interjections.]

The hon. member should pay less attention to the interjections and proceed with his speech.

I think so, too, Sir. I am saying that I wonder whether we should not give a little thought to this matter; I wonder whether it will not be a good thing if we were only to pass those laws provided that they are in the safety of the country, while those matters without which we can do are being kept back for a little while. You see, Sir, I can understand the difficulties of a country such as America, which is obviously looking after its own interests. I am aware of the role played by the Black countries at the U.N. But in the first place I also fail to understand that the Black countries do not want to accept South Africa’s goodwill, because I believe and I know that South Africa has nothing but goodwill towards every country in Africa and, as a matter of fact, towards every country in the world. And when we have to spend billions here on defence, I know in my heart and in my soul that if the Government would be so foolish as to want to use those weapons for other purposes—something I know they will not do in any case—the people of South Africa, which is a Christian people, will never allow the Government to use the weapons for any other purpose than for its own self-defence. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened very attentively to the speech made by the hon. member who has just taken part in the debate. I want to tell him that there may perhaps have been an atmosphere here to which he may have taken exception, but I should like to respond to what he said, and I shall do so at a later stage in my speech. I am rising in order to link up a few ideas …

You will forget.

If you would keep quiet now, you, too, will know something presently. Mr. Chairman, I am rising because I want to address a few words to a newcomer who has made his appearance in this House and whom I congratulated. I am referring to the hon. member for Hillbrow. You know, Sir, he came here as a person who rendered a very fine contribution. One member after the other congratulated him. He posed as a scientist—he did not only pose; I accepted it as such. To-day I saw him in the role of a much-travelled diplomat. I might as well say at once that his maiden speech was by far the better one he has made, if I compare it to what he has given birth to to-day.

The hon. member said in his speech that there should be, what he called, “clarity of thought”, and that there should not be “emotional outbursts”. But, Sir, the hon. member was a scientist and yet he posed here as a much-travelled diplomat. But the pedantic style he used made him look like an intellectual giant who seemed to have an inexhaustible store of tongue-twisting, teeth-jarring jawbreakers. [Interjections.]

Order!

You probably did not understand him.

The hon. member says that I did not understand the hon. member for Hillbrow. But the hon. member who said that always hears me yet never understands what I am saying. Do not put me off my stroke. I am in a very friendly mood. A wonderful atmosphere is prevailing here. I want to get to know the hon. member for Hillbrow further. He reminds me of a former member by the name of Mr. Townley Williams, and his predecessor, Dr. Friedman. Do you still remember the language they used, Mr. Chairman? I am not casting reflections on those former members, but, surely, the Opposition does not have to make speeches any more, since they now have an intellectual giant who can write out all the speeches. They should only take care not to give the wrong “notes” to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. [Interjections.] Let the hon. member shake his head; it does not matter. The hon. member said here that our diplomats were not very good. But what about the speech made in America by our diplomat in Washington, Mr. Taswell? Do we not have diplomats?

But who disputed that?

You talked about a shock from outside. Wait until you get another shock. It is high time that the hon. member—he is a military type—should be sufficiently self-disciplined not to interrupt a Chief Whip. [Interjections.] The hon. member need not laugh about it. I know that when I rose for the first time, I did not get a turn to speak. The Chairman, for whom I have particular respect, asked me, “Yes, what?”, and then I answered, “I am going to speak”. And in order to make doubly sure I then handed in my name so that I might get a turn. And now I have to make a good little speech, of course.

Now, Sir, the hon. member said that a nation’s morale has to be good. Where does one find a small nation with a stronger morale than the moral ability to defend itself of the White nation of South Africa? Why did the hon. member say that? You may be a good scientist, you may be much-travelled, but to formulate a scientific foreign policy and to phrase it in the way you did …

The hon. member should kindly refrain from using the word “you”. It is not I who did that.

I respect the Chair, Sir, and I have something else to say to the hon. member for Hillbrow.

I have been in this House for years, and I seldom take part in a debate of this nature. I always listened. I did not think I had a lien on wisdom. I was the cleverest man in this House because I am contented to learn even from the smallest child. I want the hon. member to remember that. I also saw General Smuts in action. But to make a speech of this nature on foreign policy, to think that one has a lien on wisdom, to think that one can as a newcomer suggest a new basis and—even if one is in fact a scientist—to give oneself out as being a much-travelled diplomat by saying that the foreign policy has to be formulated in such a manner! Sir, South Africa’s foreign policy has become a policy of relationships. The greatest and the most critical period the world is going through at present, is in the field of human relationships. Even if they did come forward with the League of Nations or the Kellogg Treaty afterwards and now the U.N., they are international organizations because they endeavour to solve that problem of relationships. Because, Sir, if we do not straighten out the relationships between races and nations and even people, civilization will most probably destroy itself. We cannot isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. I want to tell the hon. member this. We are a small nation, but we must make a contribution at the altar of humanity. We are also dealing with a major problem, namely the problem of human relationships. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Transkei should give me an opportunity to speak, please. You have already had so many turns to speak in life that you dare not speak now. You have already talked yourself out in this House. You must also let me have a chance now.

Order! I did not speak.

I submit to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and I just want to bring home this thought. I did not want to take part in this debate. I was sitting here. But you know, Mr. Chairman, to-day I am going to take part in this debate quite a few times. Yes, I am going to take part again, and I shall tell you why. I am not a student of physiognomy, but judging by the facial expressions of the hon. member for Sea Point, it is quite clear that something is happening in the United Party. Something is happening there, Sir, and it is in the interests of South Africa. The hon. member need not shake his head, because he has a certain approach, and do you know what approach it is? The hon. member spoke to-day of a Bantu policy which was 300 years old. And which policy is that? It is the domestic policy, a policy which has developed out of the experience the White man has had with the Black man, and this experience we have processed into knowledge, and the knowledge into the wisdom we embodied in the manifesto of 1947, which contains the policy of development along their own lines. That is the traditional policy, the domestic policy. I see that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—the man who as a political traveller fetched petrol at that time; you know, when he was moving from one political place to another—is looking at me intently. Sir, do you know what he said here the other day about that domestic policy of 300 years? Do you know what he had to say about petty apartheid and development along their own lines? He said: “Even if you did approve that policy with an overwhelming majority, I do not accept it.”

Of course, I do not accept petty apartheid.

Of course not, but you are not against petty apartheid, you want to destroy major apartheid, because if you hold up petty apartheid as the small fox, major apartheid is the big jackal. That is typical of the hon. member. Mr. Chairman, I beg your pardon. I withdraw that word. I want to make this statement: What right does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout have to say that he does not want to accept this domestic policy, since, as the hon. member for Yeoville said the other day, it is merely an opinion of ours.

It is not traditional.

Is it not traditional? The hon. member does not know his history. [Interjections.] You may laugh, but you cannot laugh away a fact. History cannot lie. The history of South Africa proves unequivocally that the policy of just racial apartheid and of development along their own lines has grown out of the experience the Christian White trustee has had with the Black man and the other non-White races in the country. This policy is not un-Christian. The hon. member for Sea Point spoke about Christian White trusteeship. I want to congratulate him. As far as Christian trusteeship is concerned, words of wisdom poured forth from the lips of the hon. member. I want to prove that. It is history that has given rise to the fact that the White nation is the Christian trustee. It is not because we are White or because the others are Black. It is an historic fact, not so? Such White trusteeship is based on three indispensable fundamentals. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, the Chief Whip on the other side and I have been together in this House for many years. I must admit that I have never heard him speak so slowly.

If my rate of speaking had to be as rapid as your deterioration, there would be a speed record.

Mr. Chairman, there are people who have played various roles in life. It seems to me as though the hon. the Chief Whip could not decide today whether he had to take the role of a Chief Whip or that of a clown. But that is not a matter I want to raise with the hon. the Prime Minister. Up to this stage we have been discussing foreign affairs. I should now like to talk about certain matters of interest as far as the interior is concerned. In some of his speeches he said that he would of course remain true to the colour policy of the late Prime Minister. But in that regard there is one matter that worries me, namely that the Coloured policy of this Government, as set out in the past, does in fact clash with the philosophy of the Nationalist Party as regards matters relating to colour. That philosophy, as I understand it, is that various races of various colours at various stages of development, cannot live together in harmony within the framework of one state.

Steps have to be taken therefore to break up South Africa, if necessary, to minimize the points of contact—which they regard as points of friction—and quite possibly to allow those separate states to gain sovereign independence. The essence of the policy, as I understand it, is that we in South Africa are not separate communities, but separate nations in fact. The question which occurs to me now is what exactly is the position in regard to the Coloured community in South Africa. Another question which occurs to me is what is the position of a nation without a territory of its own. Therefore I want to ask the Prime Minister pointedly to-day whether he also regards the Coloureds as a separate nation in South Africa. If so, how will he see to it that the Coloureds realize that separate nationhood? Separate nationhood requires, with justification, a territory which is their own, a separate government and sovereignty which is their own.

In the past we have heard from the Government of a state within a state for the Coloured community. We have heard that they would be granted certain rights, but that they will never be granted rights which will go further than those. We have heard quite a number of explanations of the Nationalist Party’s Coloured policy. We also know that there are differences in the ranks of the Nationalist Party [interjections] in regard to the best solution for the distant future. It is of no use simply to shout out now that there are no such differences. Differences are only lacking where people have ceased to think. I know that hon. members on the other side do think. They are giving a great deal of attention to this matter.

Wishful thinking has never yet brought a Leader of the Opposition to power.

No, but well-founded questions do in fact require replies. What I should like to know from the Prime Minister is this: Does he regard this section of our community as a separate nation? What are his views as regards their future here in South Africa, since up to the present one has been unable to apply logic to the solution offered by the Nationalist Party? It has become apparent to me that there has been a gap as regards Government policy and the colour philosophy in regard to these people. It is my opinion, Sir, that both non-Whites and Whites are entitled to a clear explanation of the policy and of what the Prime Minister envisages for the Coloureds in South Africa.

Then there is a second question I want to raise. It refers to the Bantu policy of the Government. I have already set out the substance of that policy. It is natural that there are separate nations here in South Africa, that they should be developed separately in separate areas, and, as I have said, that it is being accepted that they may possibly develop to such an extent that they may be granted sovereign independence. But the question is: Where is the emphasis to be laid now as regards this Native policy in South Africa? Proceeding on the point of view that they are separate nations, I know that it is the Government’s view that the homelands should be developed for the separate nations and that as many Natives as possible should be accommodated in them and that the border industries should, for the greater part, contribute to this. Now I want to ask whether the Prime Minister believes that the preponderance of our industrial development can be transferred to the border industries, or does he believe that we in the existing White industrial areas can make do with considerably fewer Native labourers, especially with a view to the programme of economic development here in South Africa?

I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister must tell us what the role is to be and what the position is to be of the Natives who have to remain in the existing White areas. There will in any case always be Natives in the existing White areas. Everybody on the other side of the House admits that. Even if their numbers are stabilized and even if those numbers become even smaller than they are at present, there will always be Natives. I should like the hon. the Prime Minister to give us a specific idea as to what his reply is to this type of question. In the first place, what will their position be socially? Will they be regarded as unattached migratory labourers for ever? What is the position to be as regards their family life in the future, facilities for taking care of them and for the education of their children, if they are not to be unattached migratory-labourers only? What is their position to be economically? Will they or will they not be allowed to do more responsible work here in the White areas.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s time has expired.

If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to finish his point, I should like to give him the opportunity of doing so.

I am most appreciative of this concession. I shall not be more than a few minutes. What will be the political rights and status of these people who will have to remain permanently in the White areas? This I ask because I think the hon. member must accept that in the long run they will not be satisfied with exercising political rights in distant countries, where they have no immediate interests. Those are questions I very much wanted to ask the hon. the Prime Minister so that we may have an idea of what he visualizes for the future, not only as regards the Coloured community of South Africa, but also the Bantu, and what his plans are for their development. Does he intend to continue with the establishment of Bantu authorities, and is it his intention to consolidate all Bantu homelands with a view to more sovereign states, and what steps can we expect in that regard?

I want to begin with the hon. member for Hillbrow. The hon. member stated that what we needed was not fiery hearts but cool heads. I beg to differ with the hon. member. I want to tell him that we need both. If a man does not have a heart, he can have the intellect of ten other people, but he cannot serve his own people as he ought. The Creator has not only given us cool intellects, he has also given us the hearts within us. If he asks me what my standpoint is, as he did in that connection, then I want to tell him that I must, that I am compelled, to regard all matters realistically, but that I may never dissociate myself. That is the language one’s heart speaks. I may never dissociate myself from what his forefathers and mine were prepared to sacrifice everything for here in South Africa.

I listened with very great attention to the first part of the speech made by the hon. member for Sea Point. The hon. member has the right to ask me whether I want to, and will, seek friendship with the countries which be mentioned. I want to agree with the hon. member. We must do so, and I shall go out of my way to seek friendship, to try to avoid misunderstanding. This is what I said in my radio broadcast, and because my time was limited I could do no more than express what I felt in my heart. There was no time to consider matters first. On that occasion I said that if it were necessary I would be prepared to suffer personal humiliation, but that the honour of the country may never be violated. That is the basis on which I shall conduct my foreign policy. In other words, I am prepared, and this side of the House is prepared with me, at all times to do everything possible without abandoning any principles. Since the hon. member asked me in general what my attitude was, I am telling him what it is in general, for naturally we cannot discuss specific matters now. I should have liked to do so, but because I am in a responsible position and have just succeeded to that position I do not think it would be fitting for me to make any pronouncements. I must first make sure of all the facts and of every situation in which I might find myself. I must first explore what there is to discover in that sphere. I am prepared to state my policy in broad outline to hon. members as soon as I have done that. At the moment, naturally, I can only indicate the principles and state the foundation on which they rest.

I now come to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He made a statement which I may perhaps have misunderstood. That statement was that it was our policy, or it was the standpoint of my predecessor, that different colour groups could of necessity not live in harmony in the same geographical unit.

One political unit.

No, that has never been the standpoint of this side of the House and it was never the standpoint of my esteemed predecessor. What has our standpoint been? Our standpoint has at all times been that it is possible for different race groups to live in harmony within one political unit, but that it is a prerequisite then that they should live separately, otherwise it could not happen. That has been the standpoint of this side of the House, and we went further and said that, in respect of the Bantu … and the hon. member asked me what my standpoint in that regard was and I now want to give it to him. He asked: “What about the Bantu?” Our standpoint has been that it is better, while they have to be there within one geographical unit, and if one is able to do so, to give each one of them his own territory in which to live. Now, we often heard from my predecessor here that the Coloureds, although there are certain areas which belong to them, unfortunately do not have a homeland in the sense in which the Bantu have theirs, and of course the same applies to the Indians. But what is the basis of our Bantu policy? This we must understand, and this is also what makes it so difficult for people abroad to understand our standpoint, and in that connection they are helped along towards misunderstanding as a result—and I am not saying this in a reproachful spirit now—of the standpoint adopted by hon. members on the opposite side, and I shall tell you why, Sir. The continuous harping on the same string that our policy is impossible because we have 87 per cent of the land and they have only 13 per cent makes it difficult for people abroad to understand our policy. I have noticed that in the Eastern Cape there is at the moment a very well-meaning but rather ridiculous idea making the rounds, an idea which emanated from the Editor of the East London Daily Despatch. But that just in passing. I may just say that it is being done in good faith, but that it is, of course, a matter which one cannot even consider, because of all the implications which it has. It is a dream policy, but it simply does not take practical reality into account. I am talking about East London’s policy now.

There are others who talk like that too.

Yes, we live in a democratic country; any man has the right to be foolish if he wishes.

Mr. Chairman, what is the basis of our Bantu policy? It is true that on the whole 87 per cent of the land belongs to us and 13 per cent to the Bantu, but that 13 per cent is the best land which we have in South Africa. Just take Pondoland, for example. We do not have much in the way of land as that land is judged by experts on that subject. But we have frequently argued about this matter already. Included in our land are all the desert areas and all the other uninhabitable areas, but for the moment I shall let the matter rest there. Surely it is history which has determined which land belongs to us? Surely we did not steal it; surely we did not acquire it unlawfully? It came into our possession legally. Just as the land which France has belongs to it to-day and just as the land which the Netherlands has belongs to it, so the land which the White man has belongs to us. History, and not you and I who are sitting in this House, has determined what land belongs to us, and just as little as the Netherlands can say to Germany, “You have a larger part of Europe; I want a piece of Germany”, and just as little as Belgium can say to France, “You have too much of Europe; I want a piece of France”, just as little does any nation (and here I am not referring to the Bantu, I am referring to any other people) have the right to approach us in terms of any international law or custom and say, “I want your land because you have more than I have”. There is no such rule in international law; there is no such rule in private law. If my neighbour becomes so prolific that his plot abounds with his children, surely he cannot come and claim my plot for them to play on? Such a rule simply does not exist. That is the sort of thing which one must simply accept in life because it is so.

I now want to mention another reason why people misunderstand us. It is an historical fact—and I am not saying this in order to reproach Britain—that if Britain had not annexed Bechuanaland, Bechuanaland would not have been obtaining its independence on 30th September. It would have been independent all along. If Britain had not annexed Swaziland, Swaziland would not be obtaining its independence now. It has never been our policy in South Africa to annex territories. Our policy in South Africa has been to acknowledge tribes in the places where they lived and we have protected them as far as their territories were concerned. Mr. Chairman, we are too shy—and when I talk about “we” then I am talking about both sides of the House—we are too shy; we hide our light under a bushel; we should be more inclined to shout it from the rooftops. If it had not been the policy of our forefathers—and now I am talking about both sides of the House, I am talking about the Vorsters and the Mitchells—if our forefathers had not protected the proprietary rights of the Black man he would not have had an inch of land to-day. The White man with his greater capital resources, his initiative and his ability to work would have had all the land in his possession long ago; we have seen it happen throughout the world. But our forefathers, the 1820 Settlers and the Voortrekkers, realized that the land on which the Black man had established himself, the land which the Bantu claimed as their own, had to remain the land of the Black man. What is the basis of my political philosophy? The basis of my political philosophy is this: If the Black man should come to me to-day and say, “I want political rights,” then I shall say to him: “You can get political rights, but you can only get them in your own territory and over your own people, as is fitting, but over my people and in my territory I am not prepared to share them with you”. That is also my reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition where he has asked me: “What about the Black people working in the Republic?” I have never regarded the fact that one works in a country as giving one the right to have a seat in the Parliament of that country. I have never taken that view and I never will either. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asks me, “What about the political rights of those people?” then I say to him, “I stand here, committed, as the leader of a political party whose standpoint it is that those people shall not exercise their political rights in this Parliament where you and I are sitting to-day; I am absolutely committed to that platform and that is my standpoint.” If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asks me where they can exercise their political rights, then I say, without taking up the time of the Committee unnecessarily, that they can exercise their political rights in their own territories. That is the principle; the road is open to them. If they want to work here they are welcome to do so. We need them, it is true, but far too much emphasis is being laid upon this aspect and I am saying this for the benefit, inter alia, of the hon. member for Houghton. It is true that they work for us and that we need their labour, but they need us much more than we need them. We could still manage after a fashion, but let us consider the matter from the other side as well. If we did not create avenues of employment for those people, what would become of them? Once again I am talking about all of us. We have a proud history to hold up to the world in that respect. Not one of us need feel ashamed. Never in the history of the world have 3,000,000 Whites carried as many non-Whites as the Whites of South Africa, Afrikaans and English speaking, are doing, and that is why, if the rest of the world is suffering from a feeling of guilt in this connection, an exaggerated feeling of guilt, and want to off-load it onto our shoulders, we say to them, “We may have many faults, and we have, but there is one thing you can never reproach us with: we have no feeling of guilt in respect of this matter; we may have a feeling of guilt in respect of many matters, but in respect of this matter we do not have one.” Because we have to the best of our ability, and according to our lights, carried and guided and systematically uplifted these people until they occupy the foremost position in the ranks of Black African people which we know to-day. We all know the facts; it is not necessary for me to mention statistics in this connection. That is why, as I said yesterday, the Black people understand us. The Black people in South Africa have no quarrel with us. They understand us and we understand them. If the world will only leave us in peace, they and we will ultimately prove to the world that we can take care of our own affairs here.

I therefore say, Mr. Chairman, that if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asks me, “What about those who have remained behind?” then I shall say that my party has in principle created a policy whereby they can exercise their political rights in those areas where they came from. And please do not tell me—and now I know what I am talking about because I, as did the hon. member for Yeoville, grew up on the border of the Transkei, we come from the same part of the world and we know—that those people do not know where their homelands are. I worked in the courts of our country for many years and I put it to the test there on many occasions. Because I have an intense interest in the matter I made a point of discussing these matters with every Bantu I came into contact with. He might have been away for 50 or 60 years, but he knows who his chief is, he knows to which tribe he belongs and he knows where he comes from. And our course is clear—I am now coming to the subject about which my hon. friend behind me here knows much more than I do—our course is clear. It is not to break down his innate pride and what is his own, but to strengthen and to increase the pride in what is his own. You know, Sir, because I am a Nationalist I am not afraid of any other Nationalist, whether he is Black or White, because true Nationalism implies love for one’s own and the man who has a love for what is his own does not desire what belongs to another person; he only desires what is his own and what is his due. I am afraid of Nationalism which has run wild and which has degenerated into Imperialism or what have you—we are all acquainted with that. But I see no danger in true Nationalism. Pride in what is one’s own is not a danger to us, it is a guarantee to us, for a man who wants to be himself will not try to step into somebody else’s shoes. That is how I see that development, and to reply now to the question put by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: If there are some of them who want political rights, then I say that they can go and exercise the rights in their own areas. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asks me whether we are going to create more homelands. We say, “Yes, our policy is very clear in that regard.” We shall move in that direction, always taking into consideration, as I also said over the radio the other night, that one may not place more responsibility upon the shoulders of people than they can carry. With due allowance for that principle the policy of our party is very clear and the framework has been established. It is not necessary for me to go into that.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asks me: “What about the Coloureds?” It is true, as I have said, that they do not have their own area in the same way as the Bantu has his own area. There are certain home areas and we are trying to develop those areas for them and to make them as attractive as we possibly can. We have stated our policy, and it is not an impossible one. I do not even want to argue with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as to whether or not there is any precedent for it in the world, because you know, Sir, my standpoint is, and during the years I held the Justice portfolio I also thought so, that we rely too much on precedent. During the five years I handled the Department of Justice I did not attach undue importance to precedents. For me the question was merely whether something was right or whether it was wrong. Now we have to deal with the Coloureds, and let us now be honest and fair. We must tell the Coloureds that we are prepared to absorb them in their entirety, not only politically, but we must tell the Coloureds that we are prepared to live with them, in other words, we must do away with residential separation altogether and we must tell them that we have no objection to absorbing them biologically. That is the one point of view. Either that, or you must say to the Coloureds, honestly and candidly, as my side of the House, the National Party, is saying to them, that they are a distinctive minority group, and not only a distinctive minority group, but a distinctive minority group which, in addition, comprises various subsidiary groups which are widely divergent at this moment with little of a common basis, with little of that which makes up a nation; sometimes the association is rather loose, sometimes it is a little closer.

