I move as an unopposed motion.

1. (1) That the following members constitute the Committee of the House of Assembly, viz. the Minister of Lands, the Minister of Transport, Mr. Gay, Dr. J. H. Steyn and Mr. Waterson; and
2. (2) that two members of each House form a quorum of the Joint Sessional Committee.

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, formerly we only started evening sittings after the eleventh sitting day. A few years ago, against my advice and that of the Chief Whip of the United Party, Parliament saw fit to change that and to commence evening sittings after the first week. That simply does not work. Therefore I move this motion, and I hope that at some time or other we will change our Standing Rules and Orders so as to revert to the old rule.

I second.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon I referred very briefly to what had been said in this debate by four Cabinet Ministers. I made no reference to anything that had been said by backbenchers on the Government side for the simple reason that nothing was said. One must only assume that the backbenchers of the Nationalist Party had been muzzled for the period of this debate and that the Government is so concerned that they are retaining the right of reply for duly instructed members of the Cabinet.

I want to get back at once to the motion before the House. It is a motion, Sir, which is designed, as you will realize, primarily to elicit from the Government its intentions in regard to race policy. The hon. the Prime Minister responded to a certain degree, to a certain extent only, to that request by this side of the House. I may observe that his response was accompanied by a quite unprecedented flood of propaganda, notably from Radio South Africa—which becomes more like Radio Zeesen every day as far as I can see—and I want to appeal to sensible people in the country not to fall tamely or meekly for this massive attempt to indoctrinate them, but to study the proposals for themselves very carefully and to think out their implications and to decide for themselves on their merits or otherwise. Because, Sir, this is a momentous decision which the Government has taken, a decision which, I think everybody will agree, may very well decide for ever the future of South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister has declared that the next step in the development of his colonial policy involving the dismemberment of the Republic, is self-government for the Transkei leading to complete sovereign independence for that territory. For the time being, in the normal way of colonial development, certain powers will be reserved—Foreign Affairs, Defence and certain judicial affairs, whatever that may mean—but only temporarily. The prospect which this House has to face is that the Government intends to give the Transkei complete sovereign independence as a sovereign state. I want to make it clear that we on this side of the House support the Government in developing local self-government in the Transkei and large capital programmes for developing the economic and population-carrying potential of the Transkei, but only as an integral and indivisible part of the Republic of South Africa. The Prime Minister proposed a measure of revolutionary development. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration yesterday denied that.

He said it was only the logical development of Government policy. Sir, that is surely no argument. It simply shows how far wrong logic will lead you if you start off on a false premise in a wrong direction. The steps announced by the Prime Minister involve the surrender of a large portion of South Africa to a foreign state in the first place and quite clearly envisages the surrender of a great deal more in the near future, the carving up of South Africa on a massive scale.

What about Basutoland?

Basutoland was never part of South Africa or Bechuanaland. The hon. the Minister of Finance, in his speech, said that this was morally right. Talking about morals, Sir, it is quite clear from the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech that he has made up his mind on this subject before the election. Why did he not tell the people? I ask myself was it morally right not to enlighten the people of his specific intentions before the election?

You wanted a blank cheque.

My party has not asked the people for a blank cheque. The hon. the Prime Minister had the opportunity of telling the people what he was going to do and he did not take it. I hope we shall hear no more about morals from the Government benches in the future.

The hon. the Minister of Finance says that this is a logical development, only at an accelerated rate. He did not tell us just why the rate has been accelerated. But the reasons that have been given by the Government benches are twofold. One is that it is no longer possible to resist Bantu claims for franchise rights and, since it is no longer possible to resist those claims, the only alternatives are envisaging “one man one vote” throughout the Republic or else partitioning South Africa. The second reason is that this is a last-minute attempt to rehabilitate South Africa in the eyes of the world and to placate world opinion. The hon. the Prime Minister in very plaintive terms said that if there is still any justice left in this world the expenditure which the Government is prepared to undertake—I may say that they did not tell us how much they were prepared to undertake; the only specific figure mentioned was £1,000,000 subsidy per annum to help the Transkei apart from the ordinary taxation—and the schemes it has worked out should be able to counteract the propaganda made against the Republic. So, Sir, we are being asked to give away, and to pay globular sums for the privilege of giving away large parts of the heritage of the people of this country in order, according to the Government, first of all, to ensure the White man’s survival and secondly, to put us right in the eyes of the world. Of course, Sir, on this side of the House we emphatically deny that there is no other way than either “one man one vote” throughout the Republic or else destroying South Africa as it is being destroyed to-day geographically, in order to cope with our racial problems.

For many years the Nationalist Party has thriven or did thrive on a very simple question: “Do you want your daughter to marry a Black man? If not, vote for us.” And they got away with it. That question is now a little bit threadbare perhaps and they have replaced it by the “one man one vote” bogy. Mr. Speaker, nobody can foretell the future. Nobody can tell with certainty what is going to happen, whether the Prime Minister’s policy is followed or anybody else’s. I must say that, on the face of it, this proposed step of the Prime Minister’s will bring “one man, one vote” throughout Southern Africa much nearer than it is to-day. If there is any truth in the claim that the Bantu will be satisfied with nothing less than “one man, one vote”, then it is. reasonable to suppose that the new constitution which is in the course of being drafted for the Transkei will be based on adult franchise in some form or other. Since the present authority which is advising the Government and which is. drafting this constitution, is largely composed of nominated chiefs, one imagines that they will be primarily concerned with protecting their positions, safeguarding their own future. That may be so. But it will not last. Once you establish a voters’ roll and an electoral system, the days of feudal tribalism and feudal chiefs are numbered. In these proposals the Government has thrown overboard completely what they have been preaching during the past years that the Bantu territories must be built up and cherished and encouraged on the maintenance of the tribal system. But that quite clearly goes by the board with these proposals. Pressure to extend adult franchise will be stronger than ever because the tie-up between the Republic and the Transkei is such that there are tens of thousands of Transkeian voters living in the Republic and they are obviously going to expand and encourage and increase the pressure for the extension of the adult franchise to the Republic for all races. The Nationalist Party just will not face the fact that there is not, and there never has been and never will be, a White South Africa in the strict sense of the words. [Interjection.] No matter what the Prime Minister may say or do, White South Africans will always live in a multi-racial country and no amount of cutting up the Republic or throwing away territory will alter that fact. Surrounding ourselves with Black independent states, as is envisaged by the statement of policy of the Prime Minister, states on whom we are entirely dependent for our continued economic existence, will simply increase the pressure on us in the smaller South Africa which is envisaged. Supposing the Prime Minister’s programme is carried out in full, what is left for the White man in South Africa? What is left, Sir, is a shrunken, truncated South Africa containing a majority of non-Whites, in which the Whites propose to continue to exercise complete political control. There, in so far as world opinion is concerned, it seems to me we are back exactly where we started from, because world opinion disapproves of the racial policies of this country whether they are carried out in a larger South Africa or a smaller one. May I quote one extract from a speech made by the United States representative, Mr. Plimpton, at UNO last October, when a debate was taking place in the Special Committee on the question of apartheid? He said this—

That, I think, hon. members opposite may not agree with, but I think it represents pretty fairly the views of world opinion. Whether it is a greater or smaller South Africa, if these policies are pursued, world opinion in regard to us is not going to change.

Is it your plan to eliminate all colour discrimination?

That is one of those general questions one can expect from the hon. member. The hon. the Minister said that it was the policy of the Nationalist Party to abolish all discrimination, but of course the way in which they want to do it is so fallacious and so spurious that nobody is taken in by it. As far as we are concerned, of course there will be a measure of discrimination between civilized people and backward people. There must be. Even the Progressive Party admits that.

I am talking about colour discrimination. [Interjections.]

Irrespective of what the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) may say or think, I do not believe that this particular proposal is going to make any difference in the eyes of the world, and in deciding their opinion as to the racial policies of the Government. As I see it, Sir, after all the sacrifices which we are going to be asked to make—and the members of the Government have been telling us for months that we must be prepared to make great sacrifices in carrying out the policy of the Government—what will we have? We will have neither a White South Africa nor the approval of world opinion. These steps, amongst other things, are being taken to protect the White man, allegedly, although I must say that this Government appears to be much more concerned at the moment with giving independence to the Bantu than they are with what the White man will have to sacrifice for this particular policy. From the White man’s point of view—and let us consider the White man for a moment. I remember when Mr. Macmillan made his speech the Prime Minister got up to reply to him and he said he had listened to Mr. Macmillan but what about the White man? So I am quite in order in saying that for the moment we are entitled to consider the position of the White man, when considering these policies and their effect. From the White man’s point of view, the Opposition is entitled to stress the fact that the White man is entitled to some consideration.

Hear, hear!

After all, we are being called upon to pay the piper in all this and the White man’s position should be considered. From the White man’s point of view, what are the prospects as the result of this policy? First of all, the prospects are that he will have a much smaller Republic with a non-White majority in it, not a White Republic but a multi-racial Republic, with the non-Whites increasingly demanding political rights, with the full backing of the Black independent states this Government is creating. Secondly, it means the abandonment of any idea of White leadership in Southern Africa. Thirdly, it means a series of Black, independent states around us, states which may or may not be friendly but which will certainly control the source of our labour supply. Fourthly, there will be a huge capital expenditure and current annual expenditure as well to keep these states going on lines which may very well differ increasingly from our own policies. We have had nothing from the other side as to what this capital expenditure is likely to be. The Minister of Bantu Administration mentioned that they were going to build 2,800 miles of roads in the reserves in the next five years. Has he any idea what that will cost, and would he like to tell me what it will cost?

I will do that later on.

I will tell him that provided they are decent roads—I do not necessarily mean national roads but well-made roads—if he gets away with R60,000,000 he will be lucky. And that is only for a few miles of roads.

There is a new party in the House.

It is just an unknown factor. It is just one of those things the White man will have to face, and lastly, the White man is faced with an endless series of headaches and problems dealing with these states, and with the non-Whites within our own borders, as the result of the establishment of these states. So, before surrendering vast areas of our country and incurring unknown expenditure which nobody on that side of the House is even prepared to estimate but which is big enough for the Minister of Finance to talk about getting large loans from the I.M.F., and for running the very real risk of having hostile states all around us, what is the White man gaining by these proposals? He is certainly not gaining a White South Africa. He is certainly not gaining the support and approval of our would-be friends in the world. As far as I can see, he stands to gain absolutely nothing. But what will it cost him nobody knows. I believe that the Prime Minister with this proposal has produced a monster which may very well spell the doom of the White man in South Africa, and nobody on that side has attempted to show what the White man will gain by these proposals. In fact, I think the Black man is very likely to lose by them, too, if we withdraw our control and assistance. Sir, if the Nationalist Party would only accept the fact that this is a multi-racial country and it always will be, and that nothing they can say or do can alter that fact, we might possibly get somewhere. But as long as they continue to chase this will-o’-the-wisp and think it is possible to establish a White South Africa over which they have sole control, so long is there no hope whatever, for as long as this Government remains in power, for the future peace and development of the Republic. In truth, whilst we would welcome and support the development of the Transkei and the other reserves with all the assistance we can give them, with the investment of large capital sums and the steady growth of local self-government in those territories, all within the confines and as part and parcel of the Republic of South Africa, we cannot possibly subscribe to the Prime Minister’s proposals that he put before this House. We cannot subscribe to it and we shall regard it as our duty to do our best to open the eyes of the people throughout the country to the fallacies and dangers contained in these proposals. I believe sincerely that the Prime Minister’s proposals will not only solve any of the problems facing us, but I believe that they will add to and multiply the problems and the dangers already confronting us. Therefore we cannot accept the Prime Minister’s proposals. Now, if I sit down, will the hon. the Minister answer my question and tell me what those roads will cost?

R575,000.

Per mile?

I do not want to embarrass the Minister, but if he would be kind enough to give his colleague who will speak next the figures giving the cost and the mileage which that cost covers, I shall be much obliged. Meanwhile I say that we are utterly opposed to the Prime Minister’s proposals.

As during the course of my remarks I shall deal with most of the arguments used by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) I now, right at the commencement of my speech, just want to express my great regret that a member of the age of that hon. member, an erstwhile Minister of State, a member who represented South Africa overseas, should have made himself guilty here of misrepresenting the essence of the policy of the Government and that he should have done it in a way that must necessarily create lack of confidence in South Africa overseas. [Laughter.] He said here that the step the Government is now taking is “a further step in this Government’s policy of colonialism”.

Of course it is.

He says so knowing what the meaning of colonialism is and what a bad taste it leaves in the mouth of the world to-day, but just a few sentences later he himself admitted that the policy of this Government amounts to “surrender of a large portion of South Africa to foreign self-governing states”. Both those things cannot be true.

Why not?

Because if one follows the course of having separate states with independent governments, that is not a policy of colonialism, as that hon. member ought to know. I want to state clearly that a policy of colonialism means a policy whereby the mother country allows its citizens and subjects to go and settle in that colony which they colonize. It means a policy in terms of which they allow their citizens to invest money for their own advantage in that colony, and both of these are standpoints of principle which are rejected by this Government, and which show that the policy of this Government lies in the direction of the development of self-governing separate states, as the hon. member himself later admitted. But he uses these words deliberately in an attempt to arouse opposition overseas concerning this policy of the Nationalist Government which is aimed at saving the White man in South Africa, and he does so for party-political gain. I regard that as a crime against the White man in South Africa.

I do not really want to discuss the Indian problem here to-day. I just want to refer to it in passing, because it was mentioned in the motion and in the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. All I want to say is that I hope within the near future to have the opportunity of discussing this matter fully in the Senate. The Prime Minister has referred to the principles underlying our approach to the Indian problem and he added that it was important that in the development and application of our policy we should work in consultation with the Indians themselves. Therefore our first problem is to find those Indians who can be representative leaders of the Indian community, and to discuss this policy with them, and to develop it, and therefore that is the first task to which I am devoting my attention. When I talk about Indian leaders I am of course not referring to the Indian Congress movement, because their obvious aim is to destroy our policy and everything which we are trying to do for the Indians. But we will find those Indian leaders out of the thousands who have already demonstrated their goodwill and who are willing to cooperate with us, even though they still do not want to commit themselves as to the principles of our policy and the method by which we intend implementing it, but who have intimated their readiness to have consultations. The goodwill I have experienced in the few months for which I have been responsible for the portfolio of Indian Affairs has been so unexpectedly encouraging that it has given me the fullest confidence that amongst the Indians of South Africa there is a sense of responsibility and a readiness to co-operate in order to ensure good relations, and that we are experiencing that co-operation to an ever-increasing degree. That is all I want to say about Indian affairs at this stage.

Before coming to my main remarks, I just want to refer to questions which have been put here and remarks made in regard to Bantu education and how it will be affected by this new policy of self-governing Bantu states. The object of the question put by Opposition members, viz. whether these Bantu governments will have the right themselves to decide about Bantu education, is of course not simply to obtain information, because it has already been said that the division of power it a matter which will be agreed upon only after consultation with the Bantu leaders. I believe that the reason why the question was asked is to cause confusion, and I come to that. But I want to state clearly that I do not believe that the Transkei or any other Bantu area at this stage will desire to have full control over all stages of education for its own people, because they realize that uniformity has to be maintained between the various areas, as well as standards, which can only be ensured through having a common examination system. They realize that full justice cannot at this stage be done in regard to higher education, which is essential for the developing Bantu areas, by having Bantu teachers only, and that it will be more difficult to make use of White teachers if education falls completely under the control of, e.g., a Bantu Parliament. Therefore we will have to assist them because the political development and the accompanying economic development of the people of that area, and we shall have to help them. How and where we are to give assistance will have to be determined in consultation with them.

