I rise not to take part in this debate but to correct a statement which concerns me personally. I notice that while I was not in the House yesterday the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) alleged that I had attended a mixed wedding reception where I proposed the toast. Unfortunately I was not here otherwise I would have pointed out immediately that there is absolutely no truth in that allegation.

Disgraceful.

As far as I know there is one newspaper which published this report in the form mentioned here by the hon. member, and a letter was written to that newspaper immediately to put the facts straight.

The true facts are these: A private reception was held for Bishop Cowdrey and Miss Peacey, whose family I know very well. Her grandfather was the late Mr. Willie Hofmeyr, an ex-Senator, and there was a private reception in a private lounge of the Mount Nelson Hotel. There were no more than 40 people present, personal and intimate friends and relatives of the couple. There were no non-Whites present. At that private reception I proposed the toast to the bride and bridegroom. I am glad to have this opportunity to give the Committee the correct facts, but I just want to warn the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that for a speaker to use personal examples to support his argument. unless his allegations are well documented, neither advances his argument nor reflects credit upon the speaker.

I am sorry that the hon. the Minister was not here when I raised this point yesterday.

Apologize and sit down.

Be quiet.

Order!

I did not criticize the hon. the Minister; I paid him a compliment. For the information of the hon. the Minister—and he can look up my Hansard— I want to say that if I had obtained this information privately I would not have referred to it, but I specifically stated that the Press had reported that the hon. the Minister was present at a wedding where there were guests of all races. [Interjections.] I am the last person who would wish to do anyone an injustice. If there is anyone in this House who is constantly done an injustice it is I. [Interjections.] I relied entirely on the newspaper report, and I said so, and I can tell the hon. the Minister that if that information had been given to me privately I would never have used it, but it was reported in the Press. If the hon. the Minister says that the report is wrong I naturally withdraw what I said, because I do not want to say anything about him which is not correct, but I stated clearly that I was relying entirely on the Press report.

I want to proceed to deal with the Bultfontein case. That case, as far as the police are concerned and as far as I am concerned, occurred at a most inopportune time because it occurred just after the agitation launched by the liberals had reached its zenith. If ever there was a temptation to suppress things, then that temptation was present in this case. But what did the police do? This incident occurred on the night of 3 December. The next morning, on the morning of 4 December, Col. Faull of Bloemfontein was on the spot to investigate the case. This case was not brought to light by the Press or the public but by the police themselves. Col. Faull immediately instructed a lieutenant from Bloemfontein to investigate the case further, and he went even further: Because Bultfontein is a small little town he went so far, without casting any reflection on the local district surgeon, as to summon the district surgeon of Bloemfontien to come and hold the post-mortem so that all the facts could be placed objectively before a court of law. He arrested these persons and charged them with murder, not culpable homicide, of which they were eventually found guilty. But I go further. One of the most important witnesses, that is to say, the other Bantu who was with the deceased, had disappeared. Without his evidence it would have been very difficult for the Attorney-General to institute a prosecution because this missing witness was the person who was present, who had to give evidence against the accused and who in fact did give evidence against them subsequently. This witness had disappeared, and it would have been a very easy matter for the police, if they wanted to suppress anything, simply to say on the dossier, “We have searched for him but we have been unable to find him.” But what happened? The police, who are now being besmirched by the Opposition and in respect of whom it is being said that they cannot be trusted to investigate cases in which a member of the Police Force is involved, went out of their way and for days on end they conducted a search until they found this Bantu on a farm 70 miles from Bultfontein. Is that what one would expect from people who were out to suppress or hide things? Let me go further. The police handed over the dossier, as it was their duty to do, to the Attorney-General, because the police themselves do not decide in cases where members of the Police Force are involved whether a prosecution should be instituted or not. Every dossier in which a police official is charged is referred to the Attorney-General so that no undue influence can be brought to bear on the police. The Attorney-General decided to prosecute, and the prosecution was conducted so rigorously that the defence objected. Sir, are these people who cannot be trusted? Mr. Justice Smit had all the facts in connection with this case before him and he made certain statements, statements which, as I said last week, were not published in a certain newspaper and which I want to read out now for the sake of the record. What did Mr. Justice Smit say in connection with this case? He said—