In other words, what must we do? Now I am saying, quite purposefully, that we may not play the Coloureds false. We may not proffer them something which we are not prepared to give them. In other words, Mr. Chairman, where there are traditional dividing lines between Whites and Coloureds we may not assail those dividing lines unless we are prepared to absorb the Coloureds politically, socially and biologically. I say that that is a crime against that group which has not yet found itself, which is only in the process of finding itself, thanks to the positive policy of this side of the House—while that group is in the process of finding its own soul it would be a crime to assail the dividing lines between White and non-White without being prepared to tell them that one is prepared to absorb them in the way which I have just mentioned here.

One is dealing here with a minority group, and as far as that minority group is concerned, Sir, you have heard what my Party’s standpoint is in respect of the Coloured Council, in respect of what we intend giving them, those powers which we are prepared to grant them as and when they are constituted and as and when they have reached such a level of development that they can carry the responsibilities associated therewith.

As the development takes place our policy will naturally develop as far as this matter is concerned. All that we can do now is to indicate the road for the Coloured people to take. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition puts questions to me. As has been my wont in Parliament for many years, I am furnishing him with candid replies, but at the same time I am asking the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for an equally candid reply. I am indicating the road for the Coloureds to follow as their own road. I am indicating the road in broad outline, without going into details. I would be foolish if I now tried to go into details at this stage, and in any case my hon. colleague, the Minister of Coloured Affairs, can, when his Vote is under discussion, and because he knows, and has to know, more about the matter than I do, furnish you with further particulars. That is not the point now, since we are arguing only about principles.

Where will that road lead to eventually?

As regards the question of where this road lying ahead for the Coloureds will lead to, my reply is that we shall see how far they develop, what their capacity is, what responsibilities they can carry, with due consideration of the fact that they do not have a homeland of their own in which they can live and develop. But now I ask the hon. member for Yeoville, who has not yet participated in this debate, what his standpoint is. I have not tried to indulge in clever talk and to pronounce general truths. I am telling the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I am indicating a road for the Coloureds to follow, a road removed from the Whites, not because the Whites are necessarily their betters, because the policy of apartheid is not based on that; the policy of apartheid has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority; the policy of apartheid has nothing to do with riches or poverty, or with education or illiteracy—the policy of apartheid has as its basis the difference existing amongst ethnic groups. I emphasize that standpoint of our Party, and the road which I indicate does not affect their humanity, because the apartheid policy does not in essence affect a person’s humanity, his human dignity. One is creating for them the very opportunity of being complete human beings in every respect and in the full sense of the word. I am saying to the Leader of the Opposition that I am indicating a road for the Coloureds to follow which is their own. It is true that at this moment I cannot say—and it would be foolish of me even to try and do so—where that road will lead to. I can only indicate a direction and a course.

What is the direction?

Please, I am talking to the hon. member’s Leader now. I am telling the hon. Leader that I have indicated the course being taken by the National Party. What is more, we have stated our point of view in regard to Coloured representation. We have discussed all these matters, and that matter will be discussed again because in that case too the last word has not yet been spoken. But it is not in the direction which the hon. member for Yeoville thinks it is. It is in fact in the opposite direction.

Mr. Chairman, I am saying that I have indicated my course and direction. I think it is time the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said what his course is. The Coloured people have the right to know where they stand with me, but the Coloureds have as much right to know where they stand with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should now tell us, it is now the proper time to do so.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has asked me what my views are in respect of border industries and in respect of the establishment of industries. Mr. Chairman, to me border industries are not in the first instance an ideological policy; to me they are a practical policy. We have the position on the Witwatersrand, we have the position in many of our larger complexes, that there are limits to the expansion which can take place there. Water is, inter alia, one of the determining factors in regard to whether or not further unrestricted industrial expansion can take place. Decentralization of industries, Sir, is a policy which is being followed throughout the world, and that is why it is only practical, only sound commonsense for us to try and take the industries to where the commodity is that they need the most, namely labour. Surely it is only sound commonsense to do so? I simply do not know why the hon. members have straight away made the mistake of attacking border industries on an ideological basis, because it is a practical, commonsense policy. We have already discussed it in this House, and I do not think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition expects me to say anything further in this regard as far as my standpoint is concerned.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has asked me what the rights and the status of the Bantu who remain behind in the White areas will be. I think I have already dealt with that question.

In the social and economic spheres.

In the social sphere we are making it possible for them to realize themselves fully in their own ethnic groups. I do not think we have ever made it difficult or impossible for them to do so. I think we have gone out of our way to create facilities which they have never had before and to make it as pleasant as possible for them.

But in the political sphere, and I want to conclude with this, the Bantu now know where they stand with me. But the Bantu do not know where they stand with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition remember his congress in the Transvaal when Dr. Jack Ellis of Springs stood up and said to him—

I think it is time …

No.

That is how I read it in the Press. In any case, I think it is time the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came to light with concrete policies in respect of these matters. South Africa has reached a stage where fine words no longer mean anything to it, where it wants to see what course and what directions the various political parties are taking. I want to say to the hon. Leader that I am at all times prepared to reply, to the best of my ability, to his questions in regard to where I am going to lead South Africa. South Africa has as much right to inquire of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition where he is going to lead South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, it is natural that we on this side of the House, as everybody in this House in fact does, should regard the hon. the Prime Minister with a great deal of sympathy, since he has accepted his post under such unfortunate circumstances. We realize that it is inevitable that he will, for a long time, have to persist with the policy of his predecessor in letter and in spirit. But it is just as inevitable that the hon. the Prime Minister, being a person with a personality and an insight of his own, will in due course have to depart, as far as emphasis and point of departure is concerned, from some of the standpoints which have been announced by his predecessors. For this we have clear precedents in modern history. President Johnson of America, for example, also began by merely saying that he would continue with the policy of President Kennedy, but nevertheless it was in due course necessary for him to depart from some of the standpoints which President Kennedy had accepted.

Do you think the hon. the Prime Minister is just as sly as you are?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.

The remark made by the hon. member enables one to realize why the hon. member is only a Chief Whip and will remain one. The hon. the Prime Minister must realize that we naturally have difficulty as far as his standpoint is concerned. Even in the speech which he made in reply to that made by my hon. Leader, one in which he did not reply adequately to the questions put by my hon. Leader, he has already departed considerably from the standpoint and the philosophy of his predecessor. In this House we have listened, not once but many times, to what the late Dr. Verwoerd said, namely that a multi-racial state cannot exist. In fact, he challenged us to give him one example of such a multi-racial state.

In the political sense of the word as you mean it, and I agree whole-heartedly with that.

The hon. the Prime Minister said a few minutes ago …

Because for you multi-racialism means integration.

I want the hon. the Prime Minister to understand clearly now what the standpoint of the Nationalist Party was under its previous leader.

Tell us what your policy is.

The hon. the Prime Minister has many opportunities to speak. In fact, he can speak without restriction. I want to help him because judging from his speeches the hon. the Prime Minister has as yet no clarity. In fact, he is still seeking the light. That is why we want to help him because we, in the interests of South Africa, want to know where the hon. the Prime Minister stands. If the hon. the Prime Minister adheres to the standpoint of the late Dr. Verwoerd, then his standpoint in regard to the Cape Coloured is an illogical and indefensible one. Let me remind the hon. the Prime Minister what the standpoint of the late Dr. Verwoerd in fact was. I have one of his speeches here, one of his most interesting speeches in fact, one which he made in this House on 23rd January, 1962. In that speech he referred to the various alternative choices which were confronting South Africa and according to Column 70 of the Hansard of that date, he said—

He then proceeded to refer to the position in Africa and, according to Column 71 of Hansard, he said—

And then again—and this was the point of departure of the late Dr. Verwoerd—

They could not be held together in one state. Now the hon. the Prime Minister must reply to the opposite question which my Leader has put to him, namely whether he regards the Coloured population of South Africa, and particularly of the Cape, as a separate national unit.

Yes.

The hon. the Prime Minister, as well as the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, has said, “yes”.

They are a distinctive minority group.

The hon. the Prime Minister must remain calm. He must not let his emotions run away with his common sense. Only to-day he stated by way of a personal admission that he thought that the heart is more important than the intellect.

That is untrue.

I want to help him to let intellect triumph for a moment. If the Coloured community are then a separate nation we have to ask what my hon. Leader has asked, something to which the hon. the Prime Minister has not replied, namely where and how they are going to realize their nationhood in South Africa? It is a question which we are entitled to ask and one to which we can demand an answer, because the predecessor of the hon. the Prime Minister has said that if one tries to throw together two nations into one state, then they have to disintegrate because what one then has is a canker. Now I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he denies that in terms of their policy, where they regard these Coloureds not only as a mere minority group but as a separate nation which is being thrown together in the Republic of South Africa, that they are creating a canker in our social life? That is the inevitable and logical conclusion of the point of departure of hon. members opposite, i.e. if they adhere faithfully to the point of departure of the late Dr. Verwoerd.

Give us your policy now, then I shall restate our policy.

The difference between us and the hon. the Prime Minister is that we are not trying to evade the issue with vague words. We have listened very carefully to the hon. the Prime Minister and I must pay tribute to him because he is a dignified and eloquent gentleman. But he must not try to escape from the facts with a spate of words.

State your standpoint now.

I shall now state our standpoint in regard to the Coloureds and then the hon. the Prime Minister must state his standpoint as clearly. If he agrees with the standpoint of the late Dr. Verwoerd that any attempt to throw together separate national communities into one state …

Now you are talking about “communities” again: a moment ago you were talking about nations.

National communities. [Interjections.] When I asked just now whether the hon. the Prime Minister regards the Coloureds as a separate nation, he, as well as the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, replied in the affirmative. [Interjections.]

May I ask the hon. member a question?

With the greatest pleasure, but do so when it is next my turn to speak. I must admit that one is dumbfounded. I have just asked emphatically whether hon. members on the opposite side regard the Coloureds as being a separate nation and to that the hon. the Prime Minister as well as the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development replied in the affirmative. What must I make of this now?

State your policy now.

Wait a minute. What I want to say is this: If the Coloureds are a separate nation in the sense in which the Nationalist Party philosophers use the word, and the throwing together of separate nations into one state is a canker which must lead to integration, then what is the solution of the Nationalist Party? [Time limit.]

In order to afford the hon. member an opportunity of stating the United Party’s standpoint, and solely for that reason, I am going to resume my seat.

I do not want to abuse the concession made by the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.] I can get a turn to speak without the conditions which were imposed by the hon. the Prime Minister. I shall state the United Party’s standpoint, but I shall do so in my own time. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, all that noise from the opposite side will not get me away from this point.

Mr. Chairman, may I now put my question to the hon. member? [Interjections.]

No, Mr. Chairman. If the hon. the Prime Minister adopts the attitude of his predecessor, namely that if separate nations have been thrown together into one common state it could only lead to their disintegrating, what then is the solution which the hon. the Prime Minister has in respect of the Coloureds and in what way does he view their future? He has said that they do not have their own territory. They cannot then become a sovereign nation. But surely in that case the position must be an ever-present canker and will lead to an explosion? On the other hand the United Party states with the utmost clarity that we regard the Coloureds as being a Western community and not a separate nation. We regard them as the only other important Afrikaans-speaking community in the entire world; we regard them as an extremely important Protestant Christian community in our midst. We agree whole-heartedly and with conviction with the hon. the Minister of Finance who told us two or three years ago in this House that the world must know that here in South Africa we are not only 3,000,000 people, we are 5,000,000 people whose hearts beat as one.

If war should break out.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members must listen carefully now. If there should be a war and South Africa were confronted by the cruel reality and were to be in danger, then—this is what the hon. Minister of Finance says—he accepts the standpoint of the United Party. But at the same time the hon. the Prime Minister is challenging us to state our standpoint. I agree with what the hon. the Minister of Finance has said, but with this difference that that which he says is true for South Africa in wartime is true for us in peacetime too. In other words, the Coloured community of the Cape is part of the Western community and must, together with the Whites, prosper in South Africa.

As an integral part?

No, Mr. Chairman. There are differences between us and the Coloureds. They admit it and we admit it. It is part of the tradition of the South African nation that they should realize themselves in their own sphere but as a Western community and as part, an essential sub-division, of the South African nation as a whole, not of the Afrikaner people or of the English people, but of the South African nation as a whole. Whether in war or in peace, we say that in South Africa there must be 5,000,000 hearts which beat as one and not 3,000,000 hearts which beat separately. The hon. the Minister of Finance experienced a moment of insight when he got a fright in regard to the future of South Africa. When he was afraid of war he said that the Whites and the Coloureds must stand together. In contrast to that we on this side of the House say that we must also stand together in peacetime so that in a time of war we can stand together more strongly. That is our standpoint. Just as is the case with the hon. the Prime Minister in regard to his policy, I cannot state in detail what the end result of our policy will be. What I can say to him is that according to the philosophy of the Nationalist Party the end result of the Prime Minister’s standpoint will be a canker which must lead to an explosion. That is to say if he continues to adhere to the principles of the late Dr. Verwoerd. He cannot get away from that. That is why there is a difference between us. As far as the end result of our policy is concerned, we can state confidently that it will lead to peace and a greater and stronger South Africa. That South Africa which the hon. the Minister of Finance wants in wartime we also want in peacetime—a united and strong South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister cannot say that, however, because he must admit that he adheres to the standpoint of the late Dr. Verwoerd and that standpoint entails that, if he continues on the course which he is following at present a canker will develop which will have to lead to an explosion. I shall now resume my seat so that the hon. the Prime Minister can reply just to this one question.

Let me say at once that it is not necessary for the hon. member for Yeoville to invite me to state my standpoint. Let me also say at once that I do not need his assistance, as he intimated at the beginning of his speech. The hon. member tried to make out that I had not stated the standpoint of the National Party clearly. But I had stated very clearly to the hon. member what our view of the matter was. In any case, I am glad of one admission, for the hon. member admitted that just as little as I can see the end of the road, as little can he see the end of the road.

As far as the details thereof are concerned.

That is true. I stated it very clearly to the hon. member. Was he not listening? We are dealing here with a distinctive minority group, and in fact it is not only one minority group, because in that group there are other different groups as well. Surely the hon. member is aware of that? Surely the hon. member is aware of the fact that within that group there are also the Griqua group, the Malay group and scores of other groups. They are not a unit in the way the Afrikaans-speaking section, for example, are a unit or in the way the English-speaking section are a unit. The hon. member for Yeoville must listen now. Did I not say to him that these people have still to find their own soul? Did I not say that they are still in the process of finding their soul, and that that is the case because they are made up of various groups? What more does the hon. member want from me? But now we come to the specific views of the two parties. The hon. member wants to exchange views, and I think it is high time that we did so. My standpoint is that, as far as politics are concerned, the Coloureds will not be represented by Coloureds in this House. What is the hon. member’s standpoint in that regard?

Just the opposite.

My standpoint is that there must be separate residential areas for Whites and for the Coloureds. What is the hon. member’s standpoint in this regard?

With justice, yes, certainly.

Surely that is just playing with words? Either one has separate areas, or one does not. Surely what has been done in this connection speaks volumes for this side of the House? Surely the hon. member knows that we have never left a man without shelter or put him out in the street? They have been moved to separate residential areas only after alternative accommodation was provided for them. Who has provided more accommodation than this side of the House? In addition my standpoint is that there should be no mixing of Coloureds and Whites in the social sphere. What is the hon. member’s standpoint in this regard?

When are you going to reply to the question I put?

The hon. member is trying to get out of it. I shall now resume my seat and then the hon. member must make use of the right which he has in this House and rise and tell me what the question is, for when I reply to one thing then he says that I am not replying to his question. The hon. member must now put his question to me clearly so that I can furnish him with a reply. As I want to write the question down, the hon. member must please state it slowly.

I shall be very pleased to accede to the request of the hon. the Prime Minister. My question is that, since the hon. the Prime Minister is persisting in, and since he and the party which is now under his leadership, is continuing with the policy of the late Dr. Verwoerd and since the late Dr. Verwoerd, as I quoted him here this afternoon, has stated that different nations—and according to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development the Coloureds are a separate nation—cannot be thrown together in one state …

When the late Dr. Verwoerd said that he had the Bantu in mind. I have his speech in front of me here.

… without a canker developing and without their being an explosion ..

But that is a very long sentence!

But it is a good one. Now the question is where the hon. the Prime is leading the Coloured community as a separate nation so that they can realize their separate nationhood without the condition becoming a canker which will necessarily have to cause an explosion?

After a long struggle, Mr. Chairman, we finally have the question of the hon. member, although his preamble was much longer than his question. But his question is where I am leading the Coloureds.

In the light of your standpoint. That is important.

My reply is that I am leading the Coloureds along the road of self-realization. I have already told the hon member this. I am leading them along a road where they will be able to have their own facilities; I am leading them along a road where they will have their own educational opportunities; I am leading them along a road where they will have their own social facilities; I am leading them along a road where they will ultimately, when the Coloured Council has achieved its full development, have funds at their disposal, as my former leader also said, in order to be able to meet their own requirements in respect of those things which are peculiar to their community in the social and educational spheres and to be able to do so in their own way.

But they remain thrown together in one state.

The hon. member is playing with words here, because surely I have replied to him very clearly. He and I both know that there is not a separate territory in which the Coloureds can be settled. But the hon. member is losing sight of something. What did the late Dr. Verwoerd say? What is the background to what he was saying? The background to what he was saying was that “multi-racialism” in which that hon. member believed at one time. I do not know what he believes in now; it is very difficult to ascertain. Multi-racialism in South Africa has only one meaning. It does not have the loose meaning of a number of races living within one geographical area. Multi-racialism has a distinctive meaning. Multi-racialism has acquired a distinctive meaning in South Africa, namely integration.

Nonsense.

But of course. Just go and ask the Liberal Party. Let me give an example of that. Go and ask the Liberal Party to tell you what their policy is. They will tell you that their policy is one of “multiracialism”.

Would you please first reply to my question now?

But I have just told the hon. member what the former Prime Minister was talking about. I have told him that the Prime Minister said that throwing different people together when they did not naturally belong together gave rise to friction. I want to tell the hon. member that we will have friction if we throw the Coloureds and the Whites together here in South Africa, and if we do not separate them. [Interjection.] No, they are not. Surely hon. members know that everyone has his own residential area. Every child has his own school which he attends. Everyone has his own educational institutions. They have their own sporting facilities. It is in those very spheres that there is no mixing and that the friction is absent.

If the hon. member cannot understand that, then it does not surprise me that his party is in the position in which it now finds itself. More than to furnish the hon. member with those replies I cannot do.

Mr. Chairman, we have had a most interesting discussion, because the standpoint of the Nationalist Party, as I have always understood it was that you could have two policies in respect of the non-Europeans. You could have the policy of complete equality, namely integration, or you could have the policy of complete separation. You could have no middle road. We have listened to the hon. the Prime Minister. He has made it quite clear that his policy in respect of the Cape Coloured people is not complete separation, and is not complete equality.

Not complete territorial separation, because they do not have a separate territory.

It is not complete separation and it is not complete equality. It is the middle road, which they said never existed. The hon. gentleman has referred me to a Dr. Jack Ellis, who is supposed to have said: Tell me what I stand for. Sir, when we come to the end of the road as far as the Coloured people are concerned, I think I might just as well say that the hon. the Prime Minister says: Tell me what I stand for. He does not know.

You are talking nonsense.

Mr. Chairman, he admitted it. The Prime Minister said it depends on their development and what they show themselves capable of doing. He believes that they will have to be separate socially. I agree. We want that too. He says that they will have separate residential areas. I agree. We want that too, but on a basis of justice, we said. The Prime Minister said: Where have we ever thrown people out into the veld? Perhaps not, Sir. I do not believe that that has happened. But if you would like to take account of the number of White people who are going to be moved and the number of Coloured people who are going to be moved under the application of the Group Areas Act, you begin to ask yourself how extraordinary it is that it is so often necessary to move Coloured people and so seldom necessary to move Europeans. The hon. the Prime Minister said that they are going to be represented in this House by White people. He has implied that they will have a limited number of representatives. Of course, Sir, when I said that the Bantu were going to be represented in this House by White people, I was told that the pressure would be such that I would have to concede that they would become Black. [Interjections.] Is the Prime Minister now satisfied that where the Coloured people are represented by White people the pressures are never going to be such that they will become Coloured people? The former Prime Minister said that it was inevitable that if you had Whites representing Bantu, the pressure would be such that you would have to concede that. The former Prime Minister also said that you would not be able to limit the number of representatives. He said that the pressure would be such that you would have to concede more representatives. Does the same logic not apply to the Coloured people? It seems that we have a merging of policy here, which is, in a sense, a policy of social separation, a policy of residential separation, a policy of political rights on a separate roll, but of partnership in power which the former Prime Minister called integration, and which will result in pressures being brought to bear for Coloured representatives and different numbers in this House. The hon. gentleman was perfectly frank with me. He said that he had no separate area for them. Therefore I must assume that there is no question of a separate sovereignty for the Coloured people or of a separate state for the Coloured people. There is going to be a Coloured Council which will have control of their finances, education and various facilities of that kind. But apparently they are still always going to be represented in this Parliament as a minority group. I am interested in that—if I am putting this correctly, and I believe I am—because it is very different from the idea of a state within a state, which we heard of before. Of course, it is a type of multi-racialism. It is a type of sharing of power. It is a type of integration. Do not let us try to play with words in respect of these things. I am not interested in them. I want to get down to the facts. The Prime Minister says that he cannot tell me what the ultimate future will be. It depends on their development and what they show themselves capable of.

I think that there is a measure of understanding between us. We have a different idea for the Coloured people. We believe that it is very important to keep them on our side here in South Africa.

Yes.

We believe that it is very important that we should develop them to the stage where they become more and more a part of the Western group in South Africa. We believe that they should be given a different type of political rights. The hon. gentleman and I have disagreed on that before. I have disagreed with the former Prime Minister. If we can confine our disputes in the future to the wisdom or otherwise of their political rights and the nature of those rights, and agree that that is the essential difference between us, I think we have achieved something this afternoon.