But the object of the questions put by hon. members, as to whether the Bantu Parliament will have the right to repeal the Bantu Education Act, is to imply that although we are prepared to give the Bantu in the Transkei self-rule, it will really mean very little to them because we still retain certain, according to them, oppressive measures like the Bantu Education Act, because that is how they described that Act. That is why I say that this question is aimed at creating the impression in the minds of the Bantu and also overseas that we still want to keep the Bantu in an inferior position. So doing, they hope to destroy the good work we are busy doing. Now I want to say immediately that I am quite convinced that the Bantu, if he is given self-rule, does not desire to make radical changes in the Bantu Education Act in regard to his education. I base my conviction on the fact that the co-operation we have received from the Bantu in their areas in connection with Bantu education under this Act has been the most favourable one could have expected, and much better than what we have had from hon. members opposite. There is only one single aspect of Bantu education in regard to which there are doubts, and that is mother tongue education, and negotiations are already under way in this regard between the Transkeian representatives and my Department, from which it is apparent that the Bantu of the Transkei in principle accept mother tongue instruction, but that they just have certain doubts about certain of the ways in which it is to be applied. I have already instituted an investigation in regard to that matter, and consultations are in progress.

But in the second place I am convinced that the Bantu do not want to repeal or amend the Bantu Education Act, because recently a conference was held in Accra by the African states in regard to education, and according to the UNESCO publication entitled “Conference of African States on the Development of Education in Africa, Addis Ababa, 15 to 25 May 1961”, certain recommendations are contained under Head F entitled “The Reform of the Content of Education”, which reads as follows:

It is recommended:

1. (1) that as the present content of education in Africa is not in line with either existing African conditions, the postulate of political independence, the dominant features of an essentially technological aid, or the imperatives of balanced economic development involving rapid industrialization, but is based on a non-African background, allowing no room for the African child’s intelligence, powers of observation and creative imagination to develop freely and help him find his bearings in the world—African educational authorities should revise and reform the content of education in the areas of the curricula, text books, and methods, so as to take account of African environment, child development, cultural heritage and the demand of technological progress and economic development, especially industrialization.
2. (2) that the teaching of scientific and technical subjects be developed so as to ensure the training of highly qualified staff as speedily as possible, such as research workers, engineers, science teachers, economists, financial experts and statisticians;
3. (3) that the curricula be reformed by allotting less time to the teaching of classics and ending the preferential treatment given to the teaching of non-African history and geography;
4. (4) that all aspects of humanistic education which will help in character-formation be retained, and while rooting itself in Africa’s past, the educational content should not seal the student off from the rest of the world. The African States must make the necessary study of any changes in additional attitudes so as to achieve in their curricula the synthesis of their own values and of universal values.

In other words, the resolution adopted by the Conference of African States in Addis Ababa in 1961 literally supports what was done by the Bantu Education Act in South Africa, and therefore I say that in principle the Bantu education system we have given them is the very thing they themselves want in the rest of Africa, and during all these discussions, right up to this year even, the delegates from the Union of South Africa have given the lead at these discussions and have made a deep impression on the educationists of the rest of Africa. Therefore I think there is no danger that the Bantu in South Africa will desire to have a different system, as do hon. members opposite.

But I come to the debate itself, and I just want to say that the support received by the Government for its standpoint from the White people, not only from supporters of the Government, but also from others, as well as from the Bantu, clearly emerges from the reports we have had just recently. Anyone who reads the newspapers will have observed that. The only support the United Party receives for their standpoint comes from Albert Luthuli. I do not want to say more about that. But I think that after three days of this debate it is necessary for us, as the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) said yesterday, to have clarity regarding our standpoint, and, in order to have clarity, we must contrast the two alternatives and test them, on the one hand the development of separate communities with self-government to whatever extent is possible for each group, as favoured by the National Party, and on the other hand the racial federation plan of the United Party. I think it is necessary for me briefly to refer to this racial federation plan. It is, of course, very difficult to know what they mean precisely, because the Leader of the Opposition, who now in his motion asks for greater clarity as to the policy of the Government, said the following in August last year, according to the Natal Mercury, when he was explaining his racial federation policy to his congress—

In other words, he does not want to give details, and when, at the same congress, motions were moved by the constituencies of Constantia and Wynberg, motions on their secret agenda asking for direct representation for the Bantu, the Coloured and the Indian, we have this very interesting statement by the Leader of the Opposition when these secret motions were being discussed—

In other words, do not give details now; all these details, the blueprint for their plan must be worked out later after the voters have voted. But he could not always get away from it so easily, because he did in fact give an exposition which is of particular interest to us. In July 1961 he wrote an article in the American quarterly, Foreign Affairs, under the heading “South African Prospects—Thoughts on an Alternative Race Policy”, and there he had to give more details. Here it is very significant, in my opinion, although I have little fault to find with the first portion of his article where he gives the factual and historical background, that in the second part of his article, where he deals with the alternative policy, viz. the United Party’s policy, he says the following, firstly in connection with the standpoint of principle—

After dealing with this basis of policy he comes to the details—

In other words, the test of helping to preserve Western civilization—

I repeat “in every way”—

Now, with reference to this very clear statement by the Leader of the Opposition, I want to ask him this question: If that is his standpoint, what moral right has he to discriminate between the Whites and the Coloureds in regard to franchise qualifications? He states that he wants the franchise on a Common Roll with the right of their being elected themselves, and I say that means the franchise for every male and every female Coloured in South Africa over the age of 18 years. I say he wants that, regardless of any educational or income qualifications, and he wants it for the whole of the Republic of South Africa. I now want to ask him in his reply to this debate to state clearly whether my inference from what he said here is wrong. If he denies it, he must tell us on what moral grounds he justifies distinguishing between the White and the Coloured voter if he says “they should in every way be regarded as part of the Western society, enjoying the rights to which that status entitles them”, and if that is his standpoint, he must also tell us on what grounds he justifies separate schools or separate residential areas between the Coloureds and the Whites, because he clearly says “they should be regarded in every way as part of the Western society, enjoying the rights to which that status entitles them”. And if he does not basically agree with this, if he does not agree that it means doing away with apartheid in schools, doing away with separate residential areas and absolutely equal franchise qualifications, then he must tell us on what moral grounds he justifies differences in those respects, and if he draws a distinction there he must at the same time tell us why he gives the world the impression that he is going in the direction of absolute equality if he favours another policy in South Africa.

But then he comes to the next point, namely the Indians, and he says—

I say that if words have any meaning, then this paragraph read in conjunction with the previous paragraph dealing with the Coloureds, mean that eventually he also wants to grant an equal franchise to the Indians on a Common Roll, because if he does not mean that, why did he try to mislead the world, and on what moral grounds does he justify any other standpoint?

Then he comes to the Bantu, and in connection with them he says this—

Order! An hon. member may not read a newspaper in the Chamber.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I am reading a report in connection with the debate now taking place here.

Order! The hon. member ought to know better.

He will not learn.

I am sorry, but am I not entitled to read something which has reference to the debate which is now in progress?

No.

I quote further—

If one analyses this thing, it means that he eventually visualizes in a federal Parliament, along with the representatives of the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians, also the representatives of separate geographic Bantu units which he himself calls “reservations” will have developed to that stage, and apart from that he also envisages the representatives of the Bantu who will be in the White areas of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, may I raise a point of order in connection with your latest ruling?

This is just to waste time.

Section 61 of the Standing Rules and Orders clearly provides …

The hon. the Minister may continue.

Before I analyse his speech further, I want to refer to what the hon. member for Yeoville said yesterday. He realized what an effect, what an impact, this statement by the Prime Minister of South Africa had made on the public, White and Bantu, in this country, and he realized that the idea had firmly taken root in the mind of the public that here we have a development which would make the United Party superfluous in future, which would eliminate the United Party, and therefore he made a pathetic attempt to justify the continued existence of that party by saying that the establishment of separate areas with a measure of self-rule, as is now being done, can be used to change South Africa into a federation, which is the policy of the United Party. In other words, the political struggle of the future will no longer be over the question as to whether we should have separate development of integration towards a multiracial state, but over the question whether separate development should lead to a system of good neighbourliness with mutual consultation on matters of common interest, as favoured by the National Party, or whether it should lead to a federation in which the various racial groups are to be represented in one Central Parliament, or as the hon. member for Yeoville expressed it in his latest exposition in the Sunday Times, in a sort of “National Convention in permanent session”. The important questions which arise from this are the following: The hon. member for Yeoville said that the policy favoured by the Government must necessarily result in the fact that there will continually be conflicts between states. His most important objection to our policy was that this granting of self-rule would lead to conflict between states. But if there is to be conflict—and we foresee that it may happen—then in an attempt to resolve them we want to have regular consultations on a high level. We are prepared to run that risk, and we have the courage and the faith that it can be surmounted in a spirit of good neighbourliness and goodwill. But what will be the position under their system? In a federal Parliament where you have the representation of the various racial groups on a racial basis, there must inevitably be continual clashes over the measure of representation. The hon. member for Yeoville says in his article in the Sunday Times that the measure of representation will depend on “the stage of their civilization”. That is his yardstick. But his leader, the Leader of the United Party, tells him in this article that “a civilization test is an odious task; it must at its best be arbitrary and unscientific”. Well, it is for those two to decide the matter, because the one says that a civilization test is the thing to determine how much representation they should have, but his leader tells him that one cannot apply a civilization test because it is arbitrary and unscientific.

But the confusion of those hon. members from the article of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself. He does not want a civilization test because it will be arbitrary and unscientific, but he wants a test based on character and “responsible status”. Now that is not arbitrary and it is not unscientific. The more I see of the logic of those hon. members, the more I understand why they belong to the U.P. Therefore I say that this system of the U.P. will lead to racial clashes unless and until one is prepared to give to the various race groups in their geographical units the franchise and representation in the central body equivalent to the representation given to the Whites, based on their numbers. In other words, the numerical strength of the various groups will have to be the decisive factor in the representation in the Central Parliament, otherwise one can expect nothing but constant friction and clashes.

The hon. member for Yeoville said that the Government’s policy is not a solution in the Bantu areas. Now they want to give the Bantu in the White areas representation in the Central Parliament on the basis of some or other unscientific and arbitrary yardstick, as the Leader of the Opposition himself says, and there it must be the basis for clashes and friction until eventually one gives the Bantu in the White area “one man, one vote” on an equal basis with the Whites, because along that road of the United Party there is no possibility of stopping at a half-way station; one simply cannot do so. One will be driven further, as all the countries in Africa have shown us, as the Central African Federation has shown us, and as Kenya and all the other places in the world have shown. In other words, their policy cannot eliminate conflict; it can only lead to more conflict, and in addition it must result in a central Parliament with equal representation for the geographic units of the Bantu, with the mixed geographic unit in which the White man will be on the basis of numbers, and in the mixed geographic unit in which the White man will also be there will be an equal franchise for all race groups, and that can only mean the eventual total domination by the Black man in South Africa, not only in the Central Parliament but also in the mixed area favoured by them.

That brings me to the important argument advanced by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), namely the question of borders. He particularly referred to Zululand and asked how those borders would be determined; here the Whites are now being asked to make sacrifices, to abandon territories for the sake of the consolidation of the Bantu areas, eventually to establish an independent state there, and that he is not prepared to do. But, Mr. Speaker, their policy of race federation is based on the principal of separate geographic units, and one can only have a separate geographic unit if one has borders. In other words, the same border problem… (Laughter.) How is the hon. member for Yeoville going to have a geographic unit without borders? There is only one thing which has no limits, and that is the total incapacity of the hon. member for Yeoville to be consistent.

A state within a state.

I am not talking now about our terminology; I am talking about the terminology of the Leader of the Opposition. He talks about geographic units. He talks about separate geographic units, and a geographic unit can only exist if it is borders. In other words, the same border problem which faces us faces them as well, and therefore they do not even offer the White man the assurance that he will at least have an area in South Africa where he will be the ruler and where he will have a homeland. Therefore they offer the White man a race federation in which the Bantu will dominate him and a so-called mixed area in which he will also be dominated by the non-Whites. In other words, in regard to borders they call for the same sacrifices as we do, but they offer only death to the White man and not hope for the future, as the National Party does. Therefore I hope that the public of South Africa will realise that we are faced with problems which make it necessary for us to examine our future course, and that the leaders of the United Party who do not think clearly about the future and who only make ill-considered statements in an attempt to keep their own party together, should now be abandoned for the sake of the future of the White man, and for the sake of the peaceful co-existence of all the races in the Republic of South Africa.

Just on a point of explanation, when the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) asked me a question in the course of his speech, I unfortunately in my haste made a mistake. The amount required to build the 2,761 miles of roads and 71 bridges in the Bantu areas is R3,350,000. That is the estimated amount

I have heard many curious speeches in this House, but none as curious as the one which the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education has just delivered. He started off in apparent anger with the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) because the hon. member for Constantia would not indulge with him in the pipe-dream of Bantustans. Because the hon. member for Constantia tried to introduce an air of realism into this House he is accused of sabotaging South Africa. Well, I admit that realism sabotaged the Nationalist’s policies but it has never sabotaged South Africa yet. Sir, then he went on to the second point. He, the Minister who is responsible for apartheid as far as it affects the Indian community in this country, explained that after 14 years apartheid, as far as the Indian community is concerned, has advanced to a stage where he is looking for leaders to consult with. After 14 years that is apparently the stage which has been reached. I think that is quite a fair summing up. Then, Sir, he went on to one of the most futile bits of speculation that could ever have taken place in this House. He speculated along what lines education would develop in future independent Bantu states in this country and even went as far as Ghana for authority for his speculations. I do not suppose that the time of the House has ever been wasted so completely as with that bit of futile speculation as to what the Bantustan education is going to look like in future years.