And then follows this important statement—

Sir, the Judge who had all the facts before him did not ask me to appoint a commission to investigate this matter; his attention was focused on this case when he was writing out his judgment, and all he said was, “… that the force as such will take steps to put a stop to it if there are such cases,” and we have evidence here which shows that the force itself will never hesitate to take steps to put a stop to such cases. There has never been any reproach from hon. members opposite that the force fails to act when complaints are received. But Mr. Justice Smit goes on to say—

This is how the Judge viewed this case after having heard all the facts. Compare that with the attitude of hon. members on the other side! But what did the police do further? Immediately after Coetzee’s evidence had appeared in the Press—the same morning still—the Commissioner of Police, General Keevey, and I had discussions, and that very same day the officers in the Western Cape were called together and instructions were given to them by General Keevey personally and for the rest this instruction was sent out to officers in the rest of the country, and Generals van den Bergh and Verster and others personally visited commands to convey the instruction that every police station must be investigated to see whether irregularities were taking place and to instruct police officers to submit reports. I ask you, Sir, what more could have been done? But let us look more closely at the general charge made here by hon. members opposite. In the Eastern Cape 121 persons have been detained in the past year, since the 90-day provision came into operation. Following upon those detentions there was the case of the State versus the Regional Command of the Spear of the Nation in the Eastern Cape, and in the judgment in which he found the accused guilty, Mr. Justice O’Hagan said the following—

In other words, the temptation to use violence is at its greatest, having regard to the importance of the case, when the police are placed in such a difficult position. But he goes on to say—

And then he says—and I want hon. members opposite to note this—

And 35 of them were detainees under the 90-day provision, apart from the accused—

Those are the facts in connection with that case. Now I ask hon. members: What is the origin of this agitation? Let me tell hon. members where it originated. Some of them are taking an active part in it but other hon. members, unfortunately, are simply instruments in the hands of the liberals in this connection. Sir, a smear-book of 148 pages was recently written by Patrick Duncan. The whole of that book consists of an attack upon the State President, the Republic and the police. This book is due to appear next week; it would have appeared earlier if the debate of which notice was previously given had taken place, because that debate had to serve as advance publicity for this book. What is the theme of this book, as Patrick Duncan puts it? Let me quote just two brief passages—

Disgraceful.

That, Mr. Chairman, is the theme of this book. It was known more than 14 days ago, when the Press copy arrived here, that this book was going to appear.

What has that to do with us?

I shall tell the hon. member what it has to do with them. Hon. members opposite are sparing no effort in taking part in this agitation launched by Mr. Duncan. [Time limit.]

I must say that the hon. the Minister of Justice is a past master in believing that the best method of defence is attack. He comes along here this morning with a string of irrelevancies that have nothing whatever to do with the case that we are discussing here. The case which he quoted here is a case which was investigated by the police in the normal course of their duty. He holds this up as an example to show that there can be nothing wrong with the Police Force, because the Bultfontein case was actually conducted properly. The fact that another judge commented on the good behaviour of the police in another investigation is also not relevant to the point at issue here. There are other cases where the police have not acted correctly, where the Minister has not acted correctly and where the heads of his Department have not acted correctly, and those are the cases which are being raised here to-day, not these other issues at all, and the hon. the Minister need not think that he can deflect attention from himself and his shortcomings and those of this Department by dragging these irrelevancies into the debate here this morning. He starts again with this nonsense that this whole issue was raised by liberalists. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the whole issue was raised by the conduct of the police in certain cases; that is what raised this issue. I brought this matter to the Minister’s attention as far back as last October. It was brought to his attention again in November, when reports on an inquest conducted on a man who had committed suicide again gave rise to much publicity over allegations of ill-treatment by witnesses in that case. Sir, it was brought again to the Minister’s attention when he was interviewed in Rio de Janeiro when he made the absolutely incorrect statement on 2 January that no complaints had been lodged against the administration of justice. Sir, that is not true. Already allegations of ill-treatment had been handed in to his own police commander at Bellville. He said that no complaints had been made against the 90-day law. He repeated that in the no-confidence debate in this House on 22 January. He said that no concrete cases had been brought to his notice. Again that was not true because less than a week later, in the reply to a question which I put to him in this House, he told us that 49 complaints had been lodged about ill-treatment of 90-day detainees by members of the Police Force, and he told us that 32 had already been investigated and that nothing had been found against the police. But what about the other 17? He has not yet told us about the remaining 17 cases. But even if he does tell us that nothing has come out of those cases, the fact remains that these allegations have been made over and over again, and what has the Minister done about it? He tells us now that instructions went out that investigations were to be instituted—local investigations by the police themselves but no independent inquiry as has been suggested. Sir, I ask the hon. the Minister now whether he studied the case reports of the inquest on Looksmart?