I now come to the Bantu people. Here the hon. the Prime Minister has made several rather interesting remarks. He said that the policy of border industries was not an ideological policy, but that it was a practical policy.

I said: Not in the first instance.

Yes, he said that in the first instance it was not an ideological policy, but a practical policy. Then he spoke of decentralization. Sir, all sides of this House are in favour of decentralization in industry, where it is economically justified. We understand it very fully when it is said that, for strategic reasons, it may be necessary to encourage it even in places where it is economically not as favourable as it might be in certain other areas.

Then you will accept it?

Decentralization of industry we have always accepted.

For strategic reasons you will accept it, but not for population reasons.

The hon. the Minister now says that I will accept it for strategic reasons but not for population reasons. What does he mean by population reasons?

The over-concentration of Bantu and White.

In other words, ideological reasons.

You call it ideological. I do not see why you do.

Here is again an attempt to duck away from this matter. The whole policy, as outlined by the former Prime Minister, was border industries for ideological reasons. The whole object he gave was the vital importance of having the Bantu in dormitory areas like the reserves, where they could live with their families in their own areas, come out of the reserves in order to work in those border industries, and then go back. They do not go back. The whole essence was that they were not prepared to see private White capital used in developing the Reserves. The whole idea was that you would develop the Reserves with the aid of border industries. Sir, that is not decentralization of industries in the sense which is understood by every normal economist. That is decentralization of industries for ideological reasons. Let us agree now. We on this side of the House stand for the decentralization of industries for economic reasons. That is wise, and we think it is wise for strategic reasons, but for ideological reasons we remain up to this point unconvinced, because we believe it will result in tremendous expenditure for ideological reasons. We believe there are vast stretches in our rural areas where the essential services are available and where there is a far greater demand for industry, and to which industries could be decentralized very favourably and with enormous economic advantage to South Africa, without the expenditure which is being embarked upon as the result of ideological issues. [Time limit.]

I rise to reply to one aspect only. It appears to me as though we shall be at cross-purposes on all the other aspects. I have already said what I had to say about them. Other hon. members can pursue them further. I want to reply to only one aspect of the hon. member’s speech, namely the representation of the Coloureds and the Bantu in this House of Assembly. The hon. member said that we had said, and had quite rightly said, that he would start with White representation and later, as visualized by the hon. member for Yeoville, “Black representatives would come”, because that is the logical conclusion of their policy, and the Leader of the Opposition said that himself, and it is not necessary to furnish proof of that again. But what is the difference? The Coloureds who are represented here in the House of Assembly are not the Coloureds of South Africa; they are the Coloureds of the Cape Province only, and only the male Coloureds of the Cape Province, and only those who comply with certain qualifications. In other words, those are the only ones we have to deal with here. Those are the only ones represented here. What is the constitutional development as far as the National Party is concerned? It is to move further and further away from Coloured representation in the House of Assembly. I now want to tell the hon. member that that trend will continue, and neither you nor I nor anyone among us will stop it. It will find its natural course. Personally I believe that it will find its natural course on the day the Coloureds tell us that they do not want this kind of representation. And I believe they will tell us that. I say the trend in that direction is irresistible. Personally I do not commit myself in any respect as far as this matter is concerned. I want that to be very clearly understood for the future. But what does the Leader of the Opposition want to do? Thirty years ago, when Bantu representation was abolished, it was also only the Bantu of the Cape Province that had enjoyed representation in this House. But what does the hon. Leader of the Opposition want to do now, according to his policy? He does not want to bring back only those Bantu of the Cape Province who had the franchise on the common voters’ roll 30 years ago and subsequently through separate representation, which we abolished.

What about those who had representation in Natal?

For all practical purposes they were a small group of Bantu who had it hereditarily, but even under your regime it was never extended. But what do the hon. members want to do now? According to their policy they want to give representation here to the Bantu who have never had any claim to representation in the House of Assembly, namely the Bantu of the Free State and of the Transvaal and of Natal, except for the small group that did in fact have it. And then the hon. members realize themselves what the final outcome of their policy must be; because why should the hon. member for Yeoville and the Leader of the Opposition say now that the final outcome will be representation of Black people by Black people in this Parliament? Surely that is the logical conclusion of that policy and that will be the trend, and you cannot stop that, not with the best will in the world. That is how we should formulate our policy, and we should be prepared, when acting in terms of a policy, to accept its logical contusions. I repeat that the time has come for the Leader of the Opposition to accept in full the logical conclusions of his policy before this House.

I am sorry to intervene in this interesting dialogue between the hon. the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, but I want to say a few things in reply to some of the statements made by the hon. the Prime Minister earlier this afternoon. The question of whether or not border industries are ideological is not important. What is important is that the concept that the Government has of border industries is as a replacement for the existing industrial areas of South Africa: in other words, that there should be no more broadening out of the existing industrial areas like the Witwatersrand and the Western Province. All further concentrations, from the hon. the Minister’s own statement, and all further industries shall be concentrated in other areas.

You are talking nonsense.

The Government is not allowing any more industrial sites on the Witwatersrand. The Minister has stated that they will not allow any more non-Whites to come into the existing urban areas. If non-Whites do not come into the existing areas, he need not think that the natural increase will be sufficient, and he need not think that he can run the whole thing on the existing system of migratory labour. The whole of the border industry concept is seen as a replacement of the existing system whereby Africans have to leave the Reserves to come into the industrial areas, the so-called White areas, since the Reserves themselves are unable to support that population. That is how it has always been explained. If I am wrong I shall be glad to hear the Deputy Minister give us his concept of why he considers the border industries to be the solution of the problem of the overcrowding in the Reserves. The alternative is to develop more and more towards the migratory system, about which I said something last night but which I will leave for full discussion when the Minister’s Vote comes up, because I have a great deal to say on that subject.

I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister when it is he thinks he will know whether or not the Coloured people will be responsible people who should be allowed to exercise certain rights, even in their own areas, such as they are. He says when we discover that the Coloured people have reached a sufficient stage of advancement he will allow them to exercise rights. Sir, we have had hundreds of years of experience of the Coloured people. Can he say in all honesty that at this very stage large numbers of the Coloured population have not already reached the full stage of responsibility where they can exercise the most advanced rights in any society? There are professional men and teachers and skilled technicians among the Coloured people. Must they still wait before they are going to be allowed to exercise any of these rights? When the Prime Minister says that these rights, when exercised, will only be in their own areas, and admits that there is no such thing as a Coloured area, how does he get away from the fact that the Coloureds earn their living in the so-called White South Africa? Are they not a completely integrated part of this society? Therefore the rights they exercise clearly must be exercised in the field where the laws that govern their lives are made, and that is in this Parliament, whether we like it or not. The laws that basically govern the lives of those people, like the ones dealing with group areas and job reservation, are made right here in this Parliament and they will never be made or altered or repealed in any council which the Government might set up, composed of Coloured people. So I say that it is utterly unrealistic. I would like to use a harsher word, but I know it will be ruled to be unparliamentary. But it is utterly unrealistic to believe that any offer of any importance is being given to the Coloured people even for the future, when the Prime Minister talks about giving those people rights in their own areas and among their own people. He has talked about the traditional barriers between the Coloured people and the White people which he says must not be removed. It is not a case of not removing them. The point is that bigger and higher boundaries are being built up all the time. This traditional way of life that we talk about all the time is being whittled away as far as the Coloured people are concerned. There have been Coloured people living in the Cape almost since the Cape was first founded, and the traditional way of life is not the tradition of the building up of group areas because Coloured people even to-day are living in Newlands and other of the so-called White suburbs of Cape Town. The traditional way of life in the Cape has in fact been a mixed way of life, whether the Government likes it or not. The traditional way of life has not been Proclamation R.26.

What do you mean by the traditional way of life being mixed?

I mean the life that has been lived in the Cape ever since it was a colony, right from the beginning. I ask the Minister whether this sign I saw at the Cape Town Station the other day when I went to collect my luggage is the traditional way of life in Cape Town? To my utter astonishment, in this spanking new modern Cape Town Station I saw a notice which said “White luggage tendered by non-Whites”. Imagine, we now have separate entrances for our White luggage, but where it is tendered by non-Whites there must be a different entrance. Is this the traditional way of life in South Africa, that we now have to see to it that if our White luggage is tendered by non-Whites, then it has to go in by a separate entrance? I can see us getting brown suitcases and I can see us getting to the stage where we have to have notices on the beaches, “White babies tended by non-White nannies”, because that is the traditional way of life in South Africa, too, that White children are cared for by non-Whites. We are reaching degrees of absurdity in this so-called maintenance of the traditional way of life in South Africa which nobody would have dreamed of in this country even five years ago, let alone ten years ago.

The Prime Minister says he does not know where the road will end. Perhaps I can tell him where the road will end. The road will end as the road has already started, and that is the introduction pari passu with every one of these measures which in effect means the deprivation of the rights of people, with the introduction of laws which go well beyond any laws that have to be upheld in a normal democratic country; because whatever the Government says, they do not have the consent of the people to put these laws into operation. It is not with the acceptance of the people on whom these laws bear most harshly. Therefore there will be more and more oppressive laws introduced in this country. It is inevitable, and so the way we are going is going to be the old way, back from the so-called visionary aspect of apartheid and separate homelands and Bantustans and separate freedoms. It is going to be a road back to baasskap, to undiluted baasskap, because that, in effect, is what it means, and not these visions, because the visions are unattainable if one looks at the factual situation in South Africa; and the factual situation is that we are going to require more and more non-Whites and not less. The Prime Minister is wrong when he says that people overseas cannot understand us simply because they say that we have 77 per cent of the land and the Bantu have only 13 per cent. That is not what worries them. What worries them is where people live. It is a fact that two-thirds of the non-Whites live in the so-called White South Africa.

Because they work here.

Yes, and they work here because we need them, and they need us. I could not agree more. This was said long ago by Judge Fagan, and I agree 100 per cent. We need them and they need us. We are an interdependent multi-racial society, and that is exactly the point I am trying to make. If two-thirds of the people live and always will live, be they a rotating mass of migratory labourers, here is where they have to enjoy their normal human rights, and those include the right of living with their families, the right of mobility in their own country and the basic right in an industrial society of collective bargaining and seeing to it that their wages at least keep some sort of level as far as the cost of living is concerned. These are the things people cannot understand. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Houghton said that no new industrial development was taking place on the Rand complex, but she was talking utter nonsense. She is so intelligent that she should know that she is talking nonsense if she says something like that. What I said was that we would decrease the flow of Black labour to the Witwatersrand-Southern Transvaal complex, and then we would stop it and then we would turn it back, and nothing said by that hon. member will prevent us from doing so. But to say that that means less industrial development on the Rand is utter nonsense. The Southern Transvaal and the other large metropolitan areas will have to look to capital intensive industries for their future industrial expansion and not to predominantly Bantu-labour industries, and the industrialists of the Transvaal agree with that. The Chamber of Industries agrees with that. They told me that they were no longer prepared to have the tremendous flow of Bantu to the Rand, which is merely strangling the Rand altogether. They agree with that, but it is this small group of political moongazers who do not agree with that. The Leader of the Opposition said he would accept the decentralization of industry for economic reasons. Let him give me the name of any border industry which is not economic. Industries are compelled to leave the central part of London in order to reduce their transport problems. Is that ideological or is it not? We want border industries there to reduce the over-concentration of the Bantu, particularly on the Rand, just as the British Government is seeking to reduce the over-concentration of traffic in the centre of London; and if that is ideological, I make him a present of it. Unlike the hon. the Prime Minister, I am not going to ask the Leader of the Opposition what the final outcome of his policy as regards Bantu representatives in this House will be, because he has already told us that. My charge against the United Party is that if it comes into power, it intends putting Black people in this House. That is not an inference on my part. That is what the hon. member for Yeoville said in London, and an article in the Sunday Times. That is what the Leader of the Opposition said himself, that the final outcome of their policy was Black people in this House. He went further and said that even a Coloured person could become Prime Minister of this country. There is therefore no need for me to ask them what the final outcome of their policy will be. He has already declared that, and I shall retell that throughout the country.

I now come to the hon. member for Yeoville and the debating point he tried to score about something said by the late Prime Minister, that if one had more than one nation in a country, it would cause a cancer that would break out and destroy everything. But surely it is quite clear what the late Prime Minister meant by that. It is that if one has more than two nations in the country, and one mixes those two nations in all fields, in one Parliament, in one Public Service, in one school and in one residential area and in one swimming bath, it will cause a cancer and it will then break out. Surely one thing is quite clear, and that is that the late Prime Minister knew that the Whites were here and that the Coloureds were here, and when he said that one could not have them in one country, he meant that one could not have them in one country if one mixed them. Because one could not send the Coloureds up into the sky, and one could not send them out of the country. What the Prime Minister therefore said was that if one had two nations in a country and one mixed them in all fields, as the Leader of the Opposition wants to do, then one had a cancer that would break out and result in destruction. [Interjections.] The leader of the Opposition is now dodging the issue by saying that there will not be equality in all fields but did not the hon. member for Yeoville tell us only a moment ago that they regarded the Coloureds as part of the Wester Community? Did he not say that they regarded them as part of the South African people? Is that so? [Interjection.] The hon. member says yes, that is so. Now I ask the Leader of the Opposition: Are you going to discriminate against a part of the Afrikaner nation for the rest of your lives, or what are your intentions as regards the Coloureds? To give them the vote? To how many of them? To give the vote to the Coloured women and to give the vote to the Coloureds in the North? May the Coloureds become members of the United Party? May they serve on their executives? What is the position as regards residential areas? The Leader of the Opposition said, “as long as it is justified,” but why must the Coloureds live apart? Why cannot they live where the other sections of the South African people are living? Surely it is quite clear that what they want to do is to pretend that they accept the Coloureds, and then they want to place restraints on the Coloureds; in actual fact they do not want to grant them any rights, but in the eyes of the world and of the English newspapers and in the eyes of the Anglican Church they want to pretend that they want to grant the Coloureds those rights, but they do not really want to do that, and then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout claims that that is justifiable politics. That is the role they are playing. I want to challenge them to say how far a Coloured can go under their policy. Can a Coloured become superintendent of education in the Cape under their policy? We have had the same argument as regards the Indians. They are therefore engaged in a game of largescale political fraud towards the Coloureds of this country, and they should be ashamed of regarding that as justifiable politics. That is the excuse of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

You are distorting it.

On a point of order, is it not unparliamentary for the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to say that the hon. member is distorting? Should he not withdraw that?

[Inaudible.]

You are fibbing. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has withdrawn the expression.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout will not deny …

On a point of order, should not the hon. member withdraw the words “you are fibbing”?

On a point of order, the word “untruth” is parliamentary; the word “lie” is unparliamentary. The word “fib” means the same as “lie”, but it is dressed in pious garb.

A previous ruling declared the word “lie” unparliamentary, but not “untruth” or “fib”.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout knows that exactly the same attack I am now making on them has previously been made on them here in Parliament, namely that they pretend that they want to grant the Coloureds certain rights whereas in actual fact they do not grant them, and on that occasion his reply was: “It is justifiable politics.” We want to guide the Coloureds on their separate way, where they will be able to develop a ruling class, where they will have their own council which will be in charge of their own education, of their own hospitalization, and of all those matters which can be placed under the control of that council. It can develop to more than provincial status, as the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs said the other day, but a ruling class will develop among the Coloureds, which is not possible under the United Party policy. In the field of education the Coloureds will be assisted to progress to the highest positions, until there will be a Coloured minister of education, a Minister of Coloured Education.

And Prime Minister?

A Prime Minister for the Coloureds, yes. The hon. member must not think I shall run away from that word. [Time limit.]

I do not want to waste the time of the Committee. The point about “justifiable politics” is really so insignificant that I do not want to waste much time on it, except that I just want to explain what happened. A speaker on the Government side asked why Cape Town had never elected a Coloured person as mayor. He accused the United Party of “fraud” because no Coloured had ever been elected as mayor here. But the attitude I adopted was that a city council had a full right to elect whom it wishes on merit. It is justifiable politics to elect whom they wish. Surely that is so; that was my point.

It is merely a fine word for “swindling”.

I heard that.

Yes, but I was involved, and the hon. the Prime Minister may consult Hansard. Surely, if people serve on a council together, they can of course elect the man who in their opinion has the highest merits. That accusation was worth nothing. I spoke of “justifiable politics” in that sense. A year or two ago, when I predicted in this House that the Government was moving step by step towards the abolishment of the Coloured representatives, I was attacked in the most bitter terms by hon. members on the opposite side of the House. The accusations which were then levelled against me, had never been levelled against any member in such harsh terms. The Minister of Defence, who was then Minister of Coloured Affairs, rose and said in the utmost piety that it had never been the policy of the National Party to abolish them, and the previous Prime Minister endorsed that. The Burger came along afterwards and wrote a leading article about the “misrepresentation” sent out into the world by the United Party. To-day, after the Prime Minister has spoken, it is as clear as daylight that the prediction I made is going to be validated, and it is going, to be validated very soon. The Prime Minister has not left the slightest doubt about that to-day.

What did he say?

Mr. Chairman, there will seldom be such an interesting Hansard as we have had to-day. The Prime Minister suggested to-day that the trend was irresistible, and that those people would have to go.

If he said that that was the trend, then surely he did not say that he was going to abolish them.

The only reason why it is not done now is that that side is hoping that the Coloured council, with all its nominated members nominated by the Government, will ask for the abolition of Coloured representatives in this House. But to me the technique he is going to employ is of no importance. The fact of the matter is that there is the desire and the intention of abolishing the four Coloured representatives in this Parliament. If there has been any doubt about that until now, then there is no doubt about it to-day. Mr. Chairman, we know that there cannot be two parliaments in the same state, one to legislate that one should drive on the left-hand side of the road, and another to legislate that one should drive on the right-hand side! There cannot be two courts in the same country, one of which judges the Coloureds and the other the Whites, because what happens in a case in which a Coloured as well as a White are involved? The entire concept that there can be two parliaments, each of which governs its own affairs, is a fallacy. It is not an honest concept. There can be territorial segregation between White and Black to a maximal point; that is possible in practice, whether or not one agrees with that. One may say that one is for or against it; that is honest politics, but to present the idea that the Coloured can govern himself, that is not honest politics; that can never happen. He may have a limited number of powers, a very small number, but there cannot be two parliaments in the same country, and as long as Coloureds in South Africa live with Whites in South Africa, the laws relating to Whites and Coloureds will be made by this Parliament. All the important laws, all the laws that count, will be made here. It would be the greatest injustice ever perpetrated—it would do the utmost harm to the integrity of the image of its policy that the Government seeks to create. One thing should be particularly clear after this afternoon, and that is that if that side of the House has one weak point, then it is Coloured policy. I want to pay the Prime Minister the compliment that his debating is sound as long as he is dealing with the Bantu, but as soon as he reaches the Coloureds, he is lost. What did the Prime Minister say today? I made a note of what he said. He said clearly: “I cannot see the end of the road.” Of what use is that? Of what use is a party that claims to have the answers, but says it cannot see the road ahead?

Can you see the end of your road?

I shall come to my road just now. He said that he could “not see the end of the road, but that he was merely indicating the course”. How on earth can he indicate a course if he does not know where he is going, if he cannot see the light on the way? Not only did the hon. the Prime Minister contradict himself—and Hansard will prove that—but he said clearly, as regards the policy of that side in respect of the Coloureds, that he could not see the end of the road. One can therefore summarize their policy briefly: We shall just have to see how far we get; but we cannot see the end of the road.

Can you see the end?

I shall tell the hon. member what our attitude is. Our attitude is that there are barriers in South Africa. There are various Bantu groups in South Africa, who have their own cultures, their own languages, their own usages and their own customs. There one has a clearly separate cultural group. One also has a clearly defined Indian group, who have languages of their own, their own religion, their own usages and their own customs, and then one has another group in South Africa which one may describe as the “European group”, who speak the same language, who have the same customs, who have the same religion, who have the same Western character, and that is the large European group which consists of the Whites—with its own multiplicity of groups—among the Whites we have a very large German speaking population; we have a very large Greek population. Even the English-speaking and the Afrikaans-speaking people are clearly distinguishable groups. But in the European group one also has the Coloureds. They form part of the European group, therefore we say that the general political line runs between the European group and the Bantu, but that the Coloureds should be seen as part of the European group, which they are in fact. We do not want to make them that; they are there. It is no use saying that that is how I see it; it is an unavoidable fact. We endorse the policy of the founder of this party, who was also the founder of that party, General Hertzog, who maintained consistently, as far as the Coloureds were concerned—and that was the traditional policy of the National Party; the policy it has at present is a departure from that—that the Coloureds should be kept with the Whites politically, economically and industrially. The tradition of that side was that the Coloureds even sat on congresses of the National Party in the Cape. That was the position for years. For years the Coloureds sat on the Provincial Council of the Cape Province. To-day they are on city councils, on local bodies. They are integrated in the Defence Force of South Africa. There is the previous Minister of Defence. I can quote his speech in which he said that in the army the Coloureds were a fully integrated part of the South African Defence Force. [Time limit.]

If there is one thing in this country about which the Opposition feels disappointed at present, it is the growing goodwill which can be observed on the part of the Coloured people in this country. This is one thing which is a great disappointment to them. To them the Coloured has always been a political football; as long as they have been in existence they have tried to kick him about in this House and in this country for their own political designs. Thanks to the policy introduced by this Government and thanks to the attitude adopted by the previous Prime Minister, the Coloureds in this country are afforded opportunities to-day which they have never had before in their lives. I want to remind the Committee that the previous Prime Minister told the Coloured Persons Council in 1961 that the Coloured population occupied a unique position in the country. He said that the Coloured population which was a unique one deserved to be treated in a unique fashion.

On that occasion he gave a clear exposition of his four-stream policy and what that four-stream policy amounted to was that one group should not govern another or should not suppress another; that one group should not form an appendix or a ramification of another, but that each should be respected as being an independent group or as a group that had to develop to the stage of independence where it had its own forms of government. That is the essence of the four-stream policy. But the previous Prime Minister said on that occasion that a great deal of assistance would have to be rendered to the Coloured population who were generations even centuries behind, and in this respect the Government has always accepted responsibility for rendering the necessary assistance to the Coloured people on economic and governmental level. To-day we are reaping the fruits of this four-stream policy in the form of growing goodwill on the part of the Coloured population towards the Whites in this country and also in the form of a growing awareness on their part of their role as an independent entity and not as an appendix or ramification of any group in this country. Mr. Chairman, what has struck me during the months I have been associated with Coloured Affairs and during the months I have taken the trouble of visiting Coloured leaders throughout the country, whether in the North-West, in the Transvaal or locally in the Cape, has been the growing appreciation the Coloureds and their leaders are displaying at present for the opportunities being afforded them within the framework of separate development. Numerous Coloured leaders have told me that they were violently opposed to the establishment of the Department of Coloured Affairs a few years ago.