The Prime Minister in his historical exposition of the policy of apartheid here also delivered—I wonder if hon. members on the other side realize that—a most shattering exposé of the weaknesses of apartheid, of its contradictions, of its impracticalities and of the fatal consequences that it will ultimately have for our national existence. Let me just indicate briefly a few of these major inconsistencies. I wonder if hon. members on the other side were aware that as the Prime Minister built up his case for apartheid as it affects the Bantu population, he systematically broke down apartheid as a policy for the Coloured and Indian communities. Let me give a few examples. The Prime Minister said that the choice before South Africa was the division of South Africa, the dismemberment of South Africa, or otherwise a multi-racial society. The Minister of Finance took the same line and said that the choice before South Africa was a multi-racial state or separate states. So far as the Bantu is concerned apparently our choice is separate states, a dismemberment of South Africa, or otherwise a multi-racial society. But what about the Coloureds and the Indians then. I have never heard of any separate states proposed for them. Does that mean that it is a tacit admission by the Prime Minister and his Government that as far as the Coloureds and the Indians are concerned at least we are a multi-racial society? That is not necessary logic, because the only way in which you can prevent a multi-racial society (together with the Natives), is to have a separate state, and surely the same logic must apply to the Coloureds and the Indians. It is not as if the Indians and the Coloureds are a small minority in this country. They are actually increasing at a faster rate than the Europeans in this country. Last year their rate of increase was 60,000 compared with 50,000 Europeans, and the Viljoen Commission calculated that in the year 2000 there will actually be more Coloureds and Indians in South Africa than Whites. Well, it will be quite an advance if Government members will accept that at least as far as the Coloureds and the Indians are concerned we are a multi-racial society. Sir, I can give some other examples. The Prime Minister said that only in a separate state can human dignity be satisfied and could there be co-operation between the groups. The Prime Minister furthermore said that the people of the Transkei should have their own citizenship and that it was only in this way that they could apparently develop their full human dignity. Sir, what about the Coloureds and the Indians then? Must we deduce from this that they can never develop full human dignity in this State unless the Government accepts that they are part of a multi-racial society? The Prime Minister made a point that he could not allow White ownership of factories in the Transkei because he said that would mean economic colonialism. The Bantu must have opportunities to own their own factories. Again, what about the Coloureds and what about the Indians? In what countries are they going to have their own factories? Does that mean that as far as they are concerned apartheid is then a system of economic colonialism? One can only deduce, Mr. Speaker, that as far as apartheid is concerned double moral standards are applied, on the one hand to the Bantu and on the other hand to the Indians and the Coloureds, and I think nothing is more damning of apartheid as the fact that in order to be logical in its application, the Government is compelled to extend far more extensive political rights to the least westernized group in this country. By all logic one would have thought that the system of the extension of political rights should first of all apply to the most westernized group, the most educated group, the Coloureds in this country. But the logic of apartheid forces this Government into the illogical situation of extending extensive political rights in the first instance to the least developed section of the population. But I will stop flogging this dead horse of apartheid as far as the Coloureds and Indians are concerned, because I truly think that the Prime Minister’s speech has killed apartheid as far as the Coloureds and Indians are concerned, and I think that many hon. members on the other side realize this too in their hearts of hearts that apartheid as far as the Coloured communities are concerned, was simply kept alive and kept going by the indomitable willpower of the Prime Minister and the way he dominates hon. members on the other side.

Mr. Speaker, let us then turn to Bantu apartheid, this concept of Bantu apartheid that has been sketched for us, and see whether this will really fulfil the promises that have been made. In the first place, I must admit that this plan has been described as a scheme of partition and the establishment of independent states, as is happening in other parts of Africa. Well, that is simply not the truth. Nowhere else in Africa, as far as I am aware, has there been any partition and has there been the establishment of an independent state in which the majority of the citizens of that independent state did not at least live in that state. I think it is unique in the annals of history about the establishment of a country which attained national independence, that the majority of its nationals, or the citizens to be of that country, were living outside that state. Surely, the hon. the Prime Minister and hon. members opposite will agree with me that if this policy is to fulfil the promises that they see for it, at least in the foreseeable future the bulk of the Bantu will have to live in their homeland, far and away the great bulk of the Bantu will have to live in their homeland. It is really too silly for grown-up people to argue about a state of affairs that can possibly persist for any length of time where the great bulk of the citizens do not live in their country. It is nonsensical to talk about national independence and an own national existence if the great bulk of your people do not even live in your country. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) has already pointed out how the minority problems and the intense political nationalism in this twentieth century has bedevilled European politics and has caused many of the wars which have so shattered Europe during the past 50 years. No doubt that is the reason why the history that has been put to this House, I suggest, was not quite correct. It has been suggested that the whole history of Europe shows that you can only have peace if you partition national units in their own areas, whereas the whole development since the last war has been the direct opposite. Europeans have learned from their past mistakes and the whole movement of Europe to-day is towards political unity of all people with common cultural interests and the common cultural western heritage.

In the light of the creation of independent states in Europe where minorities led to all the trouble, surely it further proves the point that if you are going to leave the majority of your citizens outside your national state, you are never going to have peaceful relations between the two neighbouring states. If minorities have led to all these troubles that we have seen in Europe during the past 50 years, what is going to happen here in South Africa and what are the relations going to be between the White Republic and the independent Black states round about if the majority of their populations live in the White Republic? Therefore I again say that this scheme that the hon. the Prime Minister has put before the country can only possibly work if it is possible in the foreseeable future to substantially see to it that the citizens of the Transkei live in the Transkei and not in the Republic of South Africa, that basically they live there. What are the chances of bringing that about? After all. we have had 14 years of apartheid and we found during those 14 years that far from the percentage living in the Native areas increasing. the percentage that was living outside these areas has increased steadily and again and again we have pointed out from this side that the reason for that is quite simple, namely that all investment in Southern Africa, all investment creating jobs in Southern Africa in the past, has always been in the White area, and only a substantial diversion of investment to the Native areas could possibly reverse this flow of Natives from the Native areas. And. Mr. Speaker, one can even get an assessment of the order of this diversion that will have to take place. My hon. Leader mentioned it the other day that at least three-fifths of the labour force that is added to our existing labour force every year consists of Bantu, and it surely means that at least half of the investment that takes place in what is the Republic of South Africa to-day will have to be transferred to these Native areas. But even that would not be sufficient. It is not enough as all the other undeveloped areas in Africa show, simply to pour in capital. You must build up human capabilities, technological and administrative capabilities to be able to run a modern society before you can invest and before you can really increase the carrying capacity of an under-developed area. After 14 years precious little has been done in that respect, so little that there is very little scope for rapid industrial development, even if one had the capital available. The simple truth of the matter is that we have not been able to increase the carrying capacity of the Bantu areas in the past 14 years because the White voters will simply not stand for any policy that causes such a great diversion of their capital resources to the Native areas. And in any event from the human point of view it would be completely impracticable, because in these Native areas, unless you allow White technological workers and White capitalists to go there, you will simply not have the manpower to create the industries that in turn must create the employment necessary, or reduce the flow of Africans from the Native reserves to the White area. Now under this scheme, Mr. Speaker, one gets the impression from the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Finance that it will now be easier, once you can give these areas independence, to improve their carrying capacity. I cannot see why that should be so. The financial effort involved, the human effort involved will still exactly be the same, and from the administrative point of view it will be more difficult, because in order to develop these areas one will now have to deal with two authorities; you will not have one central Government; you will now have to have agreement between your new Black government and your Republican Government to develop those areas, and surely the resistance of the Europeans who have to provide the bulk of the capital, the tax money to bring this about, will increase if these countries become independent foreign countries, because it will amount to developing industries in foreign countries that are going to compete with your own undertakings. So it will be an infinitely harder problem. The hon. the Minister of Finance quoted some authority in which it was said that basically the needs of under-developed countries were law and order and an incorruptible public service. He did not develop that theme, but surely once these areas become independent, he does not wish to imply that the public service will become more incorruptible or that law and order will be improved? If anything, your standard of administration will go down. So this very authority that he quotes also militates against the chances of developing the existing Native reserves to the standard which will be necessary if the bulk of the Bantu were to live there.

But of course the hon. the Prime Minister thinks he has found a way round this dilemma of diverting such a large percentage of your capital investment from your White area to your Native areas. He thinks he has found a solution in what is called the development of border industries. The idea of course is that the control of industries will then still remain in the hands of the White capitalists, and the capital will still be invested in the Republic, but the labour will be largely Bantu and will be supplied from the Bantu areas to be now established as independent states. Moreover, if I followed the hon. the Prime Minister correctly he said that whereas White capital and Black labour in the Bantu areas would be equivalent to economic colonialization (and he develops his argument and even apparently argues that a White capitalist in a Black area would be an exploiter), if he uses the Black labour in a White area he is not an exploiter. Then he makes the second point and says, and that is why he rejects all idea of partnership in the Native areas, that White capital and Black labour in White cities, like say Benoni, Boksburg, Springs and Krugersdorp, is equivalent to economic integration. But, says the Prime Minister, if you have White capital and Black labour in Pretoria North, within 13 miles of Hammanskraal. then you get neither economic colonialism, nor economic integration. Logically one would have imagined that if you go to a midway position like that, you would have elements of both—you would have economic colonialism, and you would have economic integration. Mr. Speaker, it is really on such fantastic economic dogmas that if you simply shift a factory from Boksburg to Pretoria North, you can neither have economic colonialism nor economic integration. It is a fantastic economic dogma and sophistry, but yet, as I say, our future economic development is apparently going to be built and planned on such a fantastic idea. What on earth makes Government members think that if industry is sited in border areas, there will be no trouble, they will avoid both the troubles of economic integration and the problems of economic colonialism? Because the siting of industries in border areas and the establishment of independent Black states will create an entirely new lot of problems for South African industry. In the first place you are going to have a political division between management and labour. What I mean by that is that one political authority will control management and the capitalists and another political authority will control labour. Which means that every dispute between labour and management will take on the aspect of an international dispute. We know how hard it is in an ordinary state where both your management and your labour are under the same political control to maintain peace. It is the great problem in Europe to-day to get both sides to act reasonably and not by excessive profit on the one hand and excessive wage demands on the other to cause inflation. That is in one political system. How much harder the problem is going to be if you have a political division—one political authority controlling your management and another political authority controlling your labour! How difficult wage bargaining will become? And why should the Native the moment he crosses the border have the feeling of exploitation? Why should he lose that feeling of exploitation the moment he crosses the border to work in a border industry? Surely he will have the same feelings of exploitation, he will still be in the White Republic where presumably all the discriminatory labour laws will apply to him, like job reservation, where he is prohibited from developing his full skill. So he will surely have exactly the same resentment either in the Black area or in the White area. We already have had an example, Mr. Speaker, last year, when the paramount chief of the Tembus at the last session of the Territorial Authority, when the question of the independence of the Transkei was first mooted, suggested that as the Bantu dug out most of the gold in this country, once the Transkei became independent it should be quite simple to appoint economists who could determine how much of the profits made out of gold mines should be paid to each minelabourer. That is what is going to happen if the bulk of your labour is controlled by a foreign political authority. They are going to make all these types of demands.

Has not Luthuli made these demands now?

This was the demand of the paramount chief of the Tembus at the last Territorial Authority meeting of the Transkei when they discussed independence. This type of demand to interfere in labour matters will surely increase. It is obvious that will happen, because imagine the position in any country in the world where two-thirds of your industrial labour, which will be the case once full independence is granted to all the Native territories in this country, where two-thirds of your labourers are under the political control of a foreign power or foreign powers? Imagine the tremendous influences and powers these foreign countries will have over your economy. If they are in any way hostile at all, imagine what they can do to disrupt your economy by withholding labour and by insisting that they should demand completely unrealistic wages. It is fantastic plans like these which are destroying the confidence of the investors both foreign and local in this country. We have already seen how as a result of the policies followed during the last 13 years, the confidence of the investors has been destroyed systematically in this country. It is reflected in the rate of our economic growth. In the most recent Optima of 26 December, on page 205, it is calculated—

A steady downtrend in the rate in which our standard of living is rising. And more recently we had “A Survey of Contemporary Economic Conditions and Prospects” for 1962 by Mr. Hupkes and van der Berg, and they show on page 7 that—

We all know how worried the United States administration is at the very low rate of increase in wealth and income per head because they realize and accept it as a fact that the whole communistic bloc is going much faster ahead and as hon. members on the other side will know, the President of the U.S.A. has recently set a target of a rate of increase of at least 3 to 4 per cent a year. So it is quite clear that we have not got a lot of fat to live on. Our rate of growth is already very slow. We cannot try new experiments that will further destroy the confidence of investors in this country. Because, Sir. this new experiment that we are going to embark on now will as surely as we stand here further destroy the confidence in this country. Because once this barrage of propaganda dies down and people see the true consequences of this policy, it will mean a further falling-off of confidence of the people in this country. Stripped of all verbal camouflage, what does this policy really amount to? It is a policy of limited surrender, limited surrender under the pressure on the policy of apartheid from the world outside and from inside. First of all we surrender sovereignty of certain parts of what have been South Africa, the Native reserves. But that is not all that we surrender. We surrender our sovereignty over more than half our Black citizens in this country. We surrender the sovereignty over more than half our Black citizens in this country. Sir, if ever there was a policy of expediency it is this: To think that if you surrender such sovereignty bit by bit, you can somehow or other maintain the sovereignty that remains to you.

The Government says that this is a risk that we must take. But this surrender of sovereignty can have the most serious consequences. The very fact that we surrender sovereignty in a certain area, like the Transkei, makes international interference there far easier than it is now. The argument of South Africa at the United Nations always has been that they wanted to interfere in our affairs, a domestic matter, an internal matter. But by surrendering our sovereignty over certain parts of South Africa, we invite international interference in those parts. We cannot stop it any more.

Not only are we now opening the door for international interference in the Black areas by surrendering our sovereignty there, but the fact that we surrender sovereignty over the Bantu who lives in the White area also opens the door to interference here in the Republic of South Africa so far as these people are concerned. Because as far as I can follow the Government says, that is a risk that we must take. They see that there are these consequences of interference in these new Black states, but they say we must take that risk because then White South Africa will at least not become a multi-racial society. But if we cannot succeed in removing the great bulk of Bantu from the White area, how can you say that we will then not be a multi-racial society. What the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Prime Minister really say is that at the moment we turn all our Black citizens into foreigners, somehow or other, they will not be here as citizens. They will still be here but not as citizens. The fatal flaw in this whole plan is this: The hon. the Prime Minister and other hon. members on the other side seem to think that the moment all the Africans in South Africa are turned into foreigners the outside world dare not interfere anymore. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the very fact that they are turned into foreigners, and that they now have a national government that can look after their interests too, make it far easier for interference here. We do not cease to have a multi-racial society just because we change the legal status of our Black citizens and turn them from South Africans into foreign citizens! They are still here and all the obligations under international law will still apply to them.

Mr. Speaker, the only possible claim that can then be made is that they are not entitled to political rights, but all the other discriminatory practices which are applied to Africans will still be criticized just as severely as they are to-day overseas. As I say, by opening channels, by breaching our sovereignty over the Bantu areas, we in fact invite interference by the United Nations, because never will Mr. Eric Louw be able to argue again at the United Nations that our treatment of the Africans is our own domestic affair. The moment you turn them into foreigners, it becomes an international affair. You give them far more ground. This is the type of flaw, the fatal flaw in their reasoning, and you find that even an intelligent Minister like the Minister of Transport thinks that by changing our Black citizens into foreigners, we can somehow carry on as in the past and discriminate again and then we will be left alone. The exact opposite will take place. This is the tragic situation that we have been driven to that we really have one of the most fantastic episodes in history: A country divesting the citizenship of more than half its citizens and establishing other political powers to which they can transfer their citizenship. But even assuming that the scheme can work, it can be so easily upset. A legal trick like this can easily be cancelled by another legal trick. What will happen for instance if the new independent Black states in their turn find that the great majority of their citizens who do not live in their areas but in the White area, are a political nuisance by making it impossible for those who live in the area to govern that area? What will happen if they remove their nationality from them? Where will we be? Where we are again and we will sit with a whole Black population within South Africa, with the new independent states refusing to accept them as nationals and the Republic of South Africa refusing to accept them as nationals also? Sir, this is a legal trick, trying to pretend that by creating foreigners, by making foreigners out of your own citizens, you somehow or other seem no longer to be a multi-racial society. That, Sir, is the essence of this matter. Sir, if we want to go forward in an evolutionary manner, if we want to improve the standard of living of all the people living in this country, which I am sure is the sincere desire of all the people in this House, we must start by getting back on a basis of reality, we must accept what the hon. member for Constantia and others on this side have said, namely that we must accept the reality that we are a multi-racial state whether we like it or not. No legal or constitutional tricks can change that reality. Once we have accepted that, we can make the necessary adaptations, gradually. Members always ask whether my leader will remove all racial discrimination. Of course nowhere in history have racial discriminations been removed completely. What we must do is that we must move in that direction, without at any stage imperilling the society that we have, our Western institutions. The Western powers will accept a policy like that. They don’t expect us to hand over political powers to-morrow or the day after to people who will destroy it. The very Western civilization that we have brought here is based on that. They will accept a movement towards breaking down injustices, breaking down discrimination gradually, but always maintaining your Western institutions and your Western society. But we can only start on that road, Mr. Speaker, if we accept the reality that we in South Africa are a multi-racial country, whether we like it or not. Once we recognize that, we can make the necessary changes and we can slowly but surely again work our way back to the community of western nations without whose support we as a White community here in Southern Africa will not endure very long.