Yes.

Well, if he studied the report, did he do anything about the man whose name came up again and again in that evidence as having been responsible for ill-treatment? What did he do about the allegations of counsel that at the Pretoria Central Barracks this particular technique of torture had been employed? Has it occurred to the hon. the Minister that the long arm of coincidence is stretching remarkably far to account for the tremendous similarity between the statements made by detainees in various police stations, widespread throughout the Republic …

I invite you to raise that under my Vote.

I will raise it again but the issue is relevant now and I intend to raise it now. These reports are coming in from people held incommunicado in various police stations throughout the country—Ladybrand, Pretoria, Bellville and elsewhere. These people are not in contact with one another, and yet reports have been coming in about methods identical apparently with the methods used in the Bultfontein case. Has that occurred to the hon. the Minister? Has it occurred to the hon. the Minister that the sort of thing that happened at Bultfontein, where an African was under suspicion of having stolen petty cash to the value of R13, could be happening to people held in police cells all over the country on political charges? Sir, I want to know what sort of personal sense of responsibility the Minister thinks he has shown with regard to the implementation of his 90-day clause which gave him such tremendous power. What sense of responsibility has this hon. Minister shown? Why has he not ordered a public inquiry? In England, as I stated last night, because there was one case of ill-treatment the Prime Minister of England saw fit to appoint a commission of inquiry. Why does this Prime Minister not do the same since the hon. the Minister of Justice refuses to act? The statement made by the British Prime Minister was that a commission of inquiry was being appointed to get the facts of the case, to set them on record to satisfy the public. He said “There is much uneasiness about the allegations, which have resulted in a great deal of publicity, reflecting on the Government.” Why is no inquiry being instituted here in South Africa when so many more allegations are being made reflecting on the Government of this country? Is he afraid to set up a judicial independent inquiry because of what might come out at this inquiry? If so, why does the hon. the Prime Minister not act? Sir, there is precedence for this; other Ministers of Justice have been relieved of their portfolios. One was sent off to represent us elsewhere, and I suggest that the hon. the Prime Minister might seriously consider following the same course here. There are countries where our Minister of Justice could very well represent us and get together with the authorities in those countries where the same sort of methods are being used. I am sure that in Ghana, with its preventive detention, the Minister will have a great deal to discuss with the authorities there. While the Minister of Justice must take the prime responsibility for all this, because he is the titular head of the Department of Justice, there are other people who also have to take responsibility. Sir, under normal circumstances I would never attack a public servant in this House, but the public servant I am attacking has made public statements in this regard, and therefore I consider it my duty to mention this across the floor of the House. I believe that the Commissioner of Police is also largely responsible for what is going on here, because when this whole matter was brought up and the Commissioner was asked to comment on all the publicity which had appeared overseas in the London Observer on 3 November, he made a statement to the Press, and what he said was, “Utter rubbish; a lot of bunkum,” and then he said, “We are a disciplined force; we would not discredit ourselves with this sort of thing, and we take whatever steps are necessary to make sure that it does not happen.” Then he made the categorical, dogmatic statement—

That is right.

Sir, what happened at Bultfontein?

You are a neo-communist.

I object to the hon. member calling me a neo-communist. I demand that he be ordered to withdraw that at once.

Order! Which hon. member said that?

I said: “You are n-e-o.”