On the occasions when I visited, addressed and listened to their governing bodies, I learnt from their own lips on numerous occasions that they wanted to confess to having opposed the Government’s policy at the time of the establishment of the Department, but that they then wanted to ask me to convey their thanks and appreciation to the Government for having formulated these plans of separate development, because they said that they were then for the first time being afforded an opportunity of doing justice to themselves, that they were then for the first time being afforded an opportunity of becoming managers of businesses and inspectors of schools. Four Coloured inspectors of schools have been appointed, and we shall continue with this policy as the Coloureds develop further. The fundamental problem is that we cannot grant them the responsibility of government if they have not yet developed the ability to undertake it, but we are creating the facilities; we are creating the opportunities which will enable them to do so. The Coloured Persons Representative Council, which I hope and expect will hold an election at the end of next year and which is going to come into operation subsequent to that election, will afford them a unique opportunity of realizing their ability to govern. Within the Coloured Persons Representative Council, which will not be representative of the male voters in the Cape only but of the male voters in the entire country, those Coloureds will for the first time in this country be afforded an opportunity of developing their leadership ability to its full extent.

And after they have developed it to the full extent?

That was why the hon. the Prime Minister made the statement he made a little while ago when he said that the trend in regard to Coloured representation was really one leading away from this House. But the Prime Minister said that he was not binding himself to anything; that would be determined when such a request came from the Coloured Persons Representative Council itself. Also in this respect the hon. the Prime Minister said nothing wrong or divergent. Do hon. members not recall that when the question of the political representation of the Coloureds in this House was discussed, the hon. member for Boland asked the previous Prime Minister: “Does that mean that the Coloured Representatives will never be abolished?” The previous Prime Minister replied to that: “But does it mean then that you will have to remain here forever?” He too did not bind himself to that because he accepted, like the present Prime Minister, that the Coloured population as a developing group which had to develop its own character, its own independence, should be given the right to ask in future, whenever that might be, that the Coloured Persons Representative Council should receive such recognition that the Government of White South Africa should negotiate with it alone as the government of the Coloured population. This is a matter which this Government certainly will have to take into consideration at that time. That is the essence of this idea. How can one deny these people that opportunity when they have reached a stage of development in the field of governing where they feel that that is necessary for their entire character development?

Mr. Chairman, hon. members opposite constantly speak of the Coloureds as forming a part of the Western civilization. Correct. We must have them on our side; the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that. Of course we must have them on our side. We are thankful for the signs which there are at present that South Africa has the Coloureds on its side. Now I want to mention two recent manifestations of this. During the Republic Festival 60,000 Coloureds gathered at Goodwood to testify to their loyalty to the Republic of South Africa. Is that not an indication of the Coloured people’s goodwill towards South Africa? If they feel that they are being suppressed or that we are treating them like stepchildren, do hon. members think that 60,000 Coloureds would have gathered at Goodwood to testify to their loyalty to South Africa? Do hon. members think that 10,000 Coloureds would have gathered in Johannesburg, where the Coloured population is much smaller, to testify to their loyalty to South Africa, if they were not happy within the present set-up with all the opportunities which have been created for them? But this is not the only example I can mention. On the death of our previous Prime Minister I was struck by the numerous telegrams and letters sent to me, to Mrs. Verwoerd and to other Ministers by Coloured leaders and other Coloureds throughout South Africa in which they conveyed to us their deep shock and feeling of sympathy in respect of the death of a great friend who had formulated a four-stream policy for them and for South Africa, a four-stream policy in which one group was not to be an appendix of another but in which each group would be afforded the opportunity of developing to independence and of developing its own character. This is where our strength lies, also as regards the future of the Coloureds.

I hope the hon. the Minister will pardon me if I do not react to what he has said here this afternoon. I will say my say on that score under the Coloured Affairs Vote. Sir, I rose in this House on a previous occasion, I think about 18 months ago, and referred in my speech to the delicate situation facing South Africa internationally vis-à-vis the South West Africa issue. I pointed out that it was a delicate and dangerous situation. I described it, if I am not mistaken, as the Achilles heel in our international relationship. I pointed out that South Africa had a short but a tragic and moving history in many respects. There was the Second War of Independence at the turn of the century. Barely 12 years later our country had to face an international situation of great gravity. We went into that with a civil war within our borders. Barely 21 years afterwards we were faced with another international situation which we faced and went into with complete and bitter division. Sir, I do not want to utter any recriminations as to what side was taken by people at that time. I know my country’s history; I know it from both sides and I have no axe to grind. I am descended from both sides, and I can understand why those situations arose. I pointed out at the time that we were facing the situation in South West Africa with the two sides of the House divided, and I asked what the position would be if the judgment of the International Court at The Hague was against South Africa; whether we would still be divided on this issue. The judgment exceeded my expectations; thank goodness it was in our favour. While this matter was sub judice I can understand that it was difficult for both the hon. the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to adopt a definite attitude. I spoke innocently and sincerely at that time and I was surprised to see that my remarks had been taken up by 18 newspapers, not as the result of my ability, but because this was an issue which was in everybody’s mind, and the editors of these newspapers regarded it as being of the greatest importance.

Sir, I want to make a plea here to-day to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and to the hon. the Prime Minister, especially in the light of the attitude which the hon. the Prime Minister adopted here yesterday, an attitude on which I as an objective member in this House wish to congratulate him, and especially in view of the attitude of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on which I also wish to congratulate him. Is this not the time to show the world that on a vital issue like this involving the very existence, the very future, of a vital part of South Africa—because make no mistake about it, we as South Africans cannot see South Africa without South West Africa as an integral part of it—we stand together as one man, whether it be against the whole of the rest of the world or whether it be against individual nations, facing the fact that some of our best friends, or people who should be our friends, are also leaving us in the lurch. Cannot we show the world that we stand united on this issue? Sir, I feel that we have no time to play.

I sincerely welcome the suggestion made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, a suggestion which was tantamount to expressing the wish that we should find common ground on the Rhodesian issue. I am only sorry that with U.D.I. on the horizon and with the newspapers full of it and with this issue facing South Africa, an issue which might have had grave consequences and might still have, there was not an attempt at that time already to find common ground and to make it clear that in the event of an unilateral declaration of independence, South Africa would stand united on this issue.

Sir, I have no axe to grind in this matter either. Sir, we faced that issue with due warning, after warnings over lengthy periods, and yet on the 11th November South Africa faced this issue without any common ground between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The result was that a statement was issued, in good faith, by the Leader of the Opposition even before the Prime Minister could make a statement on the issue. The matter was raised here in a no-confidence debate at the beginning of the year and however well-intended that might have been I think it was a very great mistake to have allowed this to happen and to have dragged this issue into the general election.

In saying this I do not blame one party only. I speak my own mind on this matter, Sir, but I can also tell you that I say this on the highest authority in Rhodesia itself. [Interjections.] Yes, I repeat that. I happen to have been in Rhodesia four times since U.D.I., on the first occasion 11 days after the 11th November, and to my surprise—I say this without any recriminations—I read in the newspapers, after the issue had been raised here in the no-confidence debate, that the Opposition was sending an observer to Rhodesia to find out the facts.

Well, I leave it at that; it is something of the past. I can tell you that it was to the great consternation of the Rhodesians that this issue was dragged into our local politics. The wish has been expressed here by the Leader of the Opposition that we should try to find common ground on this issue. Hence my plea that we should try to find common ground on other vital issues facing South Africa. There is the issue of South West Africa. We have the situation that the Afro-Asians at the United Nations, while this matter of South West Africa was still sub judice, suggested that South Africa should be condemned if she did not abide by the decision of the World Court, and now that we are abiding by that decision, we do not know what is going to happen. The Leader of the Opposition has quite rightly warned against the possibility of grave further developments.

Sir, the time has come for us to do what Great Britain did at the outbreak of World War I and at the outbreak of World War JI (because make no mistake about it we are facing a cold war here) and that is to form a coalition government. I am not pleading for a coalition government here but for a coalition attitude on these vital issues. Let me take it further. I feel that with South Africa’s future external relationships now being formulated as a matter of policy it is absolutely vital that South Africa’s future diplomatic relations with the states which are soon to become independent, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland, economically and otherwise, should be clearly formulated. This is a matter which is of vital importance to us bearing in mind the circumstances facing us with regard to the rest of the African states who, together with the Asias, are in the majority at the United Nations. I feel that the country will be grateful to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition if they can make arrangements, if not in public then in private, which will be acceptable to both sides of the House, to show the world that on that score we are standing united.

Lastly I wish to say that while congratulating the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on their attitudes, I feel that there are many members on both sides whom I cannot congratulate on the attitudes they have adopted here. I feel that when we have reached the stage where the Leader of the Opposition expresses this wish, we should refrain from recriminations as to what happened in the past. We have all made mistakes. I voted and worked against the Republic but I think I was one of the first people to write a letter to the then Prime Minister at the time of an international incident, in which I admitted that I was wrong and that it was clear to me that he was right, and nobody will contradict today that he was right at that time. I made a mistake and I am prepared to admit it. If every mistake made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, from the point of view of the Nationalist Party, had been held against him he would not have been sitting over there to-day.

I feel that when it comes to these vital issues we must refrain from indulging recriminations and refrain from quoting what this, that or the other person said at this, that or the other stage.

The hon. member for Outeniqua will have to pardon me for not pursuing the point he was making during the debate because he went back to something that had already been fully debated and in respect of which the Opposition had been given a “kafferpak”.

A “Bantoepak”.

There is an expression in English which says that one should not kick a man when he is down. That is why I do not want to continue debating that point now. I want to refer to what other members have said during this debate. The hon. member for Yeoville, for example, made a fuss about what the late Dr. Verwoerd was reported to have said in regard to more than one community in the same country. But there the late Dr. Verwoerd was talking about “compression”. We cannot send the Coloureds in our country away to a land of their own and that is why we try to prevent compression as far as possible. But this is exactly the opposite of the policy of the United Party. Did they not oppose the establishment of group areas from beginning to end? Have they not opposed every form of separation between White and Black and Coloured? I challenge them to name me one single measure in this regard which they did not oppose. I challenge the hon. member for Yeoville to name me one case in which they co-operated with us to effect separation between the races, separation between the various colour groups. It is their policy to compress all racial groups into the same group and into the same residential areas, in politics and in every other field.

You are talking nonsense.

I am not talking nonsense and the hon. member knows it. He knows it is the policy of his party to bring White and non-White together in everything and to wipe out all colour bars. As against this, we believe in separation. The hon. the Prime Minister has stated our policy so clearly that even a baby should be able to understand it. I feel sorry for the Opposition to-day, because it must be a bitter experience to try to win a debating point against a man who has stated his case as clearly as the hon. the Prime Minister has done to-day. Allow me to tell the United Party that they are conducting their affairs in such a way that they will eventually be represented in this House to the same extent as the Progressive Party. Election after election is carrying them rapidly that way.

But I want to say something about what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said here today. He adopted an attitude here to-day which is slightly different from his former attitude. He was slightly more reasonable than he usually is. Yet he is the man who takes such delight in proclaiming that the Coloured people are the Brown Afrikaners of South Africa. He is the man who revels in that thought. We object to it. “Afrikaner” is the name given to the Afrikaans-speaking White Afrikaner in South Africa. Not even English-speaking South Africans call themselves Afrikaners. That hon. member wants to make South Africa believe that there is no distinction between the Coloured persons and the Whites. That is why he continually advances that sort of argument and that is why he continually tries to bring this concept home. He tries to indoctrinate the people with it. As against this we believe in the clear path which was so clearly demarcated by the late Dr. Verwoerd when he said that he believed in a four-stream policy because he believed that there were four separate population groups in South Africa. He did not say that the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians were an appendix to the Whites; he said that there was a White population group in South Africa and that there was also a Coloured population group in South Africa as well as an Asiatic population group and a Bantu group. These population groups must be developed independently so that they never lose their own national identity. Anyone with a national feeling has respect for someone else’s national feeling. Because the Opposition have no national feeling they have no respect for anybody else’s popular and national feeling either.

What is the national identity of the Coloureds?

The Coloured persons’ national identity is perhaps the most difficult to define. Hon. members must not laugh so hollowly. The fact is that we must help the Coloureds to build up a national identity for themselves. We are succeeding in this and that is the reason why that hon. member talks of our Coloured policy with so much bitterness. Here we have a population group which we are not prepared to assimilate, or integrate with our White nation. Does the hon. member’s party want to do so? If the hon. member is not willing to reply in the affirmative he cannot say that what I am saying here is nonsensical. We believe that we should help the Coloured to build up an own national pride, and, as I have already said, we are succeeding. I was travelling through Namaqualand with the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs recently, and time and again I had the opportunity of listening to Coloureds telling the hon. the Minister that they wanted to be nothing but Coloureds. One Coloured leader rose and thanked the hon. the Minister for what he and the Government were doing to cultivate an own national identity on the part of the Coloured. At the same time he asked that the Coloured be protected against Bantu infiltration. That is what we are doing for the Coloured. In spite of this the Opposition come along to this House and ask us what we are going to do about the Coloureds. Do they not know that we are giving the Coloureds a Coloured Representative Council? Do they not know either that we have given the Coloured people group areas which they can develop themselves? Do they not know that we have given the Coloured people land on which they can satisfy their hunger for it? We are initiating development for them in their own areas. We are promoting tremendous development in those areas.

Where is their father-land?

Their fatherland is South Africa, just as it is mine and yours and the Bantu’s. We all live in the same country, South Africa, but we shall develop each group separately. That hon. member does not seem to know that more than one nation with more than one fatherland has developed from one continent. We are in the process of creating a pattern in this multi-racial South Africa, a pattern of friendly co-existence. That is what we are doing here in South Africa. We are creating opportunities for development as well as opportunities for expansion for the Coloureds in their own group areas. What is wrong with that? We are developing their rural areas. These rural areas are vast and we must not lose sight of the fact. The rural area for the Coloureds in Namaqualand alone comprises 1,250,000 morgen, an area with great possibilities for development and with a great potential. We are also in the process of giving political rights to the Coloureds in these rural areas as far as it is possible for us to do so in our mutual fatherland. I find it strange that hon. members on the other side fail to understand that we do not always follow the same pattern. If it is such a dreadful thing that the Whites in South Africa have reserved certain political rights for themselves, why then do hon. members not object to the hereditary monarchy in England? Why do they not object to the hereditary Upper House in England? But there are so many different forms of government. South Africa is developing a form of government here under which all population groups will be able to live together happily. Why then do hon. members find it so strange and so inconceivable … [Time limit.]

I think the hon. member for Namaqualand will understand if I do not follow up his argument. Time is somewhat pressing and the Prime Minister would like his Votes finished to-day. Therefore I should like to raise a different subject at this stage. Earlier in the debate the Prime Minister remarked that patriotism did not depend on one’s political philosophy—in other words, whether you belong to the Government side or to the Opposition side you can still be a patriot.

Not a political philosophy, but membership of a political party.

Well every party also has its political philosophy, so that I do not think that makes any difference. But I accept the Prime Minister’s point of view and I am not arguing about that. So I hope that that ghost has been laid once and for all although earlier in the afternoon I did feel that it might begin again to walk in this House. Arising from this remark of the hon. the Prime Minister, I should like to discuss the position of the English-speaking South African.

The English-speaking South African to-day seems to be in a situation, owing to the policies and actions of the Government which I will try to illustrate, very much like that of a foreign minority in a foreign country. The English-speaking section is being referred to as the foreign community and enclaved in the community in which they live. As a matter of fact, one almost feels that the English-speaking South African in what has happened has almost arrived at such a position. As far as he is concerned, it has almost become fashionable for him to say nothing about it, to refrain from complaining but to accept the position and carry on with his job of work. For me the role of the English-speaking South African in this country, and what this side of the House stands for, is that it should be based on a true appreciation of one language group for the other. We should have due regard to the talents, the culture and the aspirations of each group, one for the other. With that I do not think there can be any quarrel. Both language groups made a valuable contribution to the creation of a real South African character and a true South African image. The two groups co-operate on every level and participate in all activities of our nation. This was, I think, exemplified to a marked extent in the days of the United Party Government when the United Party Cabinet at the time consisted of English as well as Afrikaans-speaking members. It was patent to the world that there was co-operation at the highest level and to a great extent. That was also patent in the Civil Service where many of the senior and other posts were filled by English-speaking individuals. It was clear to the world that both races were participating in the activities of this country and at all levels.

I also believe that the workers, commercial and business men and industrialists should be in organizations together if possible. Here I want to say that there has been a growing tendency for the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking societies in this country to form separate organizations. Already there are separate organizations representing commerce and this can be multiplied all the way through.

Separated by the Nationalist Party. [Interjections.]

Nonsense.

If there are separate organizations then there should be an encouragement to form joint committees so as to get a better understanding of each others’ point of view and of working together.

Then also—and this I think is most vital—there should be a bringing together of the children in South African schools. A South African spirit will thus be created. I am more than perturbed by the outburst recently in the Transvaal Provincial Council on the question of indoctrination. I think it has very unfortunate results on the English-speaking community of this country when such an outburst takes place by a Nationalist member of that Council. I have stated what I think should be the position and which this side stands for.

Now, Sir, let us look as to what is actually happening at the moment. I believe that the Nationalist Party in this respect is a sectional party. It has come to power in that manner; part of its success was due to that. I totally disagree with that. I think that you have today a position where few or no posts in the civil service are occupied by the English-speaking persons.

I have met many people in the various grades, people who are either in the service or have left the service. Now, let us be quite frank about it—when you ask them what is the position, why are they disgruntled, why are they not happy, the reply comes back: “I have the wrong name.” [Interjections.] Let me say at once, Mr. Chairman, that a person saying that does not necessarily mean that it is the answer why he is not in the service. But I am satisfied that prima facie in a number of cases they have suffered because they have been English speaking. Now, Sir, I think that is quite wrong indeed and it should not happen in a country like this where we are trying to work together.

And there I come, Sir, to the more recent case when the hon. member for Heilbron excelled himself. He was asking whether the Afrikaans-speaking people should not have a greater share in certain respects, and he asked for particulars regarding Iscor, the I.D.C. and so forth. I think that, probably much to his surprise, he was given a reply by the then Chairman of these organizations which showed that in the case of three of them, namely Iscor, the I.D.C. and Sasol, there were 24 directors on those boards and 21 of them were Afrikaans speaking and three English speaking. That was a complete answer, and more than an answer, to what he was seeking. But, Sir, it does raise the opposite question, namely why are there not more English-speaking persons taking part in these great undertakings?

I will give you another example, Mr. Chairman, namely that of the Immigration Selection Board. I think that quite rightly in this case one might expect to find English names. The Department supplied a list, and there are 29 members. Now, on going through this list—I cannot say it is a final test, but it is a fairly accurate test—I find that, looking at it with the utmost goodwill, here are four or five names of people who are probably English speaking. Now, I think that is not indicative that the English-speaking people are playing their part and that a situation exists whereby they can play their full part in the affairs of the country. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I believe in blunt speaking, and I want to speak very bluntly to the hon. member for Von Brandis. I want to tell him, Sir, that he has not bluffed me at all. However much he tried to hide it and however much he tried to camouflage it, the hon. member for Von Brandis got up to do one thing, and that is to trot out the racial bogey. That is how I see his speech and that is how I heard it. [Interjections.] No, Sir, I did not misunderstand the hon. member and I did not miss the tenor of his speech, and that in fact was it, Sir. Let me tell the hon. member for Von Brandis that no man, dead or living, has done more to bring Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people together in South Africa than the late leader of the National Party. Let me tell the hon. member for Von Brandis further, Sir, that relations between Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people in South Africa have never been better than they are to-day. Let me tell the hon. member for Von Brandis that there has never been a time in our history where there has been more mutual respect, for each other’s language, traditions, and everything that goes with it than in present-day South Africa under this Government.

Let me say, Sir, that there is no discrimination at all. I sat in the late Prime Minister’s Cabinet for five years, and how often did I hear the Prime Minister tell us that he does not want discrimination in any shape or form. And now the hon. member for Von Brandis comes along and he talks about people having the wrong name. It is a shocking shame, because, Sir, the hon. member knows—and I am not talking about what this little man says here or what a little clerk does there, I am not talking about that but I am talking about the guiding principle which was the principle of the Verwoerd Government for the eight years that it was in power—that the guiding principle of that Government was equal opportunities in every respect for Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people in South Africa.

I say, Sir, and I say it bluntly to the hon. member for Von Brandis, that if he wants to trot out the racial horse, it will not run. The people of South Africa are just not interested in it. And I say to the hon. member for Von Brandis that nobody will put a cent on it in any race—election or otherwise. I say to the hon. member for Von Brandis that he must look at the election results in Natal. Our votes went up, I think, from 42,000 to something like 87,000. And those votes did not come from Afrikaans-speaking Natalians—they came from English-speaking Natalians, because English-speaking South Africa knew that they could trust the National Party. They could trust the National Party with their language rights. But while we are on that subject, Sir, does the hon. member for Von Brandis and his party remember how they tried to trot out the racial bogey just before the Republic? Let them cast their minds back, Sir. How many of them stood on platforms in South Africa and how many of them said to English-speaking South Africa: “You cannot trust these Nats., you know they only want to create a republic because they want to take your language rights away from you!” How often did hon. members on that side say it, Sir? I read it myself.

Mention one.

The hon. member for Yeoville can wear the shoe if it fits him, as far as I am concerned. That is the propaganda they spread amongst the people of South Africa. [Interjections.]

I am asking you. Your bluff has been called.

And now the hon. member for Von Brandis comes along to make this speech, Sir. Well, I say to him that that horse will not run. People in South Africa are simply not interested in it any longer. They are not interested because they know that it is not so in practice, because people have come to accept the good faith of the National Party, because they accepted the good faith of my late Leader and of the Government of the National Party in this respect.

Because they have no option. [Interjections.]