Like the rest of his party the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) has made himself guilty of revealing a negative attitude and because of that I shall deal with his arguments in the course of my speech. I just want to refer to one thing and that is the fuss he made about the chief of the Tembus. The hon. member said that this was a danger that was being created, that he already wanted the labourers of that area to share in the gold profits, and the hon. member said that would become more insistent under our policy. But Luthuli who advocates the policy of the United Party has long since been talking about the nationalization of the gold mines, as a matter of fact all workers throughout the world, in all circumstances, have always been agitating to have a share in the profits of any industry.

This debate is nearing the end. As it is entitled to, the Opposition did its best to try to attack the policy of the Government. I would have thought that round about Wednesday or Thursday they would have been satisfied that they had destroyed the policy of the Government and that they would have availed themselves of the golden opportunity and stated the policy of the Opposition. The hon. member for Jeppes is one of the more sensible members and when he got up I expected him to make a positive contribution to the debate. But, Mr. Speaker, during the whole of this debate, after all their speakers had participated in it, we did not have a single word about their policy. And then the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) gets up and says that the tragedy of the situation is that they cannot convey to the voters the alternative to this Government’s policy. Mr. Speaker, the tragedy is not that they cannot convey it to them, but the tragedy is that they do not want to convey it to them. They do not want to tell us what their policy is. We have been sitting here and with all the King’s horses and all the King’s men we have been unable to extract one drop of information from them on their policy. For many reasons they are probably once again changing that policy, something which will be very sensible; perhaps they are ashamed of that policy, something which will be quite normal, but unfortunately they are not quite normal. I think they want to forget about their policy. But we shall not allow them to do so. Here we are on the threshold of tremendous development in South Africa, but not a single constructive thought do we get from that side of the House. They only see the difficulties in this new development and not one of the possibilities. They are offering no assistance; they are only placing stumbling blocks in the way. They do not want to help to build up; they only want to break down.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to test their policy against the requirements they lay down for our policy. The first objection which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised against our policy was that it was too vague. These were his words: “We don’t know the policy; Government speakers contradict one another. There is an unbelievable vagueness.” That was before the Prime Minister had spoken. I am afraid his next objection will be that “there is an unbelievable clarity”. However, I do not believe he was serious when he asked for clarity, nor do I think he is very pleased with the details which he has received. I think, Mr. Speaker, he has far too many details and the reply which he has received is far too clear and unequivocal to be good for his political health. He reminds me of the unscrupulous young man who asked the girl to marry him, but he did not want “yes” for an answer; he was merely hoping to get a little cuddle out of it. When she said “yes”, however, he found himself in difficulties. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not want the facts. He did not want “yes” in regard to the Transkei. He thought he could ask those questions and in that way get a little political cuddle out of it. On this occasion, however, he was dealing with the wrong girl. He got “yes” for an answer; he got the facts; he got the details and if he does not adapt himself to these new political developments, he will choke in those details for the rest of his political career. Whom does he think he is, to talk about “unbelievable vagueness”, he, who bluntly refuses to give any details about his policy? Not only does he refuse to give any details, but he elevates that vagueness which he condemns in this side of the House, to a virtue. He lays it down as their policy to be vague. Let me just read to you, Sir, what Mr. Gandar, editor of the Rand Daily Mail said after he had announced his policy—

But what about the Leader of the Opposition himself? When the Minister of Bantu Education quoted to us, we heard that when the Leader of the Opposition addressed his congress and came to the details, he had said—

That would have been another millstone.

Yes, it would have been another millstone round their necks, as the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) said on one occasion. But what details did the hon. member for Yeoville suggest? In the article which he wrote in the Sunday Times in which he explained their federation policy, he comes to the most important aspect and he says—

They tell us, therefore, that they cannot give us any details. We must first place them in power and then they will work out the details. Mr. Speaker, we must first sign the cheque, and once it has been signed, they will fill in the amount. They must think we are mad! Is it possible for vagueness to exceed that? Who are they to talk about vagueness—they who have another policy every year. Only last year the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) got up in this House with their sixpenny policy and said: Ours is the only party who has a printed policy which gives all the details. What has happened to that printed policy today; does he still adhere to it? Where are those details? Then we had the Graaff Senate Plan. After that we had federation and now they tell us that they will give us the details once they get into power. Mr. Speaker, I maintain that is deliberate vagueness in order to lead the public by the nose. It is deliberate vagueness bordering on dishonesty.

Their second objection against our policy is that it cannot be put into practice because it will cost too much. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition got up here and juggled with figures—it will cost millions and millions to develop the Bantu homelands; it will cost millions to erect factories; it will cost millions to develop agriculture in the Bantu homelands. I listened to him with increasing surprise. It will cost R500 to place one worker in employment and what will it cost to place a further 20,000 Bantu workers in employment in the Bantu homelands? Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition adds all those millions together and he gives us to understand that all that must immediately come out of the pocket of the taxpayer, and he thinks that will scare the taxpayer out of his wits. If he wants to pretend to be stupid, the taxpayer and the voter of this country are not stupid as yet. I have great respect for him. He is a successful businessman; he comes from a family that has made big economic contributions to the country, and that is why I cannot understand how he can talk the economic rubbish that he has. In the first case, whether we have Bantu homelands or not, we shall in any case have to provide employment for all those people. We shall in any case have to build factories, irrespective of where we build them. We shall in any case have to build railway lines; we shall in any case have to incur those costs, and it will be exactly the same whether we have Bantu homelands or whether we have not got Bantu homelands. Why then all this fuss about what it will cost?

In the second place I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition this: If the first Settler, if the Voortrekkers and if the 1820 Settlers had argued the way he is arguing where would we have been today? Had they asked: “What will it cost to build Cape Town, what will it cost to develop the hinterland, what will it cost to plant these vineyards”, had the 1820 Settlers asked: “What will it cost to build Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage” and replied: “It will cost to many millions; we must not do anything” where would we have been today? We would still have been a mere handful of Whites here in the Western Province and we would still have been eating harders. There would have been a handful of Whites roundabout the area which is Port Elizabeth today, and they would have tended a few goats. It cost millions and millions to build Cape Town, Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth, Sasol, Iscor, undertakings such as Dorman Long and everything else, but that has not impoverished us. On the contrary it has enriched us. Why should we flinch today, today when we are on the threshold of a glorious era? Does the Leader of the Opposition realize that money breeds money; that production breeds production; consumption breeds consumption. But the Opposition have always been like that. They have never as yet had the courage to do anything; they have never wanted to tackle anything. They also told us not to build Iscor, it will cost too much money; do not build Foskor, it will cost too much money; do not build Sasol, it will cost too much money; do not develop the Transkei, it will cost too much money. The Bible says “The slothful man saith there is a lion without …” I want to say to the Opposition that they are simply too lazy, physically and mentally. They have no power of perseverance. They have no faith in the Bantu; they have no faith in South Africa and they have no faith in themselves. That is why they are sitting there like a bunch of defeatists—yes like a bunch of cowards. I just want to say this to them: What South Africa needs today are men with imagination, men with courage, pluck, men with a zest for work and men with faith. South Africa has those men, and if they do not want to co-operate, they will be brushed aside in this march towards a better and more glorious future for all the races in South Africa.

I now want to deal with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s great objection against our policy. He says our policy has no moral basis. In his introductory remarks he said: “What will be on trial is the moral basis of the Government’s policy”. And then he added: “The Government will have to prove that the moral basis exists, not only to South Africa but to the world”. The following day, after he had heard the speech of the Prime Minister, he said in the Cape Times—

I gather from this that he is indeed satisfied that there is a moral basis for our Bantu policy, because he only talks about the lack of a moral basis as far as it concerns the Coloureds and the Indians. We have, therefore, in any case made some progress, and I trust that we have also convinced him that also our approach to the Indians and the Coloureds has a moral basis. He says we must convince the world that our policy has a moral basis. I agree with him one hundred per cent, but in that case it is absolutely essential that we know by what yardstick the world measures a moral basis. I am not referring now to the yardstick used by the Afro-Asian countries, because we know only too well what they regard as moral and immoral. They regard it as immoral for any White man to govern on the Continent of Africa, no matter how well he governs; and when the Black man governs, no matter how badly he governs, they regard that as the height of morality. I am talking now about the yardstick used by the West, the yardstick used by President Kennedy and Mr. Macmillan. Mr. Macmillan told us here what that yardstick was. The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) has just told us what the American representative at UNO said when he laid down the standard for that morality. What is that standard? It is that there should be no discrimination on the ground of colour. Mr. Macmillan said that progress in the political and economic fields should be on merit and merit alone. It is not as though he practises that, but I leave it at that. In other words, it is immoral to discriminate on the ground of colour. I now want to test the policy of the Nationalist Party against that standard and then also the policy of the United Party. We admit that there is discrimination in South Africa to-day on the ground of colour. But we want to get away from that The only difference between us and the West—the only difference between us and Mr. Macmillan and those people—is that they want us to do away with that discrimination in a manner which must inevitably lead to discrimination against the White man. For the life of me I do not see any more morality in discrimination against the White man than in discrimination against the non-White man. We maintain that there is another way and that is that we must do away with discrimination against the non-White, but in such a way that it is not substituted by discrimination against the White man. Let us now test the policy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I should like to know who he thinks he is to ask us for a moral basis for our policy? He says we must show that moral basis to the world. What about his policy? Should his policy not have a moral basis? Should his policy not comply with those Western standards? And, Mr. Speaker, to what extent do they comply with them? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that their policy would have kept us within the Commonwealth and that it was as a result of our policy that we are out of it. He knows that is not true and that we are out of it as a result of the unreasonable attitude adopted by Ghana, Nigeria, etc; because they wanted to force a policy down our throats as the price we had to pay to remain a member of the Commonwealth, which was as unacceptable to him as it was to us. Or was he prepared to pay that price? He says that under their policy we would have retained our friends at UNO. May I remind him of this, that in 1946, when UNO was still mainly a White body, the great General Smuts, one of the founders of UNO, were given a hiding by Mrs. Pandit of India. If General Smuts could not achieve that at UNO, how does the Leader of the Opposition think he is going to do it with the UNO of to-day? Let us go deeper into their policy and I want to assert two things. This federation plan of theirs is alive with immorality. It does not contain a grain of morality as far as the Coloureds are concerned, as far as the Indians are concerned and as far as the Bantu are concerned. I say that federation plan is a piece of political chicanery from A to Z. My second assertion is this: If that plan is put into operation, the White man will be destroyed within ten years, and within ten years we will have a predominantly Black Parliament with a Black Prime Minister in South Africa. So their plan is both immoral and deadly. Well, if being immoral is the only way in which I can save my life, I must honestly admit that the temptation will be great. But not only does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition invite me to be immoral, he also invites me to die, and to be both immoral and dead, can present dangerous implications for the world hereafter.

Their plan has three phases. The first is supposed to eliminate certain injustices. Amongst others, they want to re-open the universities for the non-Whites, the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians. I want to know from them whether in that case they will still continue to discriminate on the ground of colour as they discriminated in the past, namely that only a limited number of non-White students will be admitted and having been admitted, they will only be allowed to attend lectures and not to participate in any university life. Will they continue with that discrimination on the ground of colour and is that the way in which they will conquer the world?

The second phase is to restore the Coloureds to the Common Roll. It is not clear, however, whether they intend extending it to the northern provinces. I wonder whether the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) could answer me? He lacks the moral courage to say it. They talk about morality but they lack the moral courage to answer that simple question. The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) lacks the moral courage to answer it, and then they are the people who come here and talk about morality! But if they do not want to extend it to the North, what morality is there in a highly educated Coloured man and a highly civilized Coloured in the Transvaal not being allowed to vote, whereas an undeveloped, practically uncivilized, uneducated Coloured in the Cape Province can? Is that the sort of morality with which they want to satisfy the world? Then we come to the Indians. Why, if they restore the Coloureds to the Common Roll, do they not want to restore the Indians as well? Not only is this discrimination on the ground of colour, but it is discrimination on the ground of race as well. But the greatest immorality lies in this that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to force a policy of separate representation on to the Indians, a policy which he himself has condemned as a doomed policy. I just want to read what he said in 1954 about separate representation, when we debated the Coloured question—

He then gives the various commissions and he quotes from the report of one of those commissions, the Donoughmore Commission—

In other words, the Leader of the Opposition now wishes to apply a system to the Indians which he himself admits is a canker in the body politic.

Read the whole thing; read par. 137.

I have not got the time to read the whole of it. There is nothing that contradicts this. That, then, is his morality, to apply a policy to those people which he admits is a canker in the body politic.

Then we come to the third phase in their federation plan, and that is that our Constitution should be abandoned. We should now become a federation; there should be a group of separate parliaments and in addition to that there should be a federal parliament. Then they tell us on what basis there is to be representation in that federal parliament. And now we come to that fantastic proposal by the hon. member for Yeoville that representation in that federal parliament should be according to the income tax that each group pays, or according to its national income. Is there anything more immoral than that? Is there anything more medieval than that? They say that the representation of an entire group in this Central Parliament should be in proportion to the income tax which its people pay, the wealth of its people. But when it comes to individuals they discard that very yardstick as being immoral. When the Progressive Party said that income should be a qualification those hon. gentlemen said “no,” that was immoral because in that case you penalized the man who had no income. Here I have a letter which the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr, Hughes) wrote in the East London Daily Dispatch—

Then he continues—

Go on.

The standard of civilization of an individual should not be judged according to his wealth but that of a group of people should be tested according to its wealth. I presume that they will give those Bantu areas which have the greatest number of witch-doctors the greatest representation. Are those to be the human rights with which they want to satisfy UNO? Are those the human rights with which they want to satisfy Britain and the Commonwealth, namely that representation in this House will depend on how rich or how poor a group is? What foolishness! Everybody knows that apart from the Whites the Coloureds in South Africa are the most advanced and most civilized group. If gold were to be discovered in the Transkei or in Zululand or anywhere there, those people will immediately get greater representation in the central parliament than the highly civilized Coloured. In other words, if you are poor you will have no representation, but if you are rich you will have representation. I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville whether that is a moral basis; and is that the moral basis which the hon. member for Jeppe (Dr. Cronje) said he would like to see in our policy? Mr. Speaker, there can be nothing more immoral than that, but the biggest immorality still lies in this. The hon. member for Yeoville says that the Bantu should be represented in the federal parliament in proportion to the income tax that they pay, and the Indians according to their income tax and the Coloureds according to theirs. But the hon. member for Yeoville knows only too well that unless a miracle happens, during the next 100, 200 or 300 years the Whites will pay the highest income tax. He admitted that yesterday. He said in his speech yesterday that they will never catch up with us in the industrial sphere. Is that not simply a flagrant attempt at deceit? Is that not simply an attempt to keep the Whites in control forever and those people subordinate to them? Is that the morality with which they want to satisfy the world; is that the morality they are looking for in us? And then the hon. member for Jeppes said the other day, after his return from America, that America would accept their policy in toto Once their policy is applied, investments will again be made here because then we will have a moral basis for our policy in South Africa.

I wonder what he told them?

Yes, I wonder which moral basis he explained to them—if a tribe has a large number of witch-doctors its representatives may sit here, but if it has a small number of witch-doctors, it may not have representation. [Laughter.] I maintain that their policy is the height of immorality and it is immoral from A to Z. At the same time I maintain that it is not only immoral, but if it were applied, whether they want it or not, it will be deadly for the White man in South Africa. Take in the first place what they tell the Coloureds. They are going to restore the Coloureds to the Common Roll. They will possibly extend it to the north, in spite of the fact that they lack the moral courage to tell us whether or not they are going to do so. They are also going to allow Coloureds to sit in this Parliament. But they made a further announcement, and the hon. member for Germiston (District) must tell me whether it is wrong, namely, that in future Coloureds will be able to become members of their party, to attend their congresses, sit on their committees, on their head committee—is that their policy or not? Will the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) answer my question—he seems such a courageous person to me.

No.

Did the hon. member say that he was not a courageous person or that was not their policy? If he says that is not their policy, I want to ask him to explain the statement by Mr. A. Z. Berman in the Senate in answer to questions by the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance asked him this—

To which Mr. Berman replied “yes”. The Minister of Finance then asked—

He goes on in that vein and says that Coloureds can also attend their congresses. I now want to ask the hon. member for Germiston (District) this: When those Coloureds attend their congress, on an equal basis with them, and a Coloured man asks them at the Congress table: “Why has your wife the franchise and my wife not?” what moral answer will they give to that Coloured man? Surely they must give it to the eighteen-year old Coloured youths, and if they do they will be handing the Cape Province over to the Coloureds.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go further with their federation plan. Not only are they going to allow Coloureds to sit in this House; they are also going to allow Indians to sit in this House and the Bantu as well. I take it, therefore, that they will put up candidates for the Bantu constituencies, the Indian constituencies, just as they put up candidates in the Coloured constituencies. Because surely they want to keep those people on their side. When those people sit here on an equal basis they would want them to be those who are most sympathetically inclined. When those people sit here as our equals and mix with us socially, what possible moral argument can he advance to withhold further rights from them? Surely there is no alternative but ultimately to hand the entire government over to them and to sit here as a minority.

What about the Bushmen in the Kalahari?

No, my Bushmen do not want the franchise.

And now the hon. member for South Coast says to the Prime Minister “The Prime Minister will not be able to control further demands for full independence”. Mr. Speaker, I admit at once that those demands will be made and that they will increase. The Prime Minister envisages that they will eventually have complete independence. But now I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for South Coast this: If it will be impossible for us to withstand those demands of Kaiser Matanzima, how will it be possible for him to withstand the demands of Luthuli, of Dadoo, of Dr. van der Ross and of Mandela when they are on an equal footing with us in this House?

That will be an international incident.

Is that your maiden speech? I trust we can expect a better contribution than that from the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson). Unfortunately I cannot extend the customary courtesy to him to-day and congratulate him on his maiden speech. Mr. Speaker, if we cannot withstand the demands of Kaiser Matanzima. I say that it will be equally impossible for them to withstand the demands of Luthuli. of Dadoo, of van der Ross and Mandela. But there will be this difference: Once we have acceded to all Kaiser Matanzima’s demands, he will have an independent country, but we shall also still have our independent country. But once they have acceded to all the demands of Luthuli South Africa will be an independent country, but it will belong to Luthuli, and Luthuli will be Prime Minister. That is the vital difference.

After the hon. the Prime Minister had made his speech somebody said to me that it seemed acceptable, but that one thing was certain—we were skating on very thin ice. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I admit the position is dangerous and that we are skating on very thin ice with our policy, but if we carry out their policy we shall not be skating on thin ice, but we shall be trying to walk on water and that is not given unto man. It is tragic to think that where we are on the threshold of this great new development in South Africa, we cannot depend on any support from the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, nothing can stop this; nothing can put it into reverse gear. The development of independent Bantu States is unavoidable. The patriotic thing for the Opposition to do would be to help to ensure that it takes place as orderly and as economically and politically sound as possible, but what is the first thing they do? They immediately start inciting the people. They do not say to Kaiser Matanzima that now that has been done we should co-operate. No, the Cape Times this morning tells Matanzima to make as many demands as he can; to ask for as much as he can; to force them as quickly as possible to give him what he wants. Because they do not want orderliness. I want to ask the Opposition this: When will they realize that the preservation of South Africa is more important than the preservation of their poor and miserable party.

This act on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister is an act of faith. It is of far greater importance than the independence of India was to England, because England is far away from India, but we are next to the Transkei. The Prime Minister has not been forced to do this. He did it of his own accord and I maintain to-day that there is not another statesman in the whole world who would have taken such a courageous step of his own accord, except he. As far as I am concerned, that places him amongst the great men of this century. This is the act for which South Africa has been waiting and for which the world has been waiting and for which the Bantu have been waiting, and we are going to develop in that direction, and whether we get assistance of the Opposition or not, we shall ensure that the development of Southern Africa takes place in an orderly manner, that development where the Bantu will get his due, where the Coloured will get his due, where the Indian will get his due and where, as sure as I am standing here, the White man will get his due.

I do not propose to waste much time dealing with the hon. member who has just sat down. I wish to deal with another matter altogether, concerning the Prime Minister’s statement, but I want to say that I concur most wholeheartedly with one of the hon. member’s very last statements, that there was not another statesman in the world who of his own free will would make an announcement of policy which the Prime Minister made in this House a few days ago. The emphasis is on “free will”.

It is only four months ago that the Prime Minister opened the Free State Congress of his party at Bloemfontein and said that it would have been easy for him to deal with what had happened in the past 13 years in this country, but he preferred to deal with the future. He said that it was essential as far as the Bantu were concerned to start off with the tribal system which they knew and then gradually to work on to the Western conception of democratic government; the peoples of Africa could not be transplanted suddenly into a Western form of society. The process must be gradual if it is to be successful and to the best advantage of the people concerned themselves. Sir, it is only a week ago, in the speech by the State President, that the same principle was announced to the members of both Houses. Dealing with the over-rapid development of the various states, the President said that this led to the over-rapid establishment of states enjoying international status, as eventually the Transkei will do. but without sufficient experience and trained leaders in all fields to enable them to fully bear the burdens and responsibilities of statehood. They were not allowed even totally to advance to good government and achieve the cultural well-being of their respective peoples, but were immediately subjected to the blandishments of outside states that sought their alignment in the cold war and for that purpose did not hesitate to inflame their nationalistic ideas. Now, those are two statements that have to be considered in relation to the statement made by the Prime Minister a few days ago. If ever we have had a clear-cut indication of why it was necessary to hold the General Election last October, surely it is the statement of the Prime Minister a few days ago. A few days ago when the Prime Minister made his statement about the establishment of independent Bantu states, he was saying what he knew was in process of examination and discussion four months ago when he announced the general election. The Prime Minister then knew that he was being forced by international pressure to go ahead with his Transkei experiment, but he had to get the election over before he allowed the general public of South Africa to know it, because he was not prepared to face the public once they had that knowledge of the grimness of the experiment he was going to make. He could not afford to take that risk and therefore, although he knew at the time that discussions were in progress—he has actually stated so in the form of a letter—he withheld that information from the public. In other words, he again bluffed a large section of the public in this country into giving him a blank cheque.

I think sufficient has been said with regard to the establishment of the independent Bantu states from this side of the House to show the dangers of it, and I do not propose to enlarge upon that aspect at the moment. What I want to deal with more particularly is the Prime Minister’s proposals with regard to the establishment of the Coloured separate development scheme and the establishment of the various Coloured autonomous municipal bodies with their self-government. There the Prime Minister again has made his intent very clear, both in the statements made publicly and published in the Press and the various documents issued by the Departments concerned. I want to touch on some of the practical aspects of it, but before doing so I want to make it quite clear that as far as the United Party is concerned our position is absolutely clear and unqualified in regard to our attitude towards the development of the Coloured people. We have stated unequivocally that we regard them as a portion of the Western civilized life of this country, that they are portion of the Whiteman’s responsibility and that they are to be allowed and encouraged to develop to the fullest possible extent, both in the development of their own affairs and eventually to have a say in the government of the country by members in this House. That is our policy and we have not deviated from it. The difference between our policy and the policy enunciated so volubly by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) is that this party is a democratic party and our policies are published to the world and the public can discuss them. Their policies are served up to them and they are told: Do this, or else, and they have no time to discuss it. It is a policy decided for them by higher authority and they disobey at their peril. That is the difference. But with regard to the Coloureds, the whole question of the setting up of separate municipalities for the Coloureds has been examined over the past few weeks at the wish of the Prime Minister by a body of people who are not politicians, people whose object in life has been local government, who are experienced in local government and who have no political axe to grind in any way. People who are doing their work for the welfare of the country and are prepared to give reasoned and unbiased reasons for the views they adopt in regard to these proposals. They are keenly alive, also, to the best long-term interests of the Coloureds, who form part of their local government community. They have given the whole matter very careful consideration and I want to touch briefly on some of the points which have emerged as the result of their discussions and as the result of a meeting which has been held in Cape Town during November last by a committee set up by the Government in consultation with the Cape Provincial Municipal Association.

I want to make it quite clear, also, that the reason for the Prime Minister’s sudden urge for this Coloured development has been made clear in a letter, viz. that as it will be necessary during this Session of the House again to amend the ill-fated and disastrous Group Areas Act, the opportunity should be taken to include in the amendments the means to enable these Coloured municipalities to be set up. After very serious consideration and examination of all the implications, the principle of separate local authorities for the Coloureds has been discussed and it was made clear that from the Prime Minister’s statement it appeared that the ultimate objective of the Government was to create self-contained and fully autonomous towns and cities for Coloureds, ultimately self-supporting financially and subject only to broad governmental control, in the same way that the Provincial Administration controls the local authorities in the country. The representatives who met to consider this proposal were unanimous in their view that this policy should be pursued very gradually and with the greatest circumspection, as they felt that with the exception of a minority of well-educated professional men who were already engaged in other capacities, there were insufficient experienced and sufficiently educated Coloureds from whose ranks the members of the proposed local authorities could be recruited. They went on to say that the average Coloured person does not possess the background, the experience or the education to be able to direct his mind impartially to the solution of the complexities of modern urban government and that it will need a great deal of patient training and guidance before the Coloureds can take over the reins completely. They went on further to say that at present the Coloureds contribute relatively little to the Municipal coffers by way of rates and that the amenities they enjoy being largely subsidized by the White ratepayers, and they ask the pertinent question, which I also want to ask the Prime Minister to-day, as to how the early stages of these local authorities, once set up, are to be financed, because that in turn raises another very important question. If the Coloured group areas as set up are now to be excised from the existing municipal areas, the burden of the capital cost for all their services, roads, drainage, water, electricity, would have to be transferred to the communities living in those areas. The question then is: How are they going to be financed? The Coloureds certainly cannot finance it themselves, even with the assistance of the board proposed to be set up to bring the financial assistance to them.

There are other factors which arise. In our country, as the House well knows, there is insufficient water to meet urban requirements at the moment. We had a Bill before the House only last session dealing with it. You cannot have in an area two or three bodies dabbling about in regard to water and electricity. All these things have to be co-ordinated, also roads. How on earth does the Prime Minister propose that this co-ordination should be developed and brought under one central controlling body?

When we come to the question of finance, this is a very pertinent point. If the State is to finance the development of these areas, and the Prime Minister talks of an area in the region of 22,000 morgen being set up for the Coloured homelands it is quite obvious that the State—and from the correspondence exchanged this is quite obvious—intends to take control of these Coloured bodies in the same manner as the Province at present takes control of the local authorities. The special Committee set up by the Government under the Chairman of the Group Areas Board to consider the Prime Minister’s proposals wants to make it quite clear that the representatives of the Cape Province Municipal Association are unanimous in urging that control should be vested in the Provincial Administration as in the case of all other local authorities at present. To divest the control of some areas of the Province from the control of the Provincial Administration would be the surest means of destroying the co-ordination and orderly development of the Province as a whole, and would lead to all manner of complications in local government. There is a vital necessity to co-ordinate the planning of roads, water, light and sewerage services, fire-fighting and ambulance services on a regional basis. To divide control amongst the different governmental bodies would only introduce complicating factors and create confusion and frustration. The representatives of the Association make the strongest possible plea that the control of local government for all group areas be left in the hands of the Provincial Administration. One other point is the question of dealing with areas already developed, as compared with areas still to be developed. In the areas already developed large-scale loan programmes have been carried out for capital works and the assets owned by Coloured ratepayers have been pledged together with other local assets for the security of the loans raised. If you are now going to divide those people, you take away a portion of the surety on which some institution has advanced the loan finances and you will cause, if the Prime Minister’s proposals are carried out, acute financial chaos and insecurity in dealing with existing loans.

But more than that, the Coloured people would have assisted in the development of of these services in which they share and then they will be removed into their own areas in which they would then have to start afresh to provide their own facilities. No wonder that the Municipal Association, in making its final recommendations on these matters, recommends most strongly and unanimously that there should be no interference in any shape and form with the development of these areas already partly built up and planned. Any scheme of separate development now goes under the grandiloquent title of “separate community development”. You know, Sir, the scheme started as group areas, until that term fell into disfavour. It then became separate development, and now it is separate community development. I suppose when that title wears out and is no longer worth a vote, we will get some other name for it, but it is the same rose by another name and it smells just as badly as it did before. The whole set-up is brought about by the obsession of the Government with regard to its racial laws. Its fear of the Coloured man, where no fear should exist. Its refusal to accept the Coloured people of the Cape and their compatriots in other parts of the country as citizens of South Africa, men who fought in two world wars, and also in this country, to defend the security of the State. The Government refuses to accept them. The whole policy is to keep them at a level where the Government considers they should be kept. The Prime Minister’s proposal was started off on the basis of bringing fairplay and justice and equality to the Coloured people. There is a way he can show an earnest of that. Since the days when we had trouble with the Natives when they marched to Parliament a few years ago, members opposite eulogised the wonderful services rendered by the Coloureds to South Africa in standing firm against the blandishments of the Bantu, and spoke about the rewards they would get. But what rewards did they get? Words, words, and more words, and that is all they are likely to get. If the Government is really serious in its intention to do justice to the Coloureds, let them give an earnest of it by scrapping job reservation. How can you expect a man who is a citizen of this country and has the right to be here, to be satisfied when his livelihood is taken away from him by an Act, to protect what? Largely to protect people who are not competent to do the jobs without that protection. There is another avenue. Restore the franchise which was filched from the Coloureds. Give that back to them. Restore their honour in that respect. These are tangible things it can do if the Government is really serious, and not just a lot of words and schemes of this nature, the ultimate result of which is to keep the Coloured man where the Government decides he belongs, the same as the Bantu in the Transkei.