That is the sort of reply you get, Sir. Hon. members know me well enough. I make bold to say that hon. members know me now; they know that I do not say things for nothing. Hon. members on that side have the right to ask me for my credo in this regard, just as they asked the late Mr. Strydom and my predecessor what they believed in that regard. And for the purposes of record, Mr. Chairman, I want to state again what my credo in this regard is. I said so because I believed it. Mr. Chairman, I believe, so I said, as my departed Leader believed, that in spite of differences there should be unity of purpose between the English and the Afrikaans-speaking people, and that this should be expressed in the service of and the love for the fatherland. I believe that the will to stand together is there. I also believe that the urge is becoming increasingly stronger. I make this pledge, Sir, and I intend to carry it out. I will never through my actions impair that urge. On the contrary, just as he who preceded me, I should like to see that natural urge brought to full maturity by influence, word and deed. It is the principles in which one believes, and not the language one speaks or the country of one’s origin, which makes one a good citizen of a state. That is my credo and that is what I believe, Sir.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great attention to the words of the hon. the Prime Minister. I realize that at this stage in the hon. the Prime Minister’s career they are words because he has not had time to implement them. I wish to deal with facts, Sir, facts which bear on actions which are not fitted to the words of the Prime Minister. They are actions which have taken place in the past. But I want to deal primarily factually with the position of appointments vis-à-vis the much-vaunted claim of national unity.

Now, Sir, I want to go back briefly to 1963 when there appeared a Press article which alleged that one of the hon. Ministers was responsible for making political appointments in his department. As a result of that Press article I addressed a question to the Prime Minister and I received a comprehensive reply in which he dealt with that aspect and in which he went on to say, referring to the Public Service, and I quote from Hansard—

Well, I do not know what exactly is meant by the American system. I take it is a colloquial reference to “jobs for pals”.

The spoils system.

Now, Sir, I want to refer to some facts quoted in the South African Quiz in 1962 which indicated that as far as home languages were concerned in South Africa, 1,500,000 South Africans claimed Afrikaans as a home language and 1,000,000 South Africans claimed English as a home language, a ratio of three Afrikaans to two English-speaking persons.

And then, Sir, I want to come to the attitude of the hon. Minister of Transport regarding a question which I addressed to him in 1964 concerning appointments which he had made to local transportation boards. I asked the hon. the Minister of Transport whether, other factors being equal, in the appointments which he made he had regard to the proportions of the two language groups, and I received an answer.

What were you referring to?

I will read the question, if you wish, Sir. I asked the hon. Minister on the 17th April, 1964, whether appointments had been made to local transportation boards recently, and whether the appointments are made on the basis of proportionate representation of both language groups, other factors being equal. The Prime Minister listed the names of recent appointments—I beg your pardon, the Minister of Transport—and he gave an unequivocal “No” in answer to my question on the proportional basis in regard to language groups. He said that in every case of an appointment made the member concerned was bilingual. Now I want to give some details of these appointments. They are appointments carrying remuneration of R40 to R50 a month, and of 52 appointments made, 48 had names of Afrikaans derivation, three of English origin and one I would call undetermined. I want to ask whether this is not discrimination, and I want to say that this is in line with the Minister of Transport’s thinking, because I want to quote to him what he said in an earlier debate in the same session, in Hansard of 23rd January, 1964. He said—

That is why we discriminate.

Sir, this is discrimination. What effect does it have on unity? It is discrimination against English and in favour of Afrikaans-speaking people.

In what respect did I say that?

I indicated that it was in another debate.

But in regard to what?

In regard to the Coloured people of South Africa.

But you are now speaking about English and Afrikaans-speaking people. [Interjections.]

If I may proceed, this incident set in train a full-scale investigation into the question of appointments by the hon. the Prime Minister and the members of his Cabinet, an investigation conducted by people who were concerned about the trend that appeared to be taking place. I can say that it was a comprehensive investigation and that it dated from 1963 up to 1966, and it considered the various official appointments that had been made by the various Ministers and their various Departments. It did not in the main apply to the Public Service, but the information was official. It was taken from Gazettes and other official notices. The information analysed appointments to commissions, committees, councils, directorships and to various types of boards. What was the result? The intention of the investigation was to decide the extent of the appointment of English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people, or people with English names or Afrikaans names. I realize that there is a problem in deciding on an English name or an Afrikaans name and equating it with the language groups, but we used a norm in this instance. We took the published list of aspirant Nationalist candidates in the Transvaal for the General Election, and on that basis I do not think our conclusions were very far out. What were the results? Of the number of appointments examined, and 657 were examined, 147 had names of English origin, 497 had names of Afrikaans derivation and there were 13 classified as indeterminable. If one considers that from a percentage point of view, one finds that the representation of English-speaking people, or English names, was 22 per cent, Afrikaans 76 per cent, and the rest 2 per cent. If we compare that with the home language percentage of 40 per cent for the English-speaking and 60 per cent for the Afrikaans-speaking people, one can say that the contribution of people of English-speaking heritage in South Africa has been deliberately disregarded in administering and planning the affairs of South Africa. Take the Land Bank. There was not one English name. Take the Manpower, Research and Planning Council. There were 26 members, and the overwhelming majority of them were Afrikaans. Press reports and comments recently have shown that there has been an increasing trend for Afrikaans speaking people to become involved in the affairs of commerce, industry, mining and finance. This is a development to be welcomed, but one must admit, with the recent occurrence of this phenomenon, the experience of this particular class of person must be limited. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he and members of his Cabinet have not deliberately disregarded the contribution which experienced people in commerce, industry, mining and finance, of English-speaking extraction could make? Does their experience count for nothing to-day? I want to quote a New Year’s message which was broadcast to the nation in 1965 as it was reported in the Natal Mercury. It says—

I want to say to the Prime Minister that if he believes that he can continue to disregard the contribution which the English-speaking community in South Africa has made, he is wrong and posterity will prove him to be wrong.

Scandalous!

It is not customary for another Minister to enter the debate when the Prime Minister’s Vote is under discussion, but this matter is of such importance that I feel that I too should say something in this connection. It is quite clear to me that as a result of what happened at the last General Election the United Party is in such a state that it is once again trying to revive racialism so as to draw English-speaking persons away from the National Party and into the English-speaking camp by making misrepresentations and telling untruths in connection with this Government’s policy.

Why do you not deal with the facts?

I am going to deal with the facts. I think that it is disgraceful to allege that this Government is going to wrong the English-speaking persons and is going to favour Afrikaans-speaking persons to the detriment of English-speaking South Africans after this Government has been in power for 18 years during which period it has been proved time and time again that in spite of the predictions made prior to 1948 this Government has always acted correctly and has always served the interests of both population groups and that each has had every right to prosper and advance under this Government. I have been Minister of Transport for 12 years and I challenge those hon. members to point out a single case where an English-speaking person has been wronged in my Department during those 12 years. I was Minister of Labour, of Public Works and of Forestry for 6½ years. I challenge them, and if they can prove to me that anybody has been wronged because he has been English-speaking, I am prepared to resign as a Member of Parliament and from the Cabinet. Let them now bring their proof. I have always received the highest praise from English-speaking officials in my Department and in other departments for the fair and just treatment they have received over the years as well as for the fact that promotions have taken place on merit without the question being asked whether a person was English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking. If he satisfied requirements and if he had the necessary ability he received promotion on the grounds of merit only.

Was Marshall Clark incompetent?

My predecessor had good reasons for dismissing him.

Was Everard Poole incompetent?

There were good reasons for the action taken in connection with those people at that time. But my challenge to that hon. member, who is their mouthpiece on Railways, is to prove that anyone has been wronged in my Department. They are the people who are such heroes and who have the courage to start rumours but they are unable to adduce any proof. [Interjections.] The hon. member spoke of appointments to Road Transportation Boards. Why should I appoint an English-speaking person when I know that his policy, his political policy, is not that of the Government? Is the hon. member under the impression that that person is discriminated against because he is English-speaking? No, he is discriminated against because he is a supporter of the United Party.

Ah!

Do hon. members think that all English-speaking persons are necessarily supporters of the United Party? I have appointed persons to those Road Transportation Boards who I know will implement my policy. Had it been possible for me to find English-speaking persons who were prepared to implement my policy, I would have appointed them. But I am not prepared to appoint a person who I know will not implement my policy simply because he is English-speaking, just as I am not prepared to appoint an Afrikaner who is not in favour of my policy. That is the reason for these appointments being made in that way. [Interjection.] Those hon. members do not want to support apartheid on public transport services. I already have to contend with that difficulty in the case of Pietermaritzburg and Durban where they simply refuse to implement the Government’s policy in connection with apartheid on public transport services. Should I then appoint United Party supporters to that Board who will not be prepared to implement my policy? I think that is absolutely disgraceful conduct. The proof they adduced consisted of what happened in the case of a few Road Transportation Boards, but what hon. members do not realize is this. We should very much like English-speaking persons to join the Public Service. I should like them to join the Railways and when they are there they will have every opportunity for promotion solely on the grounds of merit. I repeat that I now challenge those hon. members to mention one single instance in the Public Service or in the Railways where a person has been discriminated against on account of the fact that he has been English-speaking.

The hon. the Minister of Transport, if nothing else, is quite honest when he talks about appointments to the various boards. It means that unless a person, however competent he may be, is a Nationalist or Nationalistically inclined, he has no chance of serving on any of the boards that this Minister appoints. And remember this, Sir, that it does not only apply to English-speaking people but also to Afrikaans-speaking people. He will treat all of us the same. That means that as long as there is a United Party and as long as the United Party has the support of English-speaking people, so long will we find that there will be discrimination against every competent English-speaking person, whether it is on the Railways or any other board. That is what the Minister said. [Interjections.] It is quite amazing how used to these appointments the Cabinet has become. They see nothing wrong with it. It is only when you start analysing it that you find that discrimination takes place. It does not only occur as far as individuals are concerned, but also bodies. We have just recently been presented with a list of persons representing various bodies who are going to serve on the Social Welfare Board. It makes very good reading indeed and I am not going to go into the names because one finds on this list of names, Afrikaans names and one or two English names, and some names which may be English-speaking persons or may not be. They may be Afrikaans-speaking people. But what I am concerned about is that the largest universities in the country, the largest English-speaking universities, have been disregarded entirely. I find here representation for the Huguenot College, the Pretoria University, Stellenbosch University and the Orange Free State University, and there is Rhodes University only to represent the English-speaking universities. Wits, is not mentioned, nor Cape Town, nor Natal University. Does the Prime Minister want to tell me that there are not competent people at those universities who can look after social welfare affairs? Is there not a single one there? Does it mean, following the trend of thought of the Minister of Transport, that not only the individual must be Nationalist, but the institution as well? It is for that reason that we find outbursts like we have heard from the hon. members for Heilbron and Innesdal, where they object to the English language being used in certain bodies.

Nonsense!

If my memory serves me correctly, the hon. member for Innesdal objected to Afrikaans-speaking people mixing with English-speaking people. [Interjections.] Then we are accused of bringing up the bogy of racialism.

On a point of personal explanation …

My time is limited and the hon. member for Heilbron can get up and speak. I cannot understand the Prime Minister when he says that we on this side must show our bona fides. Let me tell the Prime Minister that we on this side fought against the Republic. We fought the referendum and lost. We fought it cleanly and to the best of our ability, and after the referendum took place, did we walk about with a chip on our shoulders, and did we obstruct the progress of our country? Surely that alone proves our bona fides. We put our shoulders to the wheel and kept the country going, and did we obstruct in any way or have demonstrations and say we did not want it? We fought the democratic fight and lost, but we supported South Africa. We do not have to go on bended knees to ask for representation on any board. We are willing to serve South Africa, but if you reject us it is your loss and South Africa’s loss. We ask you now to remember that we feel these slights. These things are not just shrugged off by us. Do not take our silence as complacency. We feel these slights, and I ask the hon. the Prime Minister to remember that we on this side of the House and those people who support us want to help South Africa to progress. We say: From now onwards let the children get together at the schools; let them get together at the universities. Let there be an end to this separation. Let us use our own languages, if we wish to do so; let us join our own clubs, if we wish to do so but when it comes to service to South Africa we also have the right to serve. We are waiting for the Prime Minister to open the gates of service to South Africa to us.

Let me say to the hon. member who has just sat down that he must please not tempt me to go into the past, because if we go into the past and lift the veil of the past, it will not be to the credit of hon. members on that side of the House. The history of South Africa is very well known and it is fresh in our memories. Let us not be tempted to go into the past; let us look forward.

That is what we are trying to do.

It takes some willpower, having heard the hon. member, not to do it.

As far as the question of appointments is concerned, naturally I do not know the details of these appointments, but I do know that many of those appointments, if not most of them, were made on the recommendations of social bodies. But be that as it may. The hon. member can at all times discuss that with the responsible Minister. Not knowing the details I do not want to become involved in that argument at the moment. I want to come back to myself because the hon. member has addressed his remarks to me. Sir, I say to hon. members on that side of the House: Let them look at my record as Minister of Justice over the past five years. I say to the hon. member for Durban (North) that he can look at my appointments to the Bench of South Africa, and one’s sincerity is tested by one’s appointments to the Bench. Has there ever been any complaint from the Bar or the Side-Bar or any individual advocate or attorney that I discriminated against any English-speaking person as far as appointments to the Bench are concerned? I ask the hon. member for Durban (North), who is an advocate like myself, in all sincerity whether there is any reason to doubt my sincerity as far as that is concerned?

No.

I am pleased to hear that. The hon. member for Durban (North) distinctly says there is no reason whatsoever to doubt my sincerity in that regard.

I want to go further. Let us look at the appointment of magistrates. There are four principal magistracies. There is Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban and Port Elizabeth. An English-speaking person occupies that position in Cape Town; an English-speaking person occupies the Bench at Port Elizabeth as principal magistrate; and the same applies to Durban. It is only in Johannesburg where there is an Afrikaans-speaking person occupying that position.

Let us look at my appointments as far as justices of the peace are concerned. How many English-speaking South Africans have I appointed, including members of the Opposition? Let us look at the position as far as sworn appraisers are concerned. I have appointed not one but dozens and dozens of English-speaking attorneys and other people as sworn appraisers. Let me say to hon. members opposite: For heaven’s sake, do not at this late stage of this debate tempt us to lift the veil of the past. I have already told hon. members what my beliefs are; I have told hon. members what promise I made in this regard, and to the best of my knowledge and belief I have never made a promise which I have not kept. Sir, this sort of debate will take us no further whatsoever.

It degrades Parliament.

If we have something to say to each other in the course of this debate, let us move to another subject. This sort of debate is not worthy of any of us.

It is with some hesitation that I participate in this debate …

Sit down then.

… on national unity and the relationship between Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking persons. During the many years I have been in politics I have discovered that if one wanted a heated spirit in the House of Assembly one should just mention the word “unity” amongst South Africans or Afrikaners. The most heated debates I have ever listened to in this House took place in those days when the one main party in this House was “united” and the other main party was “re-united”, and then you should have seen them argue with each other.

The hon. the Prime Minister last night gave certain assurances in connection with national unity. I am prepared to accept those assurances wholeheartedly and I am prepared to wait and see how he is going to implement those assurances in future. I accept his bona fides as regards that particular point and also as regards the other points mentioned by him last night, but I think I have the right to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister certain things which have been occurring on a larger scale during recent years than in the past, things which are in conflict with what he said last night, things which trouble us who believe in unity in South Africa. Let me mention a few of those cases. In the first instance I have in mind a statement made in June of this year in the Free State Provincial Council by one Mr. P. W. Nel, a M.P.C. I know that that statement has been repudiated. I am not saying that it is the Nationalist Party’s policy. I am mentioning it because it is symptomatic of something which is occurring more and more in the ranks of responsible persons in the Nationalist Party. That statement was that Afrikaans should be recognized as the only official language in the Republic.

What happened subsequently in the Provincial Council?

I have already said that the statement was repudiated, but how is it possible that a responsible representative of the Nationalist Party could even think of making such a statement? Then there was a statement by the leader of the Nationalist Party in the Johannesburg City Council, once again a responsible person, Mr. Eben Cuyler. Mr. Eben Cuyler said that he regarded the Afrikaans culture as being the only White culture in South Africa. I do not know whether that statement has been repudiated, but I reject that statement by him because the English-speaking South Africans have also developed their own local culture, their own art and their own music. [Interjection.] I do not know whether the hon. member for Heilbron is going to raise similar objections to the fact that Dr. Van Eck has proved to him that Afrikaans was virtually used 100 per cent in the meetings of directors of utility companies. He may possibly do so; we are waiting to hear his reply.

I also have in mind the statement made by one Mr. Geldenhuys, M.P.C. for Pretoria (District), on 23rd August this year, when he was discussing school policy and asked: “What is wrong with indoctrination?” Once again I want to be fair. I put this question to the hon. the Minister of Education. I said to him: “Listen, that M.P.C. said that we should indoctrinate immigrants to become Afrikaners; do you agree?” He said: “No, to become South African”, and I accept that. My point is that things are said which should not be said by responsible people.

There is another case I want to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister. I am not saying that he has been responsible for it; he could not have been responsible for it.

What has happened to the fine sentiments that side expressed last night?

I accept the bona fides of the hon. the Prime Minister.

See how embarrassed the hon. member for South Coast is on your behalf.

The hon. the Prime Minister misunderstood me. I said that I accepted his bona fides.

You are not bluffing me.

I accept them unconditionally but it is important that certain things which occurred recently should be brought to his notice.

Now your mask has been removed.

Let me perhaps convince the hon. the Prime Minister even more by mentioning certain things which we regard as being a healthy sign of what is happening in South Africa at present. Let me mention a few such examples to him. Recently the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services and of Water Affairs delivered an interesting speech to the Nasionale Jeugbond; I think it was somewhere in the Free State, at Allemanskraal. There he made a statement which has my wholehearted support, a statement which to my mind really deserved headlines in all newspapers in South Africa but which unfortunately did not happen. If the hon. the Prime Minister also supports that statement—and I hope he does—then we are coming still closer to the point of view which both sides of this House expressed last night. The hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services said at that congress that the Nationalist Party had previously altered its course; he thought that the time had arrived for the Nationalist Party to do so again, and it should alter course in connection with the policy of parallel-medium schools. In other words, the Nationalist Party should reconsider accepting the policy of parallel-medium schools.

What do you intend doing in Natal?

I am glad that the hon. the Minister said that; he deserves to be praised on that account. If we can make any progress in that direction I most certainly will be very pleased. I want to know whether hon. members opposite agree with the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services. He is a fine product of a parallel-medium school.

Mr. Chairman, I think the trouble we have when discussing unity in South Africa is that we very often cannot agree about the basic definition of the word. We have heard that unity means that one should hold the same views; that one should bring together what belongs together. There have been various definitions of the word “unity” and that is the very reason for our many differences. I think that it is necessary that we should arrive at a definition of “national unity”, a definition which will be simple and which will be acceptable to all, and then it will be possible for us to see whether or not and to what extent we comply with that definition. To me it is simple; there are three important points: the first is that we put South Africa first; the second is that we are South Africans first and foremost, and the third is that we must see whether it will not be possible for us to achieve the largest possible extent of co-operation between the various groups. Now, we so often hear that we should have unity as regards the Bantustan policy. How can it be asked that we should have unity as regards the Bantustan policy. How can it be asked that we should have unity as regards the Bantustan policy when a random test we have made amongst the members of that party has indicated that more than half of them were either thinking that the Government was bluffing or did not want independent Bantustans. The majority of them do not believe in that policy themselves; how can we expect unity between them and us under those circumstances?

Now you are talking through your neck.

I am mentioning these things because I believe that we can have unity in South Africa, but then we have to make absolutely sure what we mean by unity. If we are speaking about coalition we are stepping on each other’s toes. Let us keep it simple: South Africa first; we are South Africans first and foremost, and let us then see to what extent we can achieve a larger degree of cooperation.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful as a new member to have the opportunity to say a few words to-night. I have heard things to-day—perhaps I should not say this because I am green here—which definitely shocked me because I was definitely shocked at what I heard here this afternoon. I heard yesterday afternoon and yesterday evening about the bi-partisan approach to the problems which face us daily in South Africa. Then I had to hear this afternoon the old scores and old bones of battles long ago being raked up—things in which the electors of South Africa are no longer interested. I would like to state briefly my own experience of the National Party. I was born here in the Peninsula of pure English descent. I was schooled at Muizenberg and at Rondebosch. I was always interested in politics but I also thought that I was excluded because I was English-speaking. In 1948 I heard a broadcast by Dr. Malan in which he said that he was going to rule on the assumption that there was established in South Africa a new nation, not Dutch or British but South African, with two languages and two cultures which as far as the State was concerned would always be treated completely equally. That night he asked for the support of every South African irrespective of his descent, irrespective of his home language, to support his policy of separate development and the broad policy of the National Party concerning apartheid—there is nothing wrong with apartheid—on one assumption, namely that he agreed with the policy. After careful consideration, my whole life’s experience told me that this policy was correct and I accepted the Prime Minister’s word that despite my English descent and the fact that English was my home language, I would be treated the same as every other South African. I want to say to-night that that promise given by Dr. Malan has never been broken. I have been with the National Party for 16 years as a voluntary worker and I have been treated strictly and entirely on my merits as a person. I desire no other treatment. I want to say that I have found that I have been treated just as a South African and no more. Mr. Chairman, if this was only my personal view and my personal experience, it would not be important at all. We have heard this afternoon about the reaction of Natal and Transvaal and although I am not at all provincially-minded I must speak of the Cape which I know. I want to say that there are two of us in this House, my colleague, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central), and myself representing Maitland, in whose constituencies there is definitely a majority of English-speaking voters, and we would not be here to-night if we did not have the support of English-speaking South Africans. When I was asked to stand as a party candidate in Maitland and when after due consideration I agreed and approached the voters of Maitland to support the National Party on the merits of our case and the merits of our record, it was on that basis that I gained a majority. There is no question about it, the National Party has enjoyed on a party basis the support of hundreds of thousands of English-speaking South Africans of various religions and of various descents, purely on the merits of our record and purely because they trust their future in the hands of the National Party leaders. I wish humbly and respectfully to associate myself with what the hon. the Prime Minister said. In White South Africa, irrespective of what the Opposition says because they do not know the feeling of the voters, the voters of South Africa, both English-and Afrikaans-speaking, have a strong desire to stand together even if we cannot agree on a party basis. We are determined to stand together for South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, despite the noise which has come from the Nationalist Party I hope that we will be able to deal with a subject of tremendous delicacy with a little more dignity than was displayed by the members of the Government side when I stood up to speak. The hon. member for Maitland who has just sat down spoke with sincerity …

And with dignity.

Yes, and with dignity and I accept his sincerity and his dignity. His memory may not be as good. The speech by the then Prime Minister in 1948, to which he referred contained other words than those to which he referred, words which he may remember included the expression “South Africa has been returned to us”, not to a political party but to a section of the people.

Nonsense.

Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention this evening to delve into the past, but a more recent past would perhaps interest the hon. member for Maitland.

Do you mean after this last election?