But I want to deal with another matter. I am sorry the Minister of Defence is not present, but I want to touch on a matter which arises from the Prime Minister’s statement about the Transkei, which makes a profound difference to the whole basis of our Defence organization. It has punched a hole in the most vulnerable part of the coastal perimeter defence of South Africa. During the recent state of emergency in Pondoland the Government had to mobilize the South African Navy to patrol that coast. It has been denied, but it is a fact. The ships had to patrol the coast in order to prevent the access of ill-disposed persons to stir up trouble and the landing of arms. They patrolled the coast steadily between Durban and East London for just over four months. If it was necessary to patrol the coast of that section of the Transkei, whilst there was this state of emergency and whilst it is an integral portion of South Africa, how much more vital will that section of the coast become to the security of South Africa when we have an independent Native state in control. A State which can choose its friends outside this country? The whole situation of defence will be changed. The Prime Minister in his statement made it quite clear that ultimately the defence of that area will devolve on the people of the Transkei themselves, and not on South Africa. If that is so, I want to ask the Minister of Defence to tell the country something about the Cabinet’s plans to ensure that the defences of our country remain secure under this new set-up; because it will not stop there. The next step will be taken further along the East coast and we are going to open up large new independent areas through which our country will be vulnerable right down from the Portuguese Territories in the east and the Portuguese Territories in the west, right along the East coast. Has the Cabinet considered that aspect, and how do they propose to deal with it, because it is most important to the long-term security of this country? We now have to face a fact about which the U.P. has been warning South Africa about for the last ten years, that our entire defence perimeter along the eastern, the northern and the north-western boundaries of the Republic are being surrendered to the Bantu, who are incapable at the moment and will be for many years to exercise any adequate defence. In other words, the three sides of the Government’s laager into which they are retreating to defend South Africa are going down. How do they propose to safeguard the people inside the laager when the perimeter defence is broken? The Minister of Defence went overseas on a mission to discuss various defence matters and to get assistance. He has been back in the country many months, but he has never thought fit to make one comprehensive statement to the country on the results of his mission. If silence in the Minister of Defence means that we have a good Minister, then we have an excellent one because he has told the country nothing. We do get these flamboyant statements about fighting until the blood runs up to the horse’s bits, but that means nothing; it is only a theatrical gesture, aimed to the level of the audience he is talking to. We could ask him whose blood and where he will get the horses from, but what we want to know is what he achieved in his mission overseas? What fresh friends has he gained for South Africa? What source of supply of armaments we require has he obtained, and I am not talking about the small arms ammunition we make in the country and which is only good for internal security. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he realises that it is not only a shooting war he has to safeguard us against now. What steps has the Government taken in view of the general hostility against this country, to deal with our defence in the event of oil sanctions being applied? Does the Minister realize that within 14 days of such an event every aircraft will be grounded and every tank and vehicle will come to a standstill, unless he makes other arrangements? It is not only the shooting war which counts; we can be brought to our knees without a shot being fired, and the Government is responsible for our defence.

I think the hon. member is getting away from the motion under discussion.

This is a motion of censure on the Government and deals largely with its race policies. As a direct result of the Transkeian policy now announced by the Government the dangers which we foresaw previously have been tremendously increased, and I am merely trying to emphasize that fact.

There is another aspect. Two years ago the Government and the then Minister of Defence made it quite clear that the whole of the defence of South Africa depend on us obtaining possession of the Protectorates. We could not develop satisfactory defence measures without that. The result of the Prime Minister’s statement announced three days ago has made it impossible for us ever to obtain those Protectorates, and therefore the whole defence position of the Republic in the Government’s own words has been rendered untenable. How does the Government propose to meet that problem? These are questions that the people of this country who are affected, have a right to know the answers. It is not merely a question of giving a vote and independence to the Bantu; it is all the things that flow from it. I want to finish on this note. As a South African whose family is growing up in this country.

Sir, as an English-speaking person one can understand and admire the fight which the Afrikaans-speaking people of this country have put up for the ideals in which they believe. They have achieved a lot; they have gone a long way. They have attained their ideal of establishing a Republic. I honestly believe, after thinking seriously of the whole situation that has now developed as a result of the actions of this Government over the past couple of years culminating in this Transkei independence speech, that the hon. the Prime Minister when he made that announcement started to dig the grave of the Afrikaans-speaking people in this country, and not only for the Afrikaans-speaking people, but for all of us. The day will come, not in the too far distant future, when the men who sit in this House cheering the Prime Minister’s remarks and jeering at our criticism will live to regret everything that they have ever said, and that they will begin to realize that they are the people who betrayed the best interests of the country and who started us down the road of no return which can only end in disaster for the Black, Brown and White people of this country.

The hon. member who has just sat down made two remarks to which I wish to refer briefly. The last one was that he confirms that his fate is connected with members on this side of the House. May that attitude sink in a little deeper with hon. members opposite and have more effect, because if they accept the close ties of fate of our whole South African nation whether English-speaking South Africans or Afrikaans-speaking South Africans, they will not try to build up this contrast of language as a basis on which a distinction must be drawn in our approach to the future. The second matter I wish to mention with reference to the hon. member’s speech is this: he reproached the Prime Minister because the Prime Minister did not announce the plan to place the Transkei on the way to constitutional freedom before the election. Did not the hon. members know three years ago already in 1959 precisely and clearly that the fulfilment of what is now happening was the official policy of this party and Government, and did we not fight elections on this? But in addition, do the hon. members wish to pretend that one could go to the White voters with any responsibility towards South Africa and say: Vote whether the Xhosa nation may become a free nation or not. If you lost that election, in what an untenable position towards the Xhosas would the present Government not be placed, if the question were put on public platforms as a specific point? What irresponsibility wouldn’t it then be to treat the matter in such a way, if it offered the so much desired opportunity to that party to come into power? It would have made their position untenable; it would have made South Africa’s position impossible.

I do not pause any further to deal with the hon. member and in the first instance I do not wish to refer to the motion. I wish to comment on certain aspects of the hon. Prime Minister’s announcement. It is now the third time in succession that this debate has become the occasion, not for the consideration of the trivial complaints of the Leader of the Opposition, but for the consideration of the important announcement of the Prime Minister. What has been done here is in a sense what happened when we as a nation migrated in the Great Trek. It is an unavoidable step. The existing position could not be endured. The general course is clear to us; the ultimate goal is manifest, but we realize that for the most part an unknown and difficult road lies ahead and for me this is the first meaning of this announcement. It is a challenge to the whole nation of this country to accept this Trek in the spirit of a joint action and not to try to ruin it in certain respects through weak-kneed action and righteous fear, because we are on that road. The second point I wish to make is that a radical step has now been taken, perhaps the most radical step in the constitutional history of this country. I welcome it for I believe that South Africa, in order to exist as a White homeland, will have to take many radical steps and perhaps make many radical adjustments. For years the Opposition and the Government were fond of sitting in the parlour talking about radical dreams and we have become used to having radical dreams and to live prosaically and it is an important breakthrough for South Africa to be brought to this position where we see that we must live radically, and I hope that it will grip the whole nation so that we shall be prepared to finalize and accept the radical solutions. I also wish to state that the essential nature of our policy of development is now laid bare to the Opposition, who did not wish to believe it, and to the whole world; in the first instance our belief in the right of self-determination of other nations, the right of self-determination of the Xhosa nation and after them, of other Bantu races, but also the right of self-determination of our White republican nation in this land. In the second instance it is now the fulfilment of our acknowledgement of human dignity, where it does not imply the possible destruction of other human dignities. If we, as the hon. Prime Minister has shown, should try to acknowledge the human dignity of the Bantu by allowing him to share the political power in our country together with us, as the Opposition wish to do, then it will eventually lead to the destruction of our human dignity, but this step shows that the human dignity of every individual in this country is respected; and finally this step has uncovered the intrinsic nature of our policy, in so far that it results in division of territory, not necessarily an immediate division of races so that there will be an immediate sorting out of Black and White, but that a fundamental division of territory will follow which is the prerequisite to a division of races which must take place according to the economic possibilities. And this is a territorial division which will not only define the Bantu territory but it is a territorial division which has been commenced to determine also our White homeland. Mr. Speaker, it is enormous progress which we have made, that we are coming to the final determination also of what our White homeland is and will remain to be.

Then, finally, I wish to make this remark on the nature of this step, that it is a unique Christian step in ending the guardianship over a dependent race. This step can be criticized, as much as the Opposition and the enemies of our country wish to do; there may be attempts to ridicule it but nobody can deny that in the history of the world there is no parallel for the liberation of a dependent race as has happened here, because this Government has faithfully endeavoured to preserve the own language and culture of the dependent race until the trusteeship is ended. We did not try to take it from them. We tried to preserve the remains of their own system of government so that they may establish their new freedom by their own choice according to the nature of their own system of government. Our announcement is coupled with a guarantee of unconditional economic protection regarding their public expenditure and the handling of the responsibilities of Government in their years of becoming established, and I say without fear of contradiction that nowhere in the world has a guardianship over a dependent nation been ended in such a Christian, moral and decent manner, and this has happened solely because our actions have been motivated by the belief in the right of existence of each individual nation.

Mr. Speaker, how should this step be received? How ought it in the first instance to be received by our enemies, the African states? I say that the African states can, as a result of this step, only acknowledge South Africa as a friend or they could acknowledge that they are irrational haters of White people, that their policy is born out of hatred of the White man, whether there is reason for it or not. And as regards the great powers, those who have so far supported the African states, they are to-day placed in the position that they must admit of the highest morality of this step, or they must admit that in the international sphere they will continue to act as lackeys of those states who are inspired by racialism. My faith in international affairs is such that I believe that the responsible world powers, the leaders of the world, must be impressed by the spiritual content of this step and the material possibilities which it offers. And in South Africa, what should the reaction be; what should the reaction be of the leaders of our opponents among the Bantu? Isn’t it that new peace prophet, Luthuli himself, who only recently stated in Norway at the occasion of the homage paid to him: “Our people everywhere from north to south of the Continent are reclaiming their land, their right to participate in government, their dignity as men, their nationhood”. Isn’t this what the Transkei has received—“their land, their right to participate in government, their dignity as men, their nationhood”? If there had been any honesty in these prophets, then they should have been the people who should now get up and confess “we were wrong in our judgment”, but instead of this we get, just as I expected, a declaration of rejection which is nothing else but a declaration of acknowledgment that the so-called anti-White leaders do not ask for their land and their liberty but that they ask for our land and our submission.

What had to be the reaction of the Progressives? Their reaction was what I expected of them. They are the people who emphatically reject the idea of a White nationhood. They have a national philosophy which is supposed to be holistic, which includes everybody, but which is actually atomistic in essence because it is the grouping together of all in South Africa who have no common national bonds. They reject the idea of a separate White nation, and for that reason this development must be acceptable to them, and for that reason I welcome the rather too modest criticism of this step by the Progressive Party because it is entirely in conflict with their views. Then I come to the other little party. They unluckily did not get an opportunity to speak, but I wish to speak on their behalf. I refer to the party of one and ten, the lightbearer of Bezuidenhout, the fire-fly of Bezuidenhout Valley. The policy in connection with the Bantu homelands was desribed by the National Union as follows: They believe that “the large-scale and rapid economic development of the Bantu areas is essential in the interests of all racial groups”. And then they proceed: “In the present circumstances no definite statement can be made on what the eventual constitutional relationship between the Bantu areas and the rest of the Union will be but that, as these areas develop, the most suitable constitutional link will have to be considered carefully with a view to furthering common interests”. Therefore that little party is also undoubtedly totally satisfied because their programme of policy has been fully realized.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we come to the United Party. What should their reaction be? Their reaction ought to be, as the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) has conceded to some extent, that they welcome the development of the Bantu homelands. They say they also want these Bantu homelands to develop. They even want the same rights to devolve on the Bantu homelands as is the case now. In his article of 3 December in the Sunday Times he says—

This is the position meanwhile and one would expect them at least to welcome the development on this basis, but no, the hon. member for Yeoville says this is a dangerous development because South Africa is being split up. Under their racial federation system the devolution of powers would take place within one South Africa. I now wish to ask them the simple question: If their racial federation system were now to be implemented and all local powers—agriculture, education, roads and those things which are now under discussion—were given to the Transkei territory and that Transkei territory came into conflict with the federal government which for the moment is perhaps still mainly White and that federal government appealed to the other powers of Africa and the powers which are represented in UNO to assist it to become independent, how would the hon. member for Yeoville withstand the pressure which he himself creates in this manner by means of his federal scheme? Their criticism indeed has no foundation. The United Party’s reaction and criticism on this important announcement must be tested by the principle as to whether it suits an Opposition in their position to express such criticism. The United Party must remember that they and not we stand before the tribunal as to whether people have faith in them; whether there is faith in them as an Opposition. They are only the usufructuaries of the right to oppose. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) says she represents the heirs of the real Opposition, and the United Party must be careful how they exercise that right of opposition.

Then we come to the crucial question in connection with the acceptance or rejection of the step which the Prime Minister has announced, and that is: Do we believe in a separate White nation in South Africa or don’t we? What is our conception of the state and of the nation? Is our national philosophy that the geographical and ethnological unity of South Africa should be preserved at all costs, or is our national philosophy that the state must exist for the benefit of the nation? And if we say that the state must exist for the benefit of the nation, then we ask: Who is the nation for whom the state must exist? To this question the National Party can give a clear answer immediately. The National Party says this state must be in the first instance for the English- and Afrikaans-speaking White Afrikanerdom of this country, and the state must exist for the related Western groups in this country, and the state must also provide, by means of separate states, for the Bantu races of this country. But this national philosophy and therefore this conception of the state is evidently not the idea of the United Party, and it is time they chose sides very decisively on this matter. An attempt is nowadays being made in South Africa to make contrast between the Afrikanerdom and South Africans who embrace different views. I refer e.g. to an expression of this view in the Star of 15 December in their commentary on the remarks of the Minister of External Affairs in connection with Luthuli’s speech, and they refer to the clash between Mr. Louw and Luthuli and they have this to say—

They then refer to Mr. Louw and say what Mr. Louw’s view is and what Mr. Luthuli’s view is—

They then proceed—

What has this to do with the price of eggs?

This last-mentioned view is typical of the utterances of the United Party, which likes to present itself as a party that stands for a national body in South Africa which includes the broad multitude of elements, both White and non-White.

Whom did you quote?

Sir, I quoted from a leading article in the Star. I only put it that it was the kind of utterance that the United Party frequently makes, and I only put it to them that the United Party must express themselves clearly on this matter. The point that I now want to make also will help the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) out of his difficulty, and that is that this view is basically the view of the Progressive Party. There are two possible views—either the Progressive Party’s view that South African citizenship is a total conglomerate of people within our boundaries or the view that we have a separate White nation and a number of other nations. The United Party must carefully choose sides between these views, because if it condemns this step which has now been taken, if it persists with its federal plan, then the United Party bases itself on a national philosophy similar to that of the Progressive Party, viz. including all in South Africa, and not that the White population as such forms a unity with specific interests which in the first instance pledges us to protect and cherish. If the United Party desires to compete with the Progressive Party in the degeneration of their views, then I think that they will lose that struggle also because the Progressives at the moment show a promise of being more perverted.

What about the third road, the road of South Africa?