Yes, after this last election. After the result was announced it was said quite openly by one of the people working hardest for him “Het ons geweet dat ons kon gewen het, het ons ’n ander kandidaat gekry”. [Interjections.] I think that these things should be known. I think that the Nationalist Party should know that the opponent of the hon. member for South Coast who had expected to win that seat, when he saw the way that the count was going, said: “It’s no wonder; you cannot trust these hairy backs.” That was Mr. Blythe Thompson. Mr. Chairman. I mention these things because I believe this debate has shown one thing, one thing which I believe is tragic for South Africa, despite what we on this side of the House wish and what I believe the Prime Minister wishes, and I accept his sincerity without question. I accept and I say publicly that I believe that in the administration of his Department he has shown no racial bias whatsoever between English-and Afrikaans-speaking appointments. I accept and I think it is common knowledge that in his appointment of the judiciary he has not allowed language to play a part and so what I say now I say as something which both the Prime Minister and which we on this side of the House believe in very deeply and very sincerely. I say that what this debate has shown is that we have not advanced far enough along the road to true national unity. The sensitivity which has been displayed in this debate.

On both sides.

Yes, on both sides. This sensitivity indicates that we in South Africa have not in fact advanced as far as the Prime Minister has hoped we had advanced, neither have we advanced as far as we should have done because on both sides of the House there is a real or an imagined feeling of grievance. Mr. Chairman, there was one mistake made in this debate and it was made by the hon. the Prime Minister when he threatened us on this side of the House, when he said: “Don’t tempt me or I will go back into the past.” I hope that we will not go back into the past because the grievances in the minds of the South African people, real or imaginary, are to them personally a real issue. Just as there are those who are Afrikaans-speaking who may believe that they have suffered injustice, to the same extent are there those who are English-speaking who may feel the same. I do not want to go into the whys and wherefores or the merits. I believe that the tragedy is that that should be so, that the hon. the Prime Minister should have to threaten the Opposition that if we do not stop this debate he will dig up old bones. [Interjection.] Mr. Chairman, that was the implication. He said that he was tempted to dig up old bones and then he demanded that we should stop, but I believe that as an adult people, as an adult nation we should be big enough to face even a problem as delicate and as unfortunate as that which has been debated in this House this afternoon. We must prove ourselves big enough to be able to talk like adults instead of children about a problem that affects the future of the whole of South Africa. [Interjections.] My hon. friends ask who started it? My answer is: Who has been the Government of South Africa for the past eighteen years? If there are grievances, real or imaginary, they can only be real or imaginary to the Afrikaans-speaking South Africans if they happened more than eighteen years ago. If there are grievances on the part of the English-speaking South Africans, then they are grievances of more recent date.

You must address your remarks to the hon. member for Von Brandis.

The hon. Chief Whip of this party and other members spoke with sincerity on this matter. I want to say with all the sincerity of which I am capable, because this is a matter which I unlike hon. members on the Government side—regard as fundamental and the be-all or end-all of the future of our country—that if we in South Africa cannot live up to and make a reality of the ideas upon which this party is based, the ideal upon which we were founded, the ideals which gave us our very name, the idea of a united people, the driving force, the golden thread which has made the United Party what it is, which has made it live through all the ups and downs of our history … [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, listen to hon. members on that side of the House and what they think of national unity. I want to say that I believe that the leaders of the Nationalist Party believe in that same national unity too. My appeal to-night to the hon. the Prime Minister is that we accept his bona fides and we ask him to join with us in trying to halt the sort of recriminations which have been thrown across the floor of this House in this debate and possibly in the future, and to do so by deed and not by lip service to the principles of national unity. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. member for Durban (Point) and I have always regarded him as a doughty fighter in this House, a man who took aim and took it firmly and for that reason I have always had a great deal of respect for him. But I want to ask the hon. member, and he was here during the debate earlier this afternoon, if he feels very proud of the behaviour and the debate instigated by the hon. Chief Whip of his party and by the hon. member for Berea. Mr. Chairman, I was almost going to say to my many Afrikaner friends that I apologize for this type of debate. I do not enjoy it. But I want to say that I am very pleased it has happened. Do you know why. Mr. Chairman? It is because I thought that their old jingo crowd went out with Col. Ross of Benoni; I thought that that was the end of it, but here we get it heaped up once again. I want to say something to the hon. members of that party about this holier-than-thou attitude which even this hon. member adopted, this call of theirs for national unity. I remember the attitude of that side of the House on a measure like the Flag Bill which gave South Africa one flag. I remember how they went round the country saying: “This is the beginning, your language is next.” I remember how on the Republican issue they went round the country and how at meetings they worked up the emotions of the people by singing God save the Queen before even the meeting was started.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister in which English-speaking constituency he is going to stand in the next election.

Mr. Chairman, an hon. member allows an hon. member on that side of the House to ask a question because he is trying to be a gentleman and then the hon. member behaves like the hon. member for North Rand. It is a privilege to interrupt a speaker to ask a question but I know now how to treat the hon. member in future. Let me ask these hon. members something about all this unity they have been preaching. They have tried to frighten the lives out of the English-speaking voters for years and years. They did it in connection with the flag, they did it in connection with the Anthem, they did it in connection with the Republic and they did it in connection with the Commonwealth.

Mr. Chairman, they even did it on such a childish thing as decimalization. It was an in suit to move away from the British pound, shillings and pence—anything to try to frighten the English vote away from the Nationalists. The only hon. member who got special dispensation from his caucus was the hon. member for Kensington. It is the same old game, Sir, to try to create this atmosphere. During the last election, they tried in every way to get hold of the English vote. I can give them quotations from newspapers.

To do what?

To get hold of the English vote and to try to hold it. The hon. member for Yeoville wrote an article in The Cape Times-. English-speaking Nat days numbered says U.P.-Mr. Marais Steyn. The hon. member for Wynberg had meetings all over the country. She did not speak about their policy. She said that the English-speaking people must not let the United Party down. The English-speaking people have learnt their lesson. They know that this is all humbug and hypocrisy. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Transkei knows that his party will get smaller and smaller, and they will still make the same speeches. I first felt like saying to my Afrikaner friends: I am sorry about this. But I would now say to them that this is the best propaganda our party can have in South Africa. All this talk of patriotism that we heard about earlier, and all this talk about a common front when we meet our problems, is shown up by this sort of speech we had to-day. I listened to the hon. member for South Coast. He and I have had many bitter quarrels in this House, but at least I felt that he was trying to create the right atmosphere for South Africa. I wonder whether the right atmosphere was created by the hon. member for Von Brandis and the hon. member for Berea? I say to the hon. members: Carry on like that. Do this, and in the next election you will come back with less than twenty. [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon. member for Transkei please keep quiet.

Mr. Chairman, I am not bluffed by all this atmosphere they are trying to create. They are only concerned with one thing, and that is to try to bring back the English-speaking vote which voted Nationalist Party in the last election. That is all. Also, although I am impressed by the hon. member for South Coast and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, for whom I have a high regard—they may not like me, but I was impressed by their attitude but—I say that as a party, when they talk about a common front, I do not have to look far to say: Please, heaven help me from this common front. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, this is all sour grapes. I heard the hon. member for Transkei ask me why I stood at Caledon. I shall tell him a few things. When I went to Caledon, the United Party people said: “Kyk wie het hulle hier gebring; ’n verdomde Engelsman om hier te kom staan.” [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, they had a case. I was English-speaking. I was not from the district. I was not a farmer, I was “daardie slegte woord wat ek netnou gese het”. With all that, Sir, Caledon accepted me unanimously. They sent me back, the Afrikaners and everybody, with a bigger majority than the Nationalist Party has ever had in Caledon. That is my answer to them. Carry on with this propaganda. You save the Nationalist Party a lot of effort, because you are just making the people come by their hundreds and thousands to vote for us because they are beginning to realize we are the party that is going to bring national unity to South-Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Forestry made a very interesting contribution to this debate, but I shall definitely not follow him. Of course, the only thing I am slightly …

… worried about is Barabbas. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister has told us why he did this, and that and the other thing, why he went to Caledon and’ what he did there. I thought he would take us into his confidence any moment and would tell us why he left Vasco and why he did not stand in Vasco again. We should have liked to learn whether he thought he would be able to-stand again in Caledon in five years’ time. [Interjections.]

Order! I shall no longer allow any interruptions. This is not a bioscope.

I should like to address a few words to the hon. the Minister of Transport. He participated in the debate this afternoon and said that it was exceptional for him as a Minister to enter the discussion of the Vote of another Minister; but I can fully understand why he participated, because a pertinent question had been put to the Prime Minister in connection with the administration of the Minister of Transport. I think he was; entitled to give a reply. It is in connection with this reply that I desire further information either from the Prime Minister or from the-Minister of Transport. The Minister had to answer a charge, namely that people had been discriminated against as far as appointments to local transportation boards were concerned. The fear was expressed that English-speaking people were discriminated against, whereupon the hon. the Minister rose and did not deny that there had been any discrimination. He conceded that discrimination had taken place as far as the appointment of local transportation boards was concerned. He said, however, that it was not the English-speaking people who were discriminated against, but that it was, in fact, political discrimination against the supporters of the United Party. This was particularly interesting.

He put it differently.

If the hon. the Minister agrees with me across the floor of this House, it does not matter if the hon. member at the back does not agree with me.

I am entitled to my opinion.

The Minister of Transport should clarify this matter somewhat more for us, because what he has now revealed is in many respects more shocking than the charge that was levelled, namely that there possibly were signs of discrimination on the grounds of language. The Minister should now tell us: Is it his policy or that of the Prime Minister that as far as the appointment of people to boards is concerned, a political inquisition should first be held to decide on the political beliefs of people who may possibly be appointed? What right does the Minister of Transport have to say that the fact that so few English-speaking people are appointed by him to his transportation boards is attributable to the fact that he discriminates against those he calls supporters of the United Party? How does he know who are supporters of the United Party and who are not? That is very important. We all know that only the minority of the people and the citizens of South Africa are members of parties or state publicly that they are supporters of the one party or the other.

Who are the others?

The others are people who do not openly take part in politics. The majority of our citizens do not take part in politics publicly.

I am asking merely for the sake of clarity.

Perhaps the reply makes it clear to you. Now the Minister of Transport should tell us: Does he appoint only recognized Nationalists to the boards and only people taking an active part in the politics of the Nationalist Party? That is something we must know. The Minister made a policy statement here and he did so under the Vote of the Prime Minister. We must therefore accept it to be the policy of the Government. Is that the position? If he does discriminate, he is not only discriminating against supporters of the United Party, but also against hundreds of thousands of Nationalists who do not take an active part in politics. [Interjections.] Is it the policy of the Government that before an appointment is made a secret inquisition is held into the political beliefs of a possible appointee? Is that the policy? What is the present position in South Africa? Now it is worse than we have feared. I know many supporters of the United Party who serve on certain boards. Do we now have to accept that those people either lied to the hon. the Minister by telling him that they were supporters of the Nationalist Party and that they serve on those boards under false pretences, or that they will be kicked out when the Minister discovers that their political beliefs are not what he thought them to be? I cannot understand how the Minister could have said something like that. I shall say this to his credit: I do not believe it. Sir, I do not believe that this hon. Minister or any Minister in the Cabinet holds political inquisitions every time they make an appointment to their boards.

The hon. member is being silly.

I am not being silly. The hon. Minister of Transport did say that. He should now get up and explain to us how he determines who are supporters of the Nationalist Party and who are not. I think the people of South Africa are entitled to an answer. We are now dealing with Government policy. I recall the days when I sat on the Press gallery and I recall that General Kemp said that, all things being equal in a case where such an appointment had to be made, he would give preference to a supporter of his own party. But I have never heard that a Minister of the Crown gets up and says … [Interjections.] I have never heard that a person who has been a Minister of the Crown for 15 years and who is now a Minister of the Republic makes a policy statement in his reply and says that it is his policy to discriminate on the grounds of politics in the appointment of persons to his boards.

From this we must deduce that he determines in some way or other what the political beliefs of people are before he appoints them. We want the Minister to tell us how he does that. Who conducts the investigation? The Police? The Nationalist Party? Or the Minister himself? The hon. the Prime Minister is becoming indignant. He says I am talking nonsense. I hope he will now get up and, if I am talking nonsense, repudiate the Minister of Transport. I shall be very glad. Nobody will feel better than I if this Minister is repudiated. I cannot believe that a responsible Government governs its country on such a nonsensical basis as that announced by the Minister of Transport.

Mr. Chairman, the thing that amazes me about the Opposition is that they return repeatedly to a matter in regard to which they are so terribly vulnerable. The hon. member has once again raised the question of appointments. I stated in the Senate—and I proved it—that during the time they were in office a man like Colin Steyn declared publicly here that he was not prepared to appoint a Nationalist as a justice of the peace. He boasted openly about it. To tell the truth—and I proved this in the Senate—he went so far as to say that he would rather appoint a Communist than a Nationalist. This happened during their period of office. The hon. member is looking for trouble now; he is preparing a rod for his own back. I do not enjoy having to mete out this sort of punishment.

I want to tell the hon. member what the policy of the Government is. In the first place I want to say that nowhere is there discriminination on the grounds of language. I, as the head of this Government, shall see to it that there is never any discrimination in this sphere. Nor is their discrimination on political grounds in the case of bodies which are not concerned with the implementation of policy. Take for example the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council. That body includes people with all kinds of political convictions, people who express their political convictions openly against the Government. But the Prime Minister appointed them because they are good economists and because they represent certain sectors of the economy on that Council. I can mention many names in this connection, but hon. members know them just as well as I do.

The same holds good for the Bench, which I have already mentioned. The same holds good for justices of the peace, as long as it does not involve a question of the implementation of policy—unlike in the case of Colin Steyn! I want to tell hon. members opposite that I have appointed dozens of their supporters. The same holds good for sworn appraisers, whom I have appointed in their hundreds. I was not concerned as to the political convictions of those people, because their work had nothing to do with Government policy. Mr. Chairman, I trust that the hon. member will give me best in this regard. After all, one does not catch a hare with an unwilling hound. Surely that cannot be done. This is not only our point of view. It was also the policy of that side of the House for years, except that they carried it too far. They applied this policy throughout, whilst our attitude is that when the implementation of the policy of the Government is involved we must ensure—because, after all, it is our policy that has to be implemented—that the people dealing with policy matters support that policy. I want hon. members to take particular note of the fact that I am not referring to officials now. I am referring to members of the public. The hon. member has now come to light with the senseless story that we are holding an inquisition now, that it is now the Gestapo of the Police.

I did not mention the word “Gestapo”.

No, but that was the insinuation. Sir, on one occasion Langenhoven was sitting on a stage …

What the heart thinks the mouth speaks!

No. That was the hon. member’s insinuation and he must not try to evade the issue. Mr. Chairman, on one occasion Langenhoven was sitting on a stage when a certain person chanced to walk past. A man who was with Langenhoven asked another man who was also with him: “Do you know what party he belongs to?”, to which the second man replied: “No, I do not know.” Langenhoven then said: “If you do not know, then you know”. You know, Sir, this is very true.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member was not born yesterday. He has been in politics five years longer than I have and he has already represented three seats in this House. He knows politics and life just as well as I do. We know our people when we have to appoint a man at Vereeniging or elsewhere. Does the hon. member not know his own people? It is not a question of holding an inquisition or of police investigation. People show their feelings. If I have to appoint a man to implement policy, does the hon. member really expect me, in regard to a question of policy, to appoint a man whose political views are the reverse of mine? Surely it is perfectly obvious that if, for example, I need a man to implement policy at Oudtshoorn, I shall ask Mr. P. M. K. le Roux to recommend a man at Oudtshoorn who will implement my policy. That is how easy it is.

Then you will be making a mistake.

The mistake the hon. member has made is that he has been in the Opposition too long. He does not know how to govern. What the hon. the Minister of Transport stated here is therefore the attitude of the Government and has always been the attitude of the Government, not only of the National Party but also of the United Party. This has been Government policy in South Africa from time immemorial. This has always been the position. If my hon. friend were unfortunate enough to find his party in power to-morrow, he would act in exactly the same way, and I could not blame him for it.

He would not even appoint me to the Rent Board.

There is nothing sinister in this; it is nothing unusual. It is the perfectly normal function of any Government and of any Minister in regard to matters of policy, and the matters raised here by the hon. the Minister of Transport were matters of policy. We need not even argue about it. It is as clear as crystal. I trust therefore that that will be accepted now, and I want to extend a friendly invitation to hon. members opposite to come along and tell me if, in the future, they gain the bona fide impression that there is discrimination against certain people because they are English speaking. Let them test me in this regard. What more can I say? Test me by all means, but accept our bona fides! I accepted the hon. member for South Coast’s bona fides last night. I know him as a man whose bona fides I can accept. He accepted my bona fides too and I told him last night that I was grateful for that. But do not let us try to obscure matters with this sort of thing. Let us accept one another’s bona fides, but do let us remember that in spite of everything that has been said, we have two political parties, each with its own outlook and policy, and that there are certain things which it is fair and justified for a political party to do without being blamed for so doing, as has been attempted here, by insinuating that it is doing something that is ugly or strange or immoral.

At one stage it looked as if we were getting very near to the song in a recent musical, “Everything you can do I can do better,” but the Prime Minister has asked that we accept his bona fides, and in that spirit I think we should leave the matter there. We have had this discussion and the Prime Minister has asked us to test him, and we will test him. We ask him to accept our bona fides just as we accept his. The position is that the hurt comes when people on this side express their point of view in the interests of South Africa and their South Africanism is queried. We differ from the Prime Minister sincerely, but we accept that we are South Africans, just as good South Africans as hon. members opposite. We do not like our attitude to be queried on the basis that we are un-South African. As long as we just differ on the basis that we are good South Africans, we can get somewhere, but on the basis that we query one another’s patriotism when we differ, we reduce the debate to a giddy sort of level or depth. I suggest that as the Prime Minister has made those remarks and has asked us to accept his bona fides we leave the matter there …

And then you can sit down.

Who said that?

I hope the Prime Minister will be able to use his influence through his Whips to control some of his not so responsible backbenchers. [Interjections.] I say to the Chief Whip of the Government that I am not being irresponsible in any way. I suggest that he observe the Rules of the House and let me carry on with my speech.

There are other matters which concern the Prime Minister and I want to know what his attitude is with regard to foreign investment in this country and with regard to foreign banks in this country. Does he want foreign banks and foreign investment here?

That point of view has been put pertinently by the Minister of Finance.

The reason why I nut this Question is because it was not dealt with by the Minister of Finance.

Then the answer is yes.

I want to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to a remark made the other day. I will not name the banks concerned. One member on the Government side said—

This member, in the course of his speech, queried foreign banks and threatened them and practically told the foreign banks that they were not wanted here. I want to suggest to the Prime Minister that the only way we can develop this country is either with the savings of our people or with investments from overseas. We need investments from overseas and we need know-how from overseas. We want to have overseas investments in this country, but at the same time we will not stand for overseas investors using their position to interfere in the politics of this country. I think that is accepted on both sides. We will not have overseas investors, by reason of their investments, interfering in local politics, but we want to ensure that the outside world is told not only that they are welcome to invest in this country but that this country is a safe investment for them. By the same token I would like the Prime Minister to indicate whether he welcomes South African banks encouraging investment in the neighbouring territories; because despite what the Minister of Economic Affairs has said with regard to the timing of a Common Market, saying that the time was not ripe for it, I sincerely believe that we should take an interest in these neighbouring territories, both in their interests and in ours. We should be establishing investments in those territories and we should be developing a Common Market, despite what the Prime Minister said the other day, that the ties between South Africa and these neighbouring territories are very close indeed, closer than the ties in the Common Market in Europe. But I want to remind the Prime Minister that the position will be different when they get their independence, because overseas countries looking for investments will endeavour to invest in the neighbouring territories with a view not only to capturing the market in those territories but to use those territories to produce goods to try and capture the market in this country. As there is no customs barrier between the neighbouring territories and ourselves, there is the danger that overseas investors can establish themselves in the neighbouring Protectorates, and they can establish industries and financial interests which can affect our economy in South Africa. For that reason I think it is essential that not only should we establish financial interests there but that we should have ambassadors in those territories and commercial attaches who will keep a close, day-to-day watch on what is taking place. It is all very well to pick up information from Pretoria, but I think it is more important to have people on the spot who have day-to-day contact. For that reason it may be advisable to attract educated Bantu to maintain contact in those territories so that there will be liaison with what is happening there. I can assure hon. members that the big overseas financial interests are already showing an interest in these neighbouring territories, and when I saw a speech which was made by a member the other day, the hon. member for Sunnyside, that we should tell overseas bankers that they are not wanted in this country, I decided that even though the hon. the Prime Minister is not directly concerned with finance, financial matters should be brought to his notice because finance and economic affairs are the lifeblood of South Africa as well as of the neighbouring territories. They depend on us and we, in turn, depend on them because they are valuable markets for us and we hope to see them developing, because if they do not develop they will remain in poverty and then they may become a real danger to South Africa. It is for that reason that I have brought these economic matters to the notice of the Prime Minister, in the hope that he will give an indication, as I am sure he will, that this country needs and wants overseas investment in South Africa and welcomes foreign banks, with the proviso that they do not interfere in our politics: and equally the Prime Minister should welcome South African organizations such as the I.D.C., Escom and banking interests investing in the neighbouring territories so that we can maintain and strengthen the bonds with those territories.

I do not think I need take up a great deal of time in replying to the hon. member for Pinetown. The hon. member knows what the economic policy of the previous Government was. Let me honestly admit to the House that I took Economics II at university and, after taking it. was more confused about economic matters than I had ever been before. I do not have a particularly broad knowledge of economic matters. This may perhaps be to my advantage, because now I am able to listen impartially to this sort of argument. The Prime Minister has an Economic Advisory Council, as I have said, consisting of people representing all points of view, people of various political convictions. The Prime Minister is in the privileged position of having a person like Dr. Riekert at the head of that organization, and it is obvious that I shall lean particularly heavily upon this Advisory Council. But what is more, for the rest the economic policy is laid down by the able Minister of Finance, the Reserve Bank, the Treasury and the officials, all very competent people, and this policy will, as in the past, continue to serve the best interests of South Africa. Therefore I do not think that is necessary for me to make any policy statements at this stage. Hon. members will realize that I cannot do so, even if I wanted to. There is only one further reply that I have to give to the hon. member.