It is the road which those members have heard of but have never walked on.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude by finally drawing attention to the fact that South Africa has today come to a cross-roads which calls on the Opposition as on the whole of the nation. The question is whether we will go forward as a nation which united, wishes to enter upon this important new phase to acknowledge that on the one hand we have a White nation in its own territory and on the other hand certain non-White races in their own territories who need us as their guardians.

With regard to the non-White nations—and with this I wish to conclude my remarks—much help is required. Assistance must be given out of the structure of the whole nation—administratively, economically, in many respects morally. Reference has been made to the economic development of those territories where private initiative under organized conditions will also have an opportunity. Reference has been made to the Transkei receiving its own Development Corporation where the best brains of South Africa will be called upon to contribute, and also to play their role. An indication has been given that public funds will be made available to the Transkei in a royal manner so that they will receive what is being spent there at present plus the direct taxation plus a subsidy of approximately R1,000,000. Those things must be granted by the nation as a whole without criticism. Now the point arises: What is going to be the part played by the Opposition in this great task of development which lies ahead of us? Are they as Party and as individuals and as an important opinion-forming body in South Africa going to try to promote this scheme of creation in the Transkei or do they, as in this debate, intend trying by means of little misrepresentations, with criticism on every little point, by engendering fear, to retard this plan as much as possible? The responsibility is on the shoulders of the Opposition itself. I believe, however, that the Prime Minister enjoys the full support of his Party, and also that of the nation, and that his actions will be blameless in the eyes of the world, and for that reason we can proceed with devotion and in faith and we as a nation can be sure that if the Opposition does not give us its support, it will lead to its own destruction and not to the detriment of this Government.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not follow the speech he has just made point by point, because I think that when one reviews this debate and the discussion which has taken place and the revelations which flow from it—and I deliberately say “revelations” in the plural because there was not only one revelation in this debate; there were two or three revelations which in my opinion are as important as the main revelation upon which the light of publicity and world opinion are concentrated—I say that when this debate and the revelations which flow from it, are reviewed, then there are three possible ways in which this discussion can be summarized, and I believe that not one of those three ways will violate the rules of this House. The first way to summarize it is to ask ourselves this: How much did we know about Government policy when this debate began; how much more do we know now; how much more do we require to know in order to be able to judge that policy in the present difficult circumstances in South Africa. The second possibility is that we examine the fundamental question underlying all these discussions, that is, whether the policy of separate development as it is now being carried out by the Government and as it wishes to carry it out in future, has a moral basis and to examine it in the light of the facts placed at our disposal in the course of this debate. A further possibility is to ask ourselves what exactly have we found out in the course of this debate about the financial, economic and international repercussions of the plans proposed by the Government. Because of the importance of the debate, it may be advisable to deal with all three ways and to examine all three of these questions and in doing this, we ask ourselves: How much did we know about the extent of the proposed application of the Government’s policy when this debate began?

When we pose this question, I think we can say that we knew that it was the intention of the Government in the interests of separation to develop the reserves in order to provide homelands for the maximum number of Natives. Secondly, I think we knew that such development would be an expensive process and we had the suspicion that because of the ultimate aim of the Government, this development would cost more than it would have cost under other circumstances.

Thirdly, I think we believed that it was the intention of the Government to consolidate the present reserves in seven or eight large blocks, to fix the boundaries and to allow them to develop politically until they reach the stage when full independence can be granted to them after they have shown that they have the ability to do so.

Fourthly, we knew that the Government had fallen behind has as regards the economic development and the building up of the carrying capacity of the reserves, but that the Government had never abandoned its ultimate aim. the ultimate aim held out by them in the White Paper on the Tomlinson report, that after 50 years there would be an equal number of Whites and non-Whites in the White areas. This they have never abandoned.

Fifthly, I think that we knew that the Government had refused to use White capital, White initiative and skills for the development of the reserves themselves, but that they were going to concentrate on the establishment of border industries which would obtain their labour from the reserves and which would result in the spending of the earnings of such labour in the reserves.

How much more do we know now after four days of discussion? The borders of not a single one of the future Bantustans have been clearly defined, not of one. According to the Prime Minister this will be discussed in the future with the Bantu Government of the area concerned. No scheme for the consolidation of separate black spots or the exchange of land has been laid before us. This will also be discussed in the course of time with the Bantu Government. Up to now nothing has been fixed. The insecurity amongst the farmers on the borders in the neighbourhood of the existing reserves continues. Their future to-day is just as uncertain as it was before. And yet we have heard from hon. members on the other side about the vagueness of the Opposition’s policy. Can one of them tell us to-day what this state within a state is which they have in mind for the Coloureds? Can one of them tell us what the policy will be as far as the Indians are concerned? They accuse us of vagueness. But they are the Government of the day. Can they tell us what their policy is for South West Africa? This has been mentioned in the debate, but we have not heard a single word from the other side except an interjection from the Prime Minister. These are the people who talk about vagueness! If I sat on the Government side, I would be ashamed to use the word “vagueness”.

It is true that the Prime Minister has given us a speech full of revelations. The chief revelation was that the Bantu authority in the Transkei—only in the Transkei—will be allowed to draw up a constitution for consideration under which they will obtain a certain measure of self-government and a responsible council or Parliament which may possibly be served by a Cabinet. It is clear that the prospect of eventual freedom and sovereignty is being held out to them. This step is clearly being taken under pressure of world opinion and possibly as a result of the economic effects of such pressure being exerted by the urban Bantu in South Africa, quite apart from the reserves. I think that as a result of this, it has become clear what the Prime Minister’s intentions are and I think that it has come sooner than this hon. gentleman himself would have liked and before there has been all the training which is necessary in the Bantu areas.

But have we really heard anything new? We have in the past uttered warnings from this side of the House. We warned that something like this would happen. During the election we warned that this was the policy of the Government and we said that we believed that they would do everything in their power in the next five years to go so far along this road that this step would be irrevocable and there would be no possibility of turning back. But the trouble was that I was not believed when I said it. The supporters of the Nationalist Party did not believe it. At public meetings, especially, it was denied that was the Government’s policy and it was not long ago that even Cabinet Ministers published contradictory statements in connection with it.

Where?

It is no wonder that the hon. the Minister of Finance thought it necessary to say that the Cabinet unanimously supported the Prime Minister’s plan, even the hon. the Minister for Agricultural Technical Services and the hon. the Minister of the Interior who are not here now, but who made wonderful statements in the past. No wonder they had to say that the caucus was unanimously behind the Prime Minister. This now becomes a reality that will have to be considered in the near future. I deliberately say “near future” because experience throughout the Continent of Africa shows that when the prospect of freedom is held out, it is not the controlling power which decides when freedom will eventually be granted, but the political organization which is seeking freedom. The hon. the Prime Minister has already experienced this. He had only just made his statement regarding the Transkei, when a statement was made by one of the chiefs of the Zulu nation, Cyprian Dinizulu, who was appointed by the Government, asking the same thing for them. And Matanzima, chief of the Transkei, is already asking that Justice and Labour be entrusted to them. It was mentioned this afternoon that they also now demand control over the recruiting of Native labour in their own areas for the mines and other White industries. You see, control over the tempo of liberation passes into the hands of the colonial unit, either as the result of internal troubles or as the result of external pressure, usually a combination of both, and sometimes the United Nations also play a role in this regard. It is not even necessary to quote examples. It is well known and the hon. the Prime Minister himself has referred to it in the past.

There was a second revelation which in my opinion was almost just as important, a revelation made tacitly and one which the press has not mentioned and to which attention has not been drawn, and that is that it has now become quite clear from this debate that the Government has abandoned the proposed time-table laid down in the White Paper under which there was to be an equal number of Whites and non-Whites in the White areas by the end of the century. This was abandoned, for two reasons. Firstly, they had fallen so behind in the first seven years, and only now realize what it means; but secondly, and this is more important, because of the fact that the tempo of development in the reserves and accordingly their carrying capacity and their attraction to labour living in the White areas, will, once self-government has been granted, no longer be controlled by this Government but by the Bantu Government concerned. Our Government will lose control over it. This will now be controlled by the Bantu Government to which self-government has been granted, even although it has not achieved independence and freedom. That is particularly the position since the Government is prepared to grant control over agriculture to the relevant Bantu Government or authority. They know well enough that, according to the Tomlinson report, if these areas are to be properly developed so that their carrying capacity and the standard of living of the population can rise, so that these areas will be able to carry, not only its own increase in population, but also the increase from the White areas, there will have to be a revolution in the agriculture of those areas. The Tomlinson Commission proposed that at least 2,000,000 Natives presently making a living out of farming would have to find some other means of livelihood. Work will have to be provided for them. Those steps will have to be taken, that revolution will have to be controlled by a Bantu Government, and in the Transkei, I think, it will involve about 600,000 people and all this will depend upon the yea or nay of a Transkeian Parliament.

In speaking to my motion, I made it clear that in my opinion the development of the reserves was much more complicated and was a much greater task than the attempt to alleviate poverty in other parts of the world where these complicated problems do not exist. I pointed out that it was a greater task because the reserves must be developed, according to government policy, not only to provide homelands and a means of livelihood for the natural increase of the Natives in the reserves, but also for the natural increase of the Natives who are at the moment in the so-called White areas. Unless they do so they will be departing from their policy and then they no longer stand for separate development. In other words, they contemplate two revolutions, a revolution in agriculture, in providing opportunities for employment in the reserves themselves, the establishment of border industries to provide work for at least 300,000 workers, and also a revolution in the lives of the Whites in their own areas because of the effect it will have on the supply of labour in the White areas. I pointed out that if the natural increase amounted to 250,000 in the whole of the Republic, 150,000 of these would be Natives, and if opportunities for employment must be created for them, then it would require a capital investment equal to what would be required to provide work for the same number of Whites.

And if you are in power, how are you going to provide employment?

I will come to that. I pointed out that at least half of our capital formation of £500,000,000 would have to be applied to be reserves. I pointed to other figures, such as those in connection with the Venoni plan in Italy, where it appeared that the provision of employment cost almost R3,000 per person there, and that is the position in a country where it was possible for the people to seek work in other parts of the country and to go and live there, something which will not be possible in the reserves if the Government stands by its policy of separate development. What was the answer from the other side of the House? Apart from the fact that the hon. the Minister of Finance mentioned possible loans from overseas, we did not hear a single word as to how the creation of new opportunities for employment is to be financed. We did hear of the establishment of a Transkeian Development Corporation, of certain monies which will be transferred to the Bantu Government, of a possible annual contribution of about R2,000,000 by our Government. But nowhere have the amounts been stated which will be necessary if separate development is to become a reality. I must frankly say that I gained the impression that the Government does not intend to provide the finance necessary for development to this extent, that they have not only abandoned the original time-table, but that the Government is abandoning the implementation of the policy of separate development in the economic sphere. They have found the task too great so they have abandoned it, and now they are trying to shift the responsibility on to the future Bantu Governments. The Government does stand for development, but it no longer looks like separate development to me. How are they going to ensure that a Government which has accepted separate development as its policy, the ratio of non-White to White in our urban areas does not increase, something which is possible, until the stage is reached where it is seven or eight to one?

There was a third revelation and that was that the Government has at last realized that it will not be possible to develop the reserves, even on a comparatively small scale, without using private White capital and initiative and skills. It is true that it will only be allowed under many restrictions, but it will be allowed.

What the people will find particularly interesting is that on this road which the hon. the Prime Minister will now probably follow, if I am right, the Government and the Opposition will be much nearer to one another as far as relations with the Natives in the reserves are concerned. The Government’s policy is one of decentralization of powers; that is also our policy for those areas. But what happens after that may enable us to act as a united nation or may lead to a permanent parting of the ways for us. If this decentralization of powers contemplates a form of federation between those areas and the Republic, then we clearly stand together on that point. But if the hon. the Prime Minister intends this to be a beacon on the road to sovereign independence for the Natives and to the final carving up of South Africa, then his attitude and ours cannot be reconciled. It depends on the hon. the Prime Minister whether we are once again going to throw away a golden opportunity for White unity. I wish to warn him that by his method he is creating dangers for us all which we shall probably not outlive, dangers for the Whites and for the non-Whites. For the Whites, and together with us the Coloureds and Indians, full independence for the reserves will mean a struggle between the Republic and the new states as to what happens to the urban Natives, which could be catastrophic for the standard of living and safety of all in the Republic. The Native in the Republic, and he will be indispensable to us, will have to exercise his political rights in an area where he has no real interests. Unless he can find means of ventilating possible grievances and frustration in the area where he lives, he will degenerate into an agitator and a potential revolutionary, and he will exercise his political power in the Native area in such a way as to advance his interests herein the Republic. One can imagine what kind of government he would wish to have in those areas. He would naturally want a government which would seek to make his task here easier and which would plead for him before the world and the United Nations.

What kind of representation would he obtain in your federal White parliament?

The hon. the Minister of External Affairs goes to the UNO year after year, and look how he has improved. What is to prevent him from voting for a Parliament in that Native area, a Parliament which would join the Afro-Asian bloc? What are our defence problems going to be? Have these hon. gentlemen forgotten that the origin of a large number of our rivers is in the Native areas? The hon. gentlemen wants to grant sovereign independence to these areas. We know how the communists of the world are on the lookout to exploit the grievances of subject peoples in order to advance Communism. What happens to the Bantu outside the Bantu areas would give them the opportunity to create unrest and hate in South Africa and they would certainly not let that opportunity slip.

Election stories.

Unfortunately there were too many of the hon. gentleman’s supporters in the election who did not want to admit that this was Government policy. They could not believe it. When one addressed them at meetings, they said, “It is not true; it is not the policy of our Government; we cannot believe that a National Government would do such a thing to South Africa, our fatherland”. There are dangers not only for the Whites but also for the Natives. The Native in South Africa has made remarkable progress because he has worked with the Whites and he may now lose this opportunity, and if one looks at precedents in Africa, it is possible that his hope of individual freedom and dignity may disappear after flickering for a brief spell. The real interests of the Natives and the Whites in the Republic can only be separated with difficulty, in the economic sphere as well. Territorial separation between all Whites and all Natives is an ideal which was born 200 years too late.

I have dwelt for some time on what we have heard in this debate that is new. Now we must ask ourselves what we should still like to know before we judge the Government’s policy for the future, and when one poses this question one thinks of the application of Government policy in areas which are not yet consolidated and which are not as homogeneous as the Transkei. One asks how it will be applied in Zululand where Shepstone’s corridor policy was introduced and where there are White corridors between the various Black areas; one asks how it will be applied in the Transvaal where the Republican authorities laid down that no tribe may occupy more than 3,000 morgen. We have heard that there will be discussions with the Bantu Governments concerned, but before there can be a Bantu Government, the various unconnected areas will have to be consolidated to some extent. The question also arises in this respect as to what the future of the urban Native is and also what the plans are for the financing of the reserves. The hon. the Prime Minister criticized the British Prime Minister himself because he regarded the White populations of certain parts of Central Africa as expendable.

Now I want to put this question to our Prime Minister: What is to become of the White population of the Transkei? They have always regarded themselves as part of their own fatherland, as people who went there to assist in the development of that territory, people who are not citizens of an overseas country but citizens of South Africa who helped to develop a part of that territory? What is going to happen to them? Will they be compensated? Will there be adequate compensation?

All the necessary steps will be taken.

The hon. the Minister does not know. The hon. the Prime Minister has warned us on more than one occasion against the dangers of liberation and the granting of independence to states which have not yet developed to the stage at which independence can be granted to them. Is he sure that he is not possibly making the same mistake in this instance? I think that before we can be satisfied with the information given to us in this debate we shall have to hear much more about the future policy and future plans of this Government.

Will you be satisfied when you have heard it?

My hon. friend asks whether I shall be satisfied when I have heard it. I have been trying for three days to get a reply and it has not yet been given. Some of the questions are questions which I have been asking for years, and they still owe us a reply.

Mr. Speaker, we now come to the second question to be discussed, and that is the moral basis for the policy of apartheid. It has become apparent in this debate that there is a moral basis for the policy of apartheid. Let us examine the philosophical approach for a moment. We were told in the State President’s speech, and we heard it on several occasions from the hon. the Prime Minister and from the spokesmen of the Nationalist Party, that there were only two possible roads in South Africa: total apartheid and total equality. They have not taken into account the fact that Mr. Justice Fagan and his commission felt that there was a middle road. For them there are only two roads—total apartheid and total equality. Mr. Speaker, do they apply total apartheid in the case of the Coloureds, and if that is not total apartheid, is it total equality? Do they apply total apartheid in the case of the Indians? And if there are only two roads, are we to understand that they are applying total equality in the case of the Indians? Mr. Speaker, we must be honest with each other. Year after year they led the public to believe that there were only two roads in South Africa—total apartheid and total equality; it was either the one or the other. What is it in the case of the Coloureds? The Minister has said that it is not total apartheid.

Reply to the questions I put to you.

After all the meetings which this hon. Minister attended throughout the years, and the courteous way in which I replied to his questions, this is the treatment meted out to me the very first time I put a question to him. No, I did not expect it from the hon. the Minister. I want to deal now with the philosophical basis for apartheid …

May I put a question to you?

No, I am not prepared to answer. Do they refuse to admit that there is possibly a third road, a middle road, something between total equality and total apartheid? The hon. the Minister of Finance adopted the attitude, in pursuance of the speech by the President who spoke of national reconstruction on the one hand and of willingness to serve on the other, that it was impossible to withhold the franchise from the Native. What about the Indians? Tell us. What about the Coloureds? Mr. Speaker, the motion poses this question: How is justice going to be done to the Indians and the Coloureds under the Government’s dispensation? What is the answer? If they are satisfied that they are being just to the Coloureds by keeping them on a separate Voters’ Roll in the Cape Province, and in giving no representation to the Indians, why is it then they are not prepared to accept that there may possibly be a third road so far as the Native is concerned? Talk about justice, talk about the moral basis for the policy of apartheid—how do they justify the position of the urban Natives? We are told that his position must be compared with that of the Basutos and of the Italians who go and work in Switzerland. But do they not realize that there is a difference? Do they not realize that it is this Government which told these people that they were South African citizens in terms of the Citizenship Act? And they are now going to take away that citizenship from them and give them another, a foreign citizenship, without giving them any option. No choice is to be given to them. They are going to say to them: “You are now aliens in this part of South Africa.”

Or will they be allowed to become naturalized?

Yes, will naturalization be granted to them? Where is the justification, where is the moral basis for this policy? It may possibly involve us in certain difficulties as far as International Law is concerned. If you want to deport a person, you can deport him to his country of birth; you should be able to deport him to his country of origin. If he was born in the White part of this country and you want to deport him, what happens then? He has become a citizen of the Transkei, and what happens then?

It is a “mix-up”.

It is most peculiar that after pressure from the urban Native—his problem is a great one; it is his problem for which the Government can find no solution; it is in connection with his problem that my hon. friends opposite have no answer—after pressure on his part rights are being granted not to him but to the Natives in the reserves, in an attempt to divert attention. How much dissatisfaction, how much frustration is this going to cause? I think I am justified, inasmuch as this motion asks “where and how justice is going to be done to the Coloured and the Indians? In saying that I have received no reply to that question. I think that on that score alone the Government ought to forfeit the confidence of this House.

Let us put it to the vote then.

My hon. friend wants to put it to the vote, but unfortunately he does not always use his brains when he votes. He knows that there is no moral basis, but yet he is going to vote in favour of it for he is committed to that party.

Mr. Speaker, then there are the financial and economic and international repercussions of the implementation of the Government’s policy. There have been minor changes in that policy; that fact has been disclosed in this debate, but these changes are not of great significance. What will the economic and financial repercussions be? We discussed them in this debate. Several speakers have pointed out that if this policy is carried out by the Government, it will mean impoverishment in South Africa, a South Africa that will develop more slowly, a South Africa in which as it is the standard of living is rising almost more slowly than in the case of any other Western country. Are they still going to continue with this policy? These are the financial repercussions and not a single word of contradiction has come from the other side of the House. Not a single hon. member opposite has had the courage to rise and say that under this policy South Africa is going to prosper and flourish like no other country in the world. But what are the international repercussions going to be? When we speak of international repercussions, I must point out that if the hon. the Prime Minister had taken this step in the name of the development of the reserves, if it had gone hand in hand with a comprehensive scheme for the development of that area, in the way we would all like to see it developed, he would not only have been given the support of this side of the House, but he would also have made an exceptionally favourable impression overseas. But I fear that step has now been taken for the sake of apartheid and I also fear that the world will see it as a further step towards implementing a policy which it cannot tolerate. But when one talks about international repercussions, other possibilities must also be taken into consideration. We know that the communistic world will accept Communism only and will not be content with any other policy. We know that the extremist countries in the Afro-Asiatic bloc demand “one man one vote”. Mr. Speaker, what does the Western world, our old friends who in the past stood by us and who were our allies desire? The Prime Minister tries to create the impression that everything is being dictated to them by the Afro-Asiatic bloc.

That is so.

My hon friend says that is so. If that is the case, then he can take it for granted that the Afro-Asiatic bloc will also instruct them not to support or approve of this step. Why then did the Prime Minister take it if he hoped that it would have an effect overseas?

Must we surrender!

No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows as well as I do that the attitude of the Western world is not dictated by the Afro-Asiatic bloc. I feel that the Western world will be satisfied with something else, something else which might be safer for South Africa—a policy which indicates another direction.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this policy should be based on four main principles. I think that the first of these principles is that we, as a Christian nation, should be prepared to share the advantages of our civilization with those non-Whites who have proved that they have the capability to assume joint responsibility with us for the future of South Africa. That does not mean that we are prepared to hand over to an uncivilized proletariat and majority. We still believe in White leadership in the sense that White political influence should be retained here, and we believe that the White race here should be strengthened by a dynamic immigration policy which this Government lacks the courage to put into effect. We have also found that it is impossible to rule people without consulting them. We believe that consultation, those deliberations, should take place at all levels, even in the highest council of this country, this Parliament. We also realize that you cannot live as friends with other people unless you respect their dignity as individuals. For that reason we have decided that what we are going to propose is a policy to be carried out in three stages. The first will be the amendment and repeal of those laws put on the Statute Book by the Government and which cause so much injustice to so many people. The second stage will be steps along the road of planned advancement. The first of these steps will be the admission that the Coloureds have advanced so far that to-day they constitute part and parcel of the Western group. That fact should therefore be recognized gradually and steps should be taken to grant rights to them. The first step to be taken is that the Coloured men who have been deprived of their political rights in the Cape and Natal will be restored to the Common Voters’ Roll. The second is that job reservation must not be applied to them.

It has not been applied to them.

Just listen to that!

Yes, the hon. member should not make such shocking interjections. The third step is that the Coloureds in the Transvaal and the Free State must also be granted representation. Our proposal is that to begin with they should be represented in the Senate, on a separate roll. Fourthly, Mr. Speaker, the Coloured should be able to sit in this House of Assembly if he is elected to the House of Assembly.

I now come to the Indians. We admit that the Indians represent a permanent part …

What about Coloured women?

No, not Coloured women at this stage. In so far as the Indians are concerned, we admit, just as the Government does, that they have become a permanent part of the population. Therefore the first step as far as they are concerned is that the Group Areas Act must not be applied in such a way that it will deprive them of their customary way of living and his means of livelihood. When the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs spoke, he asked what criticism there was of the Group Areas Act. Does the hon. gentleman not know that it has been attacked by every church in South Africa, including the Dutch Reformed Church? And yet he still asks me why I criticize it.

Your facts are altogether wrong.

My facts are quite correct. The question of political rights for the Indians is one which we are prepared to discuss with them and then submit to the electorate—just as the hon. the Prime Minister proposes to do. Let us have consultations with the Indians. You cannot blame me for that.

With the possibility that they may come to this Parliament and on a Common Roll?

I have made it quite clear every section will have to be granted representation in this House. I shall deal with that later. Let us first deal with the steps for planned advancement. We now come to the third stage, and I hope that we shall be able to satisfy the hon. the Prime Minister. Take the Native. We admit that there are two classes of Natives. We have the detribalized Natives who have permanently settled in our urban areas. There is also the Native who has retained his tribal connection. In so far as the detribalized Natives, who are permanently settled in our urban areas, are concerned, we say that they should be allowed to own residential property, that steps should be taken to encourage the responsible class of Native by, amongst other things, granting him exemption from the pass laws; that he should be able to enjoy freedom of family life and that he should have some degree of self-government in his own urban area. But he should also have representation in this House of Assembly. He must be represented by Whites and vote on a separate roll. We have always been asked, “Why by Whites?” Other Parliaments may decide otherwise if they wish to, but at the moment the policy of the party is that they must be represented by Whites. When I saw how members on the other side of this House treated the Natives’ Representatives in this House, although they were Whites, I realized how right I was in saying this and I also realized what difficulties we would have had if Natives had sat in this House at this stage. [Interjections.] We now come to the Natives who have not become detribalized, the Natives in the reserves. The greatest trouble there is that caused by poverty. It is due mainly to the way in which farming is practised there, the system of land ownership. There is not the slightest doubt that this will have to be changed. There is not the slightest doubt that those Natives will have to be granted a greater measure of local self-government. I think, Mr. Speaker, that we could have agreed wholeheartedly with the Prime Minister and with his plans had it not been for this second step—eventual sovereign independence. I think we really envisage further development than he does. We envisage large-scale development for those territories so that they will be able to carry the maximum number of Natives, and so as to entice them to move out of the White areas where there are redundant Natives in certain parts. Bue we also realize …

I suppose that will not cost anything.

Of course it will cost money. But, Mr. Speaker, it will have to be carried out as part of one great economic plan for the development of the whole of South Africa, in the same way that backward territories in all parts of the world are developed, and without the complications which are added by the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister, a policy which will consequently be much more costly. That section of the population should also have a say in this House, not necessarily on the same basic as the detribalized Natives.

The final step in the series on the road of planned advancement is that we want to ensure that job reservation is abolished and that the policy of the rate for the job is applied.

I come now to the third stage, and that is the inclusion of federal elements in our constitution, the admission that every section of the population should have representation in this House, which determines their destinies. The inclusion of federal elements will grant some degree of protection to the rights of the individual, to geographic units and to races. Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, there is the question of the linking up of territories which are mainly Black, the linking up of territories which are mainly White, without consolidating them for administrative purposes as political units. We find, for instance, that the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa has powers which our Provincial Councils do not have. They have representation in this House on a basis entirely different from that of the other provinces. If that can be done in the case of South West Africa, why cannot it be done in the case of the Transkei? Why cannot the new Bunga to be established there be granted rights or powers in accordance with their stage of development until they eventually develop into a fifth province of the Republic? Why cannot they be granted representation?

Black representatives.

At this stage by Whites. Do not be so afraid of Black representatives. I do not know why the hon. the Prime Minister is so afraid of the Blacks. The policy of this party says that they are to be represented by Whites. But I should not be at all surprised if another Parliament decided otherwise in the future. I do not think either that the hon. the Prime Minister will have any objection to that. He wants to establish a sort of imperial conference of the Black Prime Ministers of the developed Bantustans. After all, he is going to meet them and discuss matters of common interest.

I have no objection to having discussions with them, but I do object to being ruled by them.

Mr. Speaker, here again we see the fear of colour and the prejudice of the hon. gentleman. If the constitution can be framed in such a way that it will be on a true federal basis, a federation not only of the geographic units, but also of the races, the rights of the hon. the Prime Minister will be protected. I give him that assurance

Would the Bantu allow it to remain like that for all time?

Mr. Speaker, the Bantu would not leave the Prime Minister undisturbed in his small White area for all time. If on our borders there are Bantu territories or states which form part of the Afro-Asiatic bloc, what hope is there for the hon. gentleman and what hope is there for the White race in South Africa? No, Mr. Speaker, talk about dangers to South Africa! There is no doubt whatsoever that the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister is a perilous one for South Africa. If I may put it that way, it is fatal for South Africa. I have no doubt whatsoever that it will lead to the downfall of the White race in South Africa.

But we are now faced with the position that the hon. the Prime Minister is proposing certain steps and is going to carry out certain steps in connection with the Transkei and that he envisages independence for them. This party must take cognizance of it and have regard to the consequences of it. I still cherish the hope that if I can persuade the Prime Minister to move so slowly that he will not grant them sovereign independence very soon, we on this side of the House will still succeed in making them part of a new federal constitution for South Africa. That will be the task of this side of the House in the days ahead of us. That, Mr. Speaker, will be the task in the years ahead of the supporters of this party who are well disposed to the non-Whites and the Natives.

We are not going to hinder the Prime Minister as far as economic development is concerned. We shall do all we can to help him. We do not want him, by holding out the prospect of independence to them, to try to escape from the burden of that development which is so necessary in the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have said that in looking at the international repercussions, I must do so in the light of the possible alternative. I think the difference between the Prime Minister and myself is that he stands for the dismemberment of our South Africa and the division of our peoples into separate, potentially conflicting states. He has abandoned the Protectorates, and he is now breaking down our country. As against that principle we stand for the preservation of the unity of our South Africa and the creation of a common allegiance to the Republic. We have faith in a greater South Africa which will be able to face the storms of the future.

As a matter of fact I think the hon. the Prime Minister stands for the ejection of our labour force and the creation of a situation in which a foreign government will control our labour force. We say that we must recognize that all those who work in South Africa are the responsibility of the South African community, and that their welfare and prosperity must be advanced by South Africa.

Thirdly, the Prime Minister stands for separate sovereign governments for the Black territories on the one hand, and mixed territories on the other hand, in which the existence of the Black man will not be recognized. As against that we stand for the acceptance of the federal system in which every race, wherever it may be, will be recognized; in which every race will exercise control over matters of particular interest to it; in which matters of common interest will be controlled by a federal parliament; representative of all groups in accordance with the level of civilization attained by them.

In the fourth place I feel that I am not doing the hon. the Prime Minister any injustice by saying that he is attempting to escape responsibility in respect of a section of the population, unfortunately the poorer section of the population. We, on the contrary, are fighting for recognition of the fact that all the peoples living in South Africa share a common destiny. That destiny may be fortunate or unfortunate, and it depends on whether we accept joint responsibility for each other’s welfare.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have said enough to indicate that the conditions stated in my motion have not been met, and that I have not been given sufficient information, that too many questions still remain unanswered, that there is no moral basis for the policy of apartheid of the present Government. I think that when the tests which I have applied to that policy are applied to the policy of this side of the House, I am justified in saying that I feel that the time has come for this House to express its lack of confidence in this Government.

Motion put and the House divided:

AYES—49: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odel, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

NOES—98: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, I. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Motion accordingly negatived.