He asked whether I welcomed the investment of foreign capital in South Africa. I say, yes, I welcome it heartily. He asked me whether South Africa was a safe place in which to invest. I want to tell him that I hardly know any safer place for investment than South Africa at the moment. That is my considered opinion, and I think that the hon. member for Pinetown will agree with me. That is what I told the representatives of the hotel industry the other evening, and I said it because I believed it, and they also believed it. South Africa is such a safe place, in spite of everything that is said by the prophets of doom, that if she were a business that was for sale, I should be prepared to purchase her at twice her present valuation, and I should be getting a fantastic bargain! That is the measure of my faith in South Africa. That is the way in which we want to develop her and that is the way in which we have tried to develop her in the past. I repeat that our doors are open wide to everyone who wants to do business with us, who want to assist us with the development of our country. As the hon. member himself said, people who come to this country with an open mind will be welcomed, but that will not be the case in regard to people who come here with other aims. These are the actual words used by the hon. member, and I agree wholeheartedly with him. The people who come to this country with an open mind will not only be doing us a favour but they will also be doing themselves a great favour, because South Africa is a fine country with tremendous potential, a safe country for investment in this uncertain world in which we live.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 39,—“Police, R58,697,000”.

I rise simply to inform the House that the hon. the Deputy Minister will be handling this Vote and that I shall not participate in the debate—I do not think hon. members expect it of me after two days’ discussion on the Vote of the Prime Minister—unless I am drawn into it or hon. members wish to discuss something with me specifically. For the rest, we can safely leave the handling of this Vote in the capable hands of the hon. the Deputy Minister.

I have a few remarks to address to the hon. the Prime Minister first before we get on to Police matters proper. I think this is the first time we have had occasion in this Parliament to address the Minister of Police. The Police have always been attached to the Minister of Justice. We on this side welcome the separation, not that we have any complaint against the person of the Minister of Justice but we have felt, and we have said so before in this House, that the portfolio of Police should be separated from that of Justice, as is done in other countries.

Now the Prime Minister, when he announced to the House that he was going to keep the portfolio of Police, said he was doing it because he wanted to ensure that he was for a while, at any rate, retaining responsibility for internal security. As far as we can see, one of the main duties of the Minister in maintaining internal security was that he was the Minister of Justice responsible for restricting the movements of people who were regarded as being dangerous to the State. But now apparently he will lose this control because the Minister of Justice will take it over from him. I am not quite certain why he was retaining this portfolio with the particular purpose of maintaining internal security, when almost the main part of the duties will be transferred to another Minister. I hope the Prime Minister will explain to us exactly how these duties are going to be divided. But before he does that I want to ask him a few other questions.

I hope he will take this opportunity of telling us what the latest position is in regard to this invasion by guerrillas into South West Africa.

The Deputy Minister is fully informed as to that.

In one of the last debates in which the hon. the Prime Minister spoke as Minister of Justice, he had to do with the restriction of a young man called Ian Robertson. During the course of that debate the Minister disclosed some of the reasons why …

No, I never disclosed any reasons.

The Minister gave us some of the reasons why Robertson was restricted. He told us some of the information he had against Robertson. Let us put it that way. He told us about certain journeys Robertson had made outside the country and he mentioned Swaziland, and then corrected himself and said Bechuanaland. This is the first time we have had any information from the Prime Minister as to the information on which he acted, and unfortunately in this case it was proved wrong. Even the suggestion made by the Minister, when he said he had made a mistake and that Robertson had gone to Bechuanaland, was denied by Robertson’s father and by others who said that he merely went to Mafeking. I understood that the Minister was checking up on this information.

Order! Is this not a matter which falls under the Department of Justice?

Except that it deals with internal security and the Prime Minister said he kept this portfolio because he wanted to be responsible for internal security. I do not think any other Minister can answer in this respect.

With respect, I would have no objection to the hon. member continuing.

In fact, I think the Prime Minister should be given the opportunity of explaining what happened.

On a point of order, Sir, may I ask whether all the cases of banning fall under this Vote and not under Justice?

My ruling is that they will all fall under the Department of Justice, and not under Police.

In this particular case I think the Prime Minister should be given an opportunity of explaining what happened because as the position now stands the statement which was made by the Prime Minister in this House has been definitely denied outside. It is quite wrong that the country should be left under this impression that the information on which the Prime Minister acted was not correct. I understood from the Prime Minister that he was investigating the movements.

I told you so personally.

I will be glad if he would tell us what the result of the investigation has been. Was the information furnished to him in this instance correct or not? Because here is something else which arises out of the Robertson case. In that debate the Prime Minister also told my leader that he had discussed the charges against Robertson with Nusas. Nusas has also denied that; they denied that the charges were discussed, and I understand that Robertson himself denies that he has ever been informed of the charges against him. I will be glad if the Minister will now tell us exactly what he told Nusas in regard to Robertson. Whom did he tell it to, in Nusas, and when did he advise Robertson of the charges against him? As Robertson is leaving the country, I do not think any harm can be done if the Prime Minister takes the country into his confidence and allays all suspicion, because there has been a lot of suspicion raised in this case as to who was telling the truth and who not. Let the Prime Minister give us the full facts about Robertson now. One of the things the Minister mentioned about Robertson was that he was a member of Defence and Aid. At that time Defence and Aid was not a banned organization, and in fact Robertson and Defence and Aid denied that he ever took any active part. He was only a member ex officio, as president of Nusas, and in fact he never attended meetings. If the Prime Minister acted against Robertson because he was a member of Defence and Aid and because he had some suspicions about the activities of Defence and Aid, I think he was wrong in taking this into consideration in restricting Robertson. I shall be glad if he will give us the details about that.

There is another thing. The Minister has made insinuations about Nusas. Nusas has demanded an inquiry. The Prime Minister, as Minister of Justice, let it be known that he suspected that Nusas was not the body it should be. We who have children at the English-speaking universities who belong to Nusas, because they are all automatically members of Nusas. are worried. There is a dispute going on now about Nusas being involved in affiliations with other organizations. I would like to ask the Prime Minister to tell us either that his suspicions against Nusas are groundless or that he will hold an inquiry. It is only right that we who have children at those universities and the country should know what is going on at the universities. If Nusas is an organization which is suspect and harmful to our children and to the country, it is only right that the country should be told, and it should then be stopped if the Prime Minister is right, and he can do that by holding a public inquiry as they have in fact demanded of him. [Time limit.]

Before calling upon the Prime Minister to reply, I want to say that I will allow him to reply, but afterwards my ruling is that all these matters fall under the Department of Justice and not under Police, and I will not allow any further discussion of these matters under this Vote.

As regards the first question put to me by the hon. member with regard to the Police, I have stated very explicitly that the reason why I retained the Police portfolio was that I felt, in assuming office, that I had the obligation towards the people to retain it, because I had five years’ intimate experience of it, and that the Police portfolio was so intimately concerned firstly with detecting saboteurs and everything that affects security. Until my successors become acquainted with the circumstances, until we reach calmer waters, I therefore have to accept personal responsibility for it. I have appointed a Deputy Minister because I do not want to be charged with Police affairs as a whole. I do not have the time for that nor do I consider it correct that I should occupy myself with those matters. I shall administer that Vote in that spirit and retain it until it may be necessary to relinquish it. By leaving it entirely in the hands of the Deputy Minister, I am now demonstrating that I do not want to concern myself with Police affairs, except in so far as it affects the security of South Africa. I think, rather, there would have been reason to blame me if I had relinquished it, and I think that is generally accepted, even by people who have frequently censured me in the past. Even they thought that I had acted correctly in this regard.

Let me deal with the Robertson case first. Hon. members will remember that I was sneaking off the cuff. I did not have the files in front of me. Let me now tell hon. members that the Robertson file actually consists of three files, each of which is as thick as that. I took all week-end to go through them. I gave personal attention to the matter. In this House I merely outlined the general reasons. I did not furnish the reasons in full. I asked the Leader of the Opposition certain questions by way of debate, because I had read that he had had an interview with Robertson. But I did not advance any reasons—that has never been done, nor am I prepared to do so in this case—except that I said that there was one thing I wanted to prevent, and I make no apology for having done that. Hon. members must give me credit for the fact that I knew what a storm it would bring on my head; I was aware of everything that was being said about me, and that was a great deal. That was nothing new to me. Hon. members may believe me or they need not believe me, as they wish, but I saw innocent people suffer in the Leftwich affair, and the students who landed in gaol. I did not forget about them once they were there: I visited them from time to time. Not only did I visit them, but their parents and their family and friends paid numerous visits to my office and I never refused to see any of them. I resolved that I would regard it as my positive duty not to allow a second Leftwich case. That was the basis of my decision. I do not mean by that that Robertson or anybody else was on the point of committing sabotage. I never suggested that, but potentially—and hon. members may accept this or they need not accept this—the atmosphere had been created and charged for that to happen with a man of Robertson’s calibre.

What nonsense.

Just go and read what he said in the overseas newspapers. I have seen several of them. He boasted openly that Nusas was the only body that was standing up to the Government: that the Government had swept apart and destroyed all opposition, and that only they, Nusas, were the e’ect who were standing up to the Government. Mr. Chairman, I want to be fair. Any other man may perhaps have adopted a different attitude, but I had been dealing with this matter for five years, and in all good faith I came to the conclusion—on account of the very things said there by the hon. member; it is not my children who are affected—that I should rather get this young man out of the way. He pretended to be a student. He never set foot in any classroom.

That is not true either.

For a whole year he did not attend a single class.

But no president of Nusas attends classes.

Exactly. He last attended a class in 1965, but in 1966 he never attended classes. He was a full-time Nusas man. Just go and read the overseas newspapers, and you will see with what calibre of person you are dealing. [Interjections.] I should be glad if the hon. member for Houghton would give me a chance. They, and he too, always referred to her as “Aunty Helen”. Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member for Transkei and other people who have children at the universities should guard against is that irresponsible, leftist and pink people are having a bad influence on the students of South Africa, I honestly think that hon. members know that just as well as I do. We should guard against that. The hon. member asks me why I do not have an inquiry instituted.

The hon. member will remember that I gave several warnings long before the Leftwich affair. The hon. member will remember how much gall descended on me because I did that, and the thing I had warned against occurred. At the stage when I gave those warnings I was not yet aware of any active sabotage plans entertained by Leftwich and other persons, but the symptoms were very clear to me and the same symptoms that I had seen at that time, I noticed in this case as well, and I am making no apology whatsoever for the fact that I acted as I did. I believe that I acted in the interests of the student youth of South Africa at those universities where Nusas is accepted, and I want to tell the hon. member that that will now no longer be my task and my function. Despite everything that has happened, I would judge exactly the same, if I had to judge again, as I did then. I do not regret having done that. I have told the hon. member that I spoke at the time without having the file before me. At that stage I was bona fide under the impression, according to what I remembered of the case I had studied from the file some months previously, that Robertson had in fact been in Bechuanaland. The next day I called for the file. There was a contradiction, which I corrected immediately. I called for the file and I noticed from it that he had not been in Bechuanaland but in Mafeking. The times were recorded in the file; it indicated at which hotel he had arrived, and when he had arrived there. [Time limit.]

I am rising merely to give the hon. the Prime Minister the opportunity of concluding.

The police brought it to my notice that he had in fact not been in Bechuanaland itself, but that he had held discussions with people from Bechuanaland. For my part, I made a mistake there, and it was a bona fide mistake because I did not have the file with me.

Why did you not make that known?

I told the hon. member for Transkei that it was my duty to investigate the matter and I did that immediately. I repeat that those facts had nothing whatsoever to do with his restriction.

That was one of the reasons advanced by you.

No, the hon. member is being silly now. I am not prepared to enter into an argument with her on this matter.

I appeal to the hon. member for Houghton to make no further interjections.

That, briefly, is the entire position in connection with this matter.

What about the charges against him?

The hon. member is referring to the discussion we had. I had a discussion with the delegates from Nusas. There again two adults who had nothing to do with the matter and who should have nothing to do with student politics, had the audacity to accompany the delegation. I then asked them to see me in private first, and I told them in all courtesy that I had no appointment with them whatsoever, and I asked them whether they had perhaps requested an appointment with me. and when they said “no” I told them that if they wanted to see me, they should make an appointment through other channels, but that they could not sneak into my presence under the skirts of the children. They then left. I then interviewed the children. The hon. member for Houghton should not think that I do not know who is behind those people who accompanied the children. Mr. Chairman, let me continue. They had an interview with me, and I was very pleased to see them because, as I told them, I wanted to ascertain “what makes your minds tick”. I wanted to see whether their attitude and their views corresponded with the reports one reads in the newspapers and elsewhere from time to time, and do you know. Mr. Chairman, I was shocked because their views were much worse than I had thought. But I want to say no more about that. I gave my warning in that regard. They asked me whether I had restricted him because he was the leader of Nusas, i.e. whether I wanted to strike at Nusas by depriving them of their leader, and I told them unequivocally that that was not the case. They asked me whether I had restricted him because he was a communist. I told them unequivocally “no”; that I had no reason to presume that he was a communist; that I had no proof of that. I told them that I had restricted him because I wanted to prevent a repetition of what had happened in the past. I spoke very seriously to those young people: I spoke to them in plain terms. I told them what I thought of Nusas—exactly what I have said about Nusas in public. I warned them against the road they were taking. I do not know whether it has had any effect. Since the hon. member for Transkei has expressed his concern about the fact that there are people who have children at those universities, I just want to tell him that he should use his influence; it is worth the trouble. I do not say that to make political capital out of this matter, because Nusas causes our children to be lost to the cause we advocate, inasmuch as the hon. member and I have a common cause. That is so; the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that and the hon. member for Transkei knows that.

Let us exert our influence in this regard. Let us see to it, to the best of our abilities, that the leftist and pink elements in such a student organization are not given free rein. It is not my party and I who will pay the price for that. The hon. member knows what I mean. I ask the hon. member: Of what use will it be to me to appoint a commission of inquiry? Surely we all know what happened. There have been endless commissions, and those cases were heard by the courts of South Africa. Surely we know that not only was South Africa betrayed in that organization, but that one comrade betrayed the other. Is it necessary then to institute an inquiry? It is not an organization with continuity. The members vary from one year to the next; the students vary from one year to the next, and it depends on the leaders concerned in any particular year in what direction that organization is steeled. Of what use will it be to appoint a commission of inquiry in that regard? What we want to know in that regard, we know already. That is my attitude, and that is what motivated me to act as I did.

Did you tell Nusas what the charges were, and did you tell Robertson what the charges were?

I did not go into specific details, but the young people knew exactly what I was speaking of. The hon. member should not think that they are not aware of the things that are happening.

They know nothing about them.

I shall tell the hon. member what the procedure is. When a person is restricted he is entitled, in terms of the Act, to ask for the reasons. I do not see those things. The letter is addressed to the Department, and the Department sets out the reasons. The reasons are not furnished by me personally. In no case has the Minister ever furnished the reasons. In terms of the provisions of the Act they are furnished departmentally to the person concerned. The letter is not signed by the Minister. There is nothing in the Act that provides that the Minister must sign it All that happens is that the Minister sees the file, with all its particulars, before the person is restricted, and it is his responsibility—in this case it was my responsibility and I accept it—to decide, after having studied the file, whether or not the person should be restricted. After having studied all the relevant particulars—and as I have already said, there are sometimes files and files of particulars—one indicates on the file whether or not the person should be restricted, in accordance with the recommendations of the committee that deals with the matter before it reaches you. The committee consists of senior officials of the Department. The hon. member knows that story. It is therefore not a question of the Minister being able to say, “Look, restrict Gray Hughes of Umtata quickly.” That is not how it works; the file comes before one in the normal course of events, after it has been studied by those officials. If one has seen the file and has agreed with the recommendation of the committee, the person is restricted, and then it becomes a departmental matter.

Did your Department inform him of the reasons?

Yes, he asked for the reasons.

He has denied that.

There was a letter from him in which he asked for the reasons for his restriction. It went to the Department, and in terms of the Act the Department is compelled to furnish certain reasons. In terms of certain sections of the Act, as the hon. member knows, one need nor furnish reasons, and in terms of other sections one is compelled to furnish reasons, and if one does not do that, a court order will be invoked against one. That entire procedure was followed by the Department. [Time limit.]

He was informed that he was furthering the aims of Communism; that was all he was told.

Order! Before I call upon the next speaker, I just want to say that hon. members should observe my ruling. I have allowed the hon. member for Transkei to mention this matter and the hon. the Prime Minister to reply to it. Any further question regarding Robertson or any other restricted person may be brought up under the Justice Vote.

Mr. Chairman, you have given your ruling. I do not doubt that but for your ruling there would probably have been an additional debate on this point to get greater clarity. However, I leave it at that. Sir, Before I raise the matter that I particularly want to raise. I would like to convey the best wishes of this side of the House to the hon. the Deputy Minister in the work that we hope he will do in the interest of the country and to e×Rress the wish that he will be successful in his work. We remember him as one with whom we have debated many legal matters in this House and we believe that he will have several advantages when he comes to handle this portfolio.

Sir, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give this Committee and the country a report on an important battle that is going on here, namely the battle against crime. Fortunately we have been spared some of the unpleasantness that has occurred in other countries in various ways; but we are finding that through death by murder and other forms of violence we are losing a very large number of people, a number which is equivalent to the numbers of people lost as the result of general disturbances in other parts. I have received figures, in reply to questions in respect of the increasing crime rate, and while it is encouraging to find that the incidence of theft has not risen, in the case of housebreaking the position continues to cause considerable concern. Indeed, I would say that the most recent figures are rather alarming. Where—as in the four years from 1960 to 1964 there was an increase of only 3,000 in the number of housebreaking cases reported, from 67,000 to 70,000, in the last year, from 1964 to 1965, there was a jump of 5,000 in the number of cases reported. I am fairly certain too that in many quarters cases of this kind are not reported. I am thinking here particularly of cases where the victim of the housebreaking is a member of the non-White population, and I am thinking particularly of the more remote parts. I am certain that in the reserves very little reporting takes place. I do not doubt that the police are doing their very best in dealing with these matters, but I think they are having a very great uphill struggle to prevent a breach in this line. In the long run the only way or the best way to prevent and to reduce the incidence of this crime is, of course, better education, better social conditions, greater prosperity and less tension; but in the short run the only thing that we can do is to provide more police with better methods. In this connection it is disturbing to see that our police force is considerably below establishment. So far as the European members of the force are concerned, we are 1,100 below establishment, including 575 of the rank of sergeant. I also wonder very much whether establishments have not been allowed to lag behind. One can well understand that since there is a shortfall of well over 1,000 White policemen in a total establishment of approximately 15,000, there would be little point in increasing the establishments in the ranks in which there are already shortages. I would like to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister that in fact this is not the case; that in fact the establishment is the full establishment, because I have a very nasty feeling that the establishment is not being pushed up because the Department cannot fill the existing establishment. I want to remind the hon. the Deputy Minister, where he is considering his establishment and the total strength of the police force, that the demands upon the police will be growing, apart from any increase in the incidence of crime. We have already had these incidents on the border of South West Africa; we have been warned by the hon. the Prime Minister himself that we are entering this third stage where we must expect this type of thing, and this will clearly place an extra burden on the police. Then, in addition, there will be long new boundaries to watch. Here I am thinking of the former territories which are now gaining their independence and which hitherto have been under the control and guidance of Britain and which will now be left to their own devices, also as far as police matters are concerned. This question of shortage of police was raised here by me last year in connection with Bonteheuwel. Here we have a newly laid-out residential area and we have many other areas in the country of a similar kind. We have Hammarsdale, for instance, which is in a border area, very close to the heart of the government. New factories have arisen there and the conditions under which the people are housed are very unsatisfactory, to say the least of it. One would have thought that after all the time this would not occur where people are established on a planned basis. Then there are other areas where new rural townships are springing up, and the indications are that crime is very rife in these areas. Without mentioning any names …

On what grounds do you say that?

That is bound to be the position because in many of these townships there are no police stations, and in the second place I have it on personal information that this is the case. I have this from people who have personal knowledge of the position. I have it on the very best authority that Hammarsdale is a case in point. I am informed that tsotsis are demanding protection money from various workers there who are paying up so that they can get home over the week-end with the bulk of their pay-packet. There is no police station there, although there is in fact a population of nearly 20,000 people living under very unsatisfactory conditions indeed. Then you have the position at Umdanzani where there are 41,000 people recently brought together by the Government and there is no police station there at all. Can one wonder that crime is rife there?

What about District Six? Have you thought about that?

I am not dealing with District Six at the moment. I am dealing particularly with areas which have been newly established. Notwithstanding the fact that they are newly established and newly planned, no adequate police supervision has been provided for these areas, and I am very concerned that this should not be the case in other areas. We know that in the nothern areas of Cape Town we are expecting to get a vast increase in the population. There is the area around Parow and Bothasig and so on. I sincerely hope that plans are well advanced to Rive proper police protection to those areas. Then there are the fine new towns which we have been told are to be established in the Ciskei. I shall be glad to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister that the plans for providing police protection in those areas, as and when they become to be substantially populated, are well advanced. Then there is a place like the transit camp at Sada, not far from Whittlesea.

There is no transit camp at Sada.

Well, there is a place Sada with many souls in it who will certainly need police protection otherwise their lives will be harassed by thieves.

Why do you think they have no police protection there?

I say it because the indications are that there is not sufficient police protection.

Have you got any facts whatsoever or are you just speculating?

The hon. the Deputy Minister knows perfectly well that we raised the question of police protection in Bonteheuwel last year. We pointed out that there was a tremendous number of people there and that at the time there was no police station there at all. It was common knowledge; there were references to it in the newspapers every day. We had several reports in our local newspapers, not in the Transvaal papers, up to about six months ago of extremely unsatisfactory conditions at Bonteheuwel. Fortunately the position has improved, I think partly because of the introduction of the reservists. We are very glad that there has been this improvement but what we expect from the Government, if it has any foresight, is that this type of plan will be made well in advance.

Allow me in the first place to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on his promotion. We are all very pleased about it and we want to express the conviction here this evening that it will not end with a Deputy Ministry but that it will eventually result in a full Ministry. I also want to express my pleasure at the new designation that has been given to the Department which will no longer be known simply as the Department of Justice but as the Department of Justice, of Police and of Prisons. This is the first time in the history of South Africa that the Department of Police will be separated from that of Justice and will actually fall under the control of a different Minister. I think that this is a very good thing, particularly with a view to what is happening in the country at present. I want to refer particularly to the dangers of infiltration and to the fact that the security division of the police particularly, should remain under the control of the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to mention the fact that ever since the hon the Prime Minister took over the portfolio of Police, ever since he first became Minister of Justice, he has handled security, the safety of the State, in an extremely capable manner. It is of great comfort to the public of South Africa to know that this will now be his task in the months that lie ahead. We all know that the case of South West Africa is possibly only a forerunner of cases yet to come. That is why I am so pleased—and I think that I am speaking on behalf of the whole of South Africa, to say that it is a great comfort to all of us to know that this division particularly will continue to fall under his control. I am sorry that the hon. the Prime Minister is not here because I want to emphasize the fact that we are very pleased that this will be the position.

Mr. Chairman, I disagree with the hon. member for Pinelands. I wonder whether he has perused the police reports in that he can contend that crime in South Africa is on the increase. In actual fact, the figures show just the opposite. If, for example, he will look at Annexure 4 to the Police Report, he will see that in 1948, the last year during which the United Party was in power, there were 1.73 policemen per 1,000 persons in the country, while now there are 1.65 policemen per 1,000 inhabitants. In 1948. the number of prosecutions was 92 per 1,000 inhabitants, while during the past year it was only 30 per 1,000 inhabitants. In other words, the figure has decreased by more than 200 per cent. I am not now talking about numbers, Sir, because the hon. member must remember that in 1948 there were only 11 million people in South Africa while there are now more than 18 million people in this country. Proportionately, therefore, there has been a great decrease in the incidence and the number of prosecutions in South Africa. There is this great decrease of more than 200 per cent. These figures speak for themselves and I cannot understand how the hon. member could have made such a statement. I think that he is being singularly unreasonable. I want to point out to him that this decrease has taken place chiefly since the hon. the Prime Minister took over the portfolio of Police as Minister of Justice. This has taken place particularly over the past three or four years. If the hon member studies these statistics far more carefully than he has as yet studied them, he will realize that what I am saying is the truth.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member also mentioned the question of Hammarsdale. Perhaps the hon. member is not au fait with the position there. I do not know whether he has ever been to Hammarsdale. May I ask the hon. member whether he was ever there?

No, I have not been there yet.

The hon. member says that he has not as yet been there. He does not know, therefore what the actual position there is. I just want to tell him that we are still struggling to establish an ordinary Bantu township there. In fact, we have not been able as yet to effect the establishment of the township because we still have to purchase much of the land from Bantu in order to be able to establish a reasonable township there. A great deal of squatting is still going on there, squatting which still has to be eliminated. The hon. member must not come along now and lay the blame for all these things at the door of the police. That is being very unfair. A great deal of squatting is still going on there at the moment and because of technical difficulties we are unable to establish a proper township. There is some crime too but this fact cannot be blamed upon the police.

Let us take another case, the case of a proper township. Let us take Soweto. Let us take, for example, the large Bantu townships of the south-western areas of Johannesburg and consider the question of crime in those townships. We have good and thorough police protection in all the proper townships whether in the White area where we call them Bantu residential areas or whether in the Bantu townships which are proper townships, such as Umlazi. The township that has been established for the Bantu there is a good one.

We all know where no proper township is established, where no proper Bantu residential areas have been built; where, in other words, squatting conditions obtain, the incidence of crime will be higher than would be the case in a properly organized township. The hon. member must therefore not come along here carrying tales. He himself admits that what he has said about Hammarsdale is based exclusively on stories he has heard from private persons. He has no statistics and no proof whatsoever to prove his case. He is relying on gossip. Perhaps the hon. member for Pinetown told him these tales. I should like to tell the House that I have travelled through the constituency of Pinetown more than once and have found that some of the people there do not even know who their member of Parliament is!

May 1 put a question to you? Do you know in which constituency Hammarsdale falls?

Of course I know. Hammarsdale was formerly included in that hon. member’s constituency, Pinetown, but at present it falls under Pietermaritzburg District. The hon. member thinks to catch me out with a question of that nature! I know that the tales which are carried to that hon. member are not true. I cannot talk about Bonteheuwel and the Coloured townships because I am not so well informed about them. I should like, however, to assure the hon. member that good police protection is provided whenever Bantu townships are established. Provision for a police station is made in each and every one of those Bantu townships. I could go further and say that at Soweto, for example, courts are now being built. These courts are being built in Soweto itself to try Bantu in the townships, and provision has been made for good and thorough police protection.

If now the hon. member had spoken about Alexandra and had said that crime there was on the increase, I could have understood it. The position is, Sir, that Alexandra township is one of the, shall I say, cankers on the Rand, and it is for this reason that we want to eliminate these cankers on the Rand. That's why we are so anxious for Alexandra to be cleared so that it can be controlled properly. There is, however, proper control in these other townships and there is not as much crime there as the hon. member would have us believe.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member also mentioned Sada. The hon. member ought to know that that township is near to a police station which is situated in a nearby town. It is 11 miles from Whittlesea. But the hon. member does not know where Sada is. He has heard of Sada and he leaves the rest to his imagination. He does not know the position there. There is a police station If miles from Sada, but he does not know it. He was never there. He simply repeats tales carried to him by others and he tries to cast a reflection upon our police. I think that that is being very unfair to the Police Force of South Africa. Let me tell you, Sir, that the South African Police Force must give any South African great cause for pride; we can boast justifiably about the excellent police force we have. I just want to say one thing to the hon. member. He complained about the shortage of police. I admit this is so. He himself knows that every year more than 1,000 policemen purchase their discharge. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I intend raising a matter of an entirely different nature, and I hope the hon. member for Heilbron will excuse me if I do not reply to the matters which he raised here this evening. Now, Sir, the official records will show that during the period 1955 to 1965 no fewer than 1,540 persons were prosecuted for illicit diamond buying in South Africa, and of this number 1,212 were finally convicted after trial. These figures tend to show. Sir, that firstly the S.A.P. through its very efficient and well-organized gold and diamond branch are making every effort to curtail illicit diamond buying in South Africa. I want to say that we are indeed very grateful to them for the fine work which they are doing. Because, Sir, as we know, the diamond trade is a very sensitive trade and depends for its stability on a very rigid control of rough diamonds. And so it is quite easy to appreciate that unless this control is maintained and unless illicit diamond buying is kept within certain bounds in South Africa, it could have a very undermining effect on the diamond trade as a whole.

Now, Sir, having said this, the figures, of course, also show that despite the activity of the police, illicit diamond buying is still far too prevalent in South Africa. I want to say that a disturbing factor, too, is that the majority of the people charged with the crime of illicit diamond buying are the types of people one would normally not associate with crime. I know the reason for this is that unfortunately the ordinary man in the street seems to dissociate the crime of illicit diamond buying from ordinary crime.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have gone through the records very carefully of people charged with illicit diamond buying over the last five years, and I want to say that the list I have drawn up is to me a very fair cross-section of the type of person prosecuted for this crime. I am certain that if I read the list, Mr. Chairman, you will agree with me that my contention is correct. For instance, in this list we find that we have the mayor of a fairly large town. We have a medical doctor, a former M.P. with a very fine record of public service, a minister of the Gospel, a member of the South West African Legislative Assembly, a senior messenger of the court, a chemist, an airways steward, a member of the South African Railways with a very good record and 25 years of service, a school teacher, a policeman, and so one can go on quoting many other instances.

Mr. Chairman, what disturbs me, of course, is that on going into these records one finds that all these persons that I have mentioned have been convicted or prosecuted through a system of trapping by the South African Police, a system which one of our most eminent judges, Mr. Justice Maritz, called a very unsavoury but necessary system. I want to agree that in certain cases the trapping system is necessary, especially when you are dealing with the professional type of illicit diamond dealer. But what disturbs me is that very often the police use a third party, and this particular individual will go to any lengths to secure a conviction purely for the financial gain which will accrue to him. Mr. Chairman, I am certain that you will agree with me that it is very difficult to justify this type of trapping morally, because it is not just a case of trapping a person and prosecuting him. We know that normally in police trapping a large amount of money is involved and the person who is stupid enough to become involved in this type of crime finds himself not only convicted but he finds that the money which he raised to buy the diamonds is confiscated. We know he only has himself to blame, but we know too that very often this money is raised by means of a bank overdraft, by selling a property, and we find that this man who has been convicted—and he should have been convicted—has a family, and the family will suffer through this.

My plea here this evening is not against the trapping system as such, but my plea to the hon. the Deputy Minister is that he should be perfectly sure that when the Department uses this system of trapping it will be used with the utmost discretion. I think, too, that he should see to it that when the trapping system is used it is used only to convict the hardened type of illicit diamond dealer and the police should not use a third person who will go to any limit to entice a person to commit a crime so that he can draw the reward. I know that this matter has been a hardy annual for many years, Sir; we know that many judges have commented on this system, and—as I said before—I know the police have a very difficult job. I said, too, that we appreciate what they are doing to curb the illicit diamond buying trade. But, Sir, I believe that there is another side to it and that the hon. the Minister owes it to the people of South Africa to see that this system is used as-little as possible, and that when it is used it must be used with the greatest discretion.

Mr. Chairman, I want to start by expressing my thanks to the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Heilbron who, I think, welcomed me on behalf of the House in this new capacity and extended their good wishes to me. I should like to say that I regard it as a privilege to stand here in this capacity. I regard myself as being particularly privileged since, in the capacity in which I stand here, I am working with more than 30,000 men who,, in my opinion, are probably doing the most important work in our fatherland at present. It is my conviction that in no country in the-world there is anything which is more important than the safety of the people of that country. And it is the duty of the police to-ensure safety on the home front to the people-of South Africa. We all know, as adults with families, how important it is that when we go-to bed we must be easy in our minds as to the safety of our families, our wives and our children. It is the task of the police to guarantee us that, and I shall presently say a few things to indicate how efficiently the Police-Force of South Africa is in my opinion performing its duties. At the very outset I also-want to say that I have the greatest respect for the work done by the police. A few minutes ago we heard from the hon. member for Johannesburg North how efficiently they are-doing their work. For that reason I think that all of us, the people of South Africa as a whole—and I do not think that there is any doubt about it—may look upon the police force with respect. We shall give them all the honour and the gratitude any police force in the world deserves. Because, Sir, it is my firm conviction that the police in South Africa need not stand aside for any other police force in the entire world.

Mr. Chairman, right at the beginning the hon. member for Transkei asked for particulars in regard to the terrorists who crossed the border in Ovamboland. I shall furnish the House with those particulars as well as other information at a somewhat later stage, as the hon. the Prime Minister, when he was still Minister of Justice, promised in this House a short while ago when he said that he would keep the House informed as far as possible. However, there are a few other matters I want to deal with first, and I think in this process I shall for the greater part reply to matters raised here by the hon. member for Pinelands.

In the first instance, Sir, for the sake of the record I should like to say a few things arising from questions asked in this House by the hon. member for Houghton. On 12th August a reply was given to a question which was asked here. It appears in Hansard, Col. 626, and the question was as follows—

1. (1) Whether any members of the Police Force were convicted of any crimes during (a) 1965 and (b) the first six months of 1966; if so, (i) what crimes and (ii) how many members were convicted in each category;
2. (2) whether members of the Force convicted of crimes other than petty offences are dismissed?

It is followed by the reply which furnishes a long list of crimes of which members of the Force were convicted. When one looks at that list, the position appears to be alarming, and that is why I consider it necessary to convey to you Sir, a few particulars arising from the reply which was given.

In the first instance I want to say that the offences set out in this reply include all offences, including traffic offences and offences under local by-laws of municipalities and so forth, irrespective of whether the offender was on or off duty and irrespective of whether or not the offence was committed in the execution of his duty. In other words, the offences mentioned there are not only offences committed while such members of the Police Force were on duty, but also in their private capacities. This refers to non-White members of the Police Force in particular, where they committed offences such as assault and others which are not at all connected with their work.

The second point I want to make in pursuance of the reply, is that in the case of the largest percentage of culpable homicide cases arising from motor vehicle accidents, some are in respect of the private vehicles of members of the Force and others occurred in the course of their official business. I should like to point out that no fewer than 80 million miles per annum are covered by motor vehicles belonging to the Force, which has no fewer than 4,200 vehicles at its disposal. That is why one can make the deduction that under the circumstances a considerable number of accidents may be expected. In the third place I want to say that all alleged offences—irrespective of what they are—are referred to the attorney-general in question. It is for the attorney-general to decide whether legal proceedings should be instituted. And that is correct too. I think that it is in the interests of the whole of South Africa that nothing which is done by the Police Force should be concealed.

The fourth point, Sir, is that many of the offences mentioned in the list amount to the exceeding or an abuse of powers, not necessarily to a wilful deed. You know, Sir, in the capacity in which a policeman acts, he very frequently has to exercise sound judgment. Particularly where the policeman has to deal with practical matters, he is often required to decide and to use his discretion. In cases where he has to take action and where he may perhaps have to use violence, he must decide whether the violence he has to use is sufficient in the circumstances, or whether it is not perhaps too much. That is why I say that in many cases it is perhaps not a wilful deed. There is. still another side of the picture as regards this, question which was put by the hon. member for Houghton, and I want to give that to you now. Here I am specifically referring to the. question of assaults, and now I want to draw a conclusion between assaults made in the past few years in the first place by members of the force on members of the public and, in the second place, assaults made by members of the public on members of the force. In the year 1961, 786 cases of assault of members of the Police Force on members of the public were reported, but convictions could be obtained in only 157 cases, in other words, only approximately 20 per cent. For the period from 3rd July, 1963 to 30th June, 1964, 1,015 cases of assault by members of the Police Force on. members of the public were reported, and convictions could only be obtained in respect of 208 of these cases. The figures for the following year were 1,221 and 233, respectively,, and for the year 1965-6 they were 1,367 as against 234 convictions. The general pattern, therefore, is that convictions could only be obtained in respect of approximately 20 per cent of the cases of assault which were reported. Let us now look at the other side of the picture, namely, attacks by members of the public on members of the Police Force. Whenever it is necessary to display an unfavourable picture of our Police Force, this side of the matter is very often ignored. In the year 1961, 1,097 cases of assault by members of the public on members of the Police Force were reported, and convictions could be obtained in respect of 699 cases. Hon. members will note that the number of convictions in this same year in respect of assaults by members of the Police Force on members of the public, only amounted to 157. The same pattern is maintained throughout. In the year 1963-4, 1,416 cases of assaults by members of the public on members of the Police Force were reported, and it was possible to obtain convictions in respect of 1,030 cases. For the year 1964-5, the figures were 1,523 as against 1,109, respectively, and for the following year the figures were 1,700 as against 1,158, respectively. The general pattern is therefore that in 70 per cent of the cases a conviction could be obtained as against 20 per cent in the case of attacks by members of the Police Force on members of the public. You see, therefore, that if one also takes into consideration this side of the picture, one gets a totally different picture, and that is why I thought it necessary that the record should be corrected, especially in pursuance of this particular question which was put by the hon. member for Houghton.

I should now like to respond briefly to a few points raised by the hon. member for Pinelands. In the first place, I want the hon. member to realize that a man-power shortage is being experienced throughout South Africa, in other words, in all labour circles. As a matter of fact, during this Session of Parliament a great deal has been said about our man-power shortage. The hon. member must realize that this shortage is also being experienced in the Police Force, but I nevertheless think that we can assume that the Police Force is getting its rightful share of the available man-power. Over the past five years the numbers of the Police Force have been increased by 2,000, as far as Whites are concerned. Connected with this is the question of centralization, but I hope to return to this aspect later in my speech, because it is a matter I should like to submit to this hon. House for consideration. The view is being held that through centralization better use can be made of the available policemen than has been the case in the past. But I shall return to this at a later stage. As far as Bonteheuwel is concerned, a training centre is at the moment being erected in Bishop Lavis at a cost of R600,000, and we hope that it will be completed by the middle of 1967. The police station there will then be manned by Coloured police and will also serve Bonteheuwel. Then I also want to tell the hon. member that there are at the moment 557 vacancies in the grade of sergeant. This high number of vacancies can be attributed to the fact that it has not yet been possible for constables, who have already written their promotion examinations this year, to receive their actual promotion. However, the moment these promotions are effected, that number of vacancies for sergeants will to a large extent disappear.

But then there will be a shortage of constables again.

Yes, that is so, but if we take into account the fact that on 15th September, 1966, there were only 338 vacancies for White policemen, we cannot be extremely dissatisfied about the position. The hon. member also referred to the crime rate in South Africa. If he says that this figure is high, I cannot agree with him except to admit that the crime rate in South Africa is higher than we should like it to be.

That was my statement, too.

Then we have this favourable trend, namely, that the increase in that figure has been very low over the past few years. It is particularly low especially when it is compared with the position elsewhere in the world. [Interjections.] It seems to me as though the hon. member for Transkei is disputing my statement. However, I shall presently furnish him with the figures. Immediately after the war the position was such that our crime rate was tremendously high, and during the ten years subsequent to the war this figure increased tremendously. All of us can philosophize about the reasons for that and mention reasons for the high level this figure reached in the post-war period. But let us now consider the position during the past five years. Over that period the crime rate in the United States, for instance, rose by no less than 45 per cent, while the increase in South Africa was only 1.4 per cent over the same period. I am not mentioning these figures because I want to argue with the hon. member, because I agree with him that the crime rate in South Africa is still higher than we should like it to be. However, the criterion we must use for determining how efficiently our Police Force is combating crime, is whether we have the rising trend in the crime rate under control. If we can restrict the increase to a minimum, then our Police Force is doing good work. The hon. member must not lose sight of the fact that the crime rate is at present showing a tendency to increase all over the world. I have already referred to the United States. On 10th August, 1966, an article appeared in the Pretoria News, an article which came from New York, in which the following was said—

That, therefore, is the state of affairs in America. I also have here an official document which comes from America. I do not want to occupy the time of the House by dealing with it now, but I can submit it to the hon. member if he wants to look at it.

I shall now return to the question of centralizing our police services. As far back as the thirties, when Col. I. D. de Villiers was still the Commissioner of Police, thought was given to the possibility of greater mechanization of the Service. Even at that time attention was also given to greater centralization which would have had the result that certain police stations could be closed. Initially progress was made with this and certain stations were in fact closed, but since that time, however, there has been another increase in the number of police stations. If one asks oneself what criterion should be used for testing the efficiency of a police service, then one has to admit that the presence of a police station is not necessarily a criterion.

But of a policeman.

Precisely. That is the very statement I also want to make. Efficiency, therefore, does not necessarily mean the presence of a police station, but the service policemen render outside. Moreover, the working conditions of our Police Force have changed a great deal. A policeman need no longer make his way on foot. The Police Force has been mechanized and for that reason policemen can move from one point to the other much more easily as well as faster. Stations have recently been closed in Kimberley. Initially there were three stations, but two of them have been closed, namely, those at Beaconsfield and at West End. These two stations were situated at distances of 2¼ and 1¼ miles, respectively, from the central station in Kimberley. I do not have the time to go into particulars, but I just want to point out that it is generally felt that many advantages have resulted from the closing of these stations. For instance, 15 White and 10 non-White officials who were previously used exclusively for administrative work, were released for active police service by means of this step. You must realize that where there is a police station, there must necessarily also be administrative officials. This is a matter which I should like to submit to this hon. House as being a matter of principle. The Department feels that we should discuss this matter as being a matter of principle, and that is why we are asking hon. members to be of assistance to us in this regard. I am therefore extending an invitation to hon. members to discuss this matter either with me or with the Commissioner of Police, particularly when they are of the opinion that the implementation of such a policy is not correct. But as I have said, as far as Kimberley is concerned, we have derived great benefit from the closing of two of the three stations, in that the services of 15 White and 10 non-White police servants were released for active police service by those means. And, as the hon. member for Transkei said earlier on, it is the policeman we want and not necessarily the police station. It is the policeman who has to combat crime. I should have liked to have said more about this matter of principle, because I think it is an important matter, but my time is very limited. It is being felt throughout the Force that there must be greater centralization, particularly in our urban complexes. As far as the Witwatersrand is concerned, it has already been decided to decrease the seven police districts there to three. That will have the result that it will in due course be possible to close certain police stations.

The hon. member for Transkei asked the hon. the Minister for more information in regard to the infiltration of terrorists in Ovamboland. I should have liked to have gone into particulars as regards the incident in Ovamboland itself, but my time is limited and for that reason I shall give the House a brief survey instead of the position in general in regard to the combating of terrorists.

With the arrest of the communistic supreme command at Rivonia in 1963, the police found documentary evidence to the effect that the communists were sending Bantu youths to Africa and communistic countries for military training as well as training in sabotage and guerrilla warfare. These trained people would then simultaneously be put ashore at various places, or brought across our northern borders, in groups of 30, which will in turn be divided into squads of 10 each. The terrorists would be provided with the necessary weapons, ammunition and explosives to enable them to launch an immediate, murderous reign of terror over the inhabitants of the Republic. In preparation the communistic alliance has, to the knowledge of the police, sent approximately 2,000 trainee terrorists out of the country up to the present moment, i.e. during the past few years. Of these trainees more than half have been identified positively by the police. With a few exceptions these trainee terrorists received military and other training in Russia and in other countries behind the Iron Curtain, in Europe, Red China, Algeria, the United Arab Republic, Ethiopia, Ghana, Cuba, Tanzania, and others. Twenty-three of these trained terrorists have already been arrested in the Republic and sentenced to imprisonment. Information in possession of the police points to the fact that several hundreds of trained terrorists are at present in transit camps in Tanzania and Zambia en route to the Republic. These terrorists are fully equipped with sub-machine guns and other automatic weapons of Russian and Chinese origin, and are receiving active assistance in their southward journey from White communists associated with organizations enjoying recognition and financial support in certain European countries. Documents found by the police after the skirmishes with the terrorists in South West Africa, furnished conclusive proof that Swapo forms part of the communistic conspiracy and that the small group of terrorists with whom the police came to blows is merely the vanguard of a larger force. The police has at its disposal evidence that there are at present more than 250 trained Ovambo terrorists, out of a grand total of 900 refugees, in transit camps in Tanzania and Zambia. These terrorists, too, are being provided with communistic weapons. The police has already succeeded in arresting 23 trained Ovambo terrorists in South West Africa, in addition to the two who were killed. The police is aware of the presence of a further number of trained people who are at present still in the north of South West Africa and is doing the necessary to apprehend them. According to statements made by those who were arrested, substantiated by documentary evidence, they were instructed to start a campaign of terrorism during which death and destruction had to be sown. Allegations have continuously been made by the leftist and overseas Press and petitioners before the United Nations that these trainee terrorists are political refugees who are only going abroad for the purpose of studying. Bursaries have been made available to these people by several countries as well as the United Nations, but even they have had to admit since then, that, owing to their elementary school education, the supposed students are neither suitable nor do they have any interest in further studies, and with a few exceptions have not availed themselves of the bursaries. It has been found that some of the trainee terrorists are 14-year-old and 15-year-old youths who were taken from the streets without the knowledge of their parents and were sent away for military training, as well as Bantu up to the age of 50 who had absolutely no school education.

If we see, therefore, what the police is doing to protect South Africa on its home front, then all of us will realize how efficient our Police Service is, and what wonderful work they are doing in regard to safeguarding all of us in South Africa. Then you will realize why I am saying that I am privileged to hold my present office.

Progress reported.