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

The point I am making is that the Bultfontein trial came on shortly afterwards. How can the Commissioner claim that he knows that nothing of this kind can happen in any police station in the country? Sir, things like that have happened in the country.

Order! Hon. members on the cross-benches must not make so much noise. It is difficult to hear the hon. member.

As I say, the Commissioner made this dogmatic statement that nothing like this could happen in this country, and it has been shown in at least two cases, the Bultfontein case and the White River case, that, indeed, these things do happen. I am absolutely prepared to believe now, as I always was, because of the widespread nature of the evidence which is coming forward, that these methods are used widely, because, as I say, it is stretching the long arm of coincidence far too wide to believe that there can be no truth in statements from various parts of the country about methods used at different police cells, methods bearing such a remarkable similarity to the methods used at other police stations. Sir, even the language used is the same: “A Tokolosh is doing this to you”, etc. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), who has just sat down, accused the hon. the Minister, because he made reference to the reaction of the Judges to the conduct of the police, of having tried to defend himself by mentioning “a string of irrelevancies”. The hon. member for Houghton said that the hon. the Minister had quoted from a judgment in connection with a case which had nothing to do with the Bultfontein case, but it seems to me that the hon. member was not listening, because what the hon. the Minister did, in fact, was to quote from the judgment of Mr. Justice Smit in connection with the Bultfontein case, in which Mr. Justice Smit said that he had the fullest confidence that the police themselves would take the necessary steps in this case. The hon. member for Houghton was very upset about the Bultfontein case and other cases. Sir, one would swear that cases of this kind have never occurred before under any other régime in South Africa, and that they have never occurred in other parts of the world. These things happen day after day; these same things happened when the spiritual kindred of the hon. member for Houghton were in power; these same things happened while Mr. Harry Lawrence was Minister of Justice. In 1946, after the strike of Bantu mineworkers, the Liberals set afoot the same agitation which has been set afoot in this case. At that time the Liberals, by means of oral statements and Press statements, tried to do the same thing that they are trying to do here to-day, and when the Liberal newspapers, including the Bantu World, published reports in which this same agitation was set afoot, and in which there was also a request for the appointment of a judicial commission, the then Minister of Justice, Mr. Harry Lawrence, felt obliged to issue a statement. It so happens that Mr. Harry Lawrence, as far as I know, is the leader in this province of that hon. member’s party …

That is to say, if it is not Mandella.

Yes, if it is not Mandella, and on 1 April 1947 Mr. Lawrence made this Press statement—

Precisely the same story that we hear to-day—

This is the Press statement which was issued by the then Minister of Justice, Mr. Harry Lawrence, when he rejected the request for the appointment of a judicial commission, and when he replied to the same liberalistic accusations and stories that we are hearing to-day. Sir, listening to these words, one would say that it was the present Minister of Justice speaking. The words are precisely the same. This only goes to show how the wheel turns and how the world changes. Sir, if the hon. member for Houghton had been the only person who set afoot this agitation, I could have understood it, because the hon. member for Houghton has liberal tendencies, but what spectacle did we witness here yesterday? When the hon. member for Houghton, who first tried to raise this matter, was unable to do so because of certain circumstances, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition rushed forward, when the first opportunity presented itself, to outdo the hon. member for Houghton, to lay these Liberal charges. The world has now changed to such an extent, and the wheel has turned so much, that it is no longer the hon. member for Houghton and her kindred spirit only who engage in this smear campaign against South Africa and against the Police Force, but we find that the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition in this country rushes forward blindly, knocking over everything in his way, in order to outdo the hon. member for Houghton, and to be the first to make this charge and to launch this smear campaign. Sir, it is clear to me that the position has changed to such an extent that hon. members on the other side have been taken in tow by the hon. member for Houghton with her particular philosophy.

She is their spiritual leader.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members opposite have come along with this tirade and with the agitation, knowing full well that the Judge who heard this case stated that he was convinced that the Police Force were fully capable of dealing with this matter, and that they would, in fact, do so. Hon. members opposite have launched this agitation knowing full well, as the hon. the Minister said here a moment ago and as he said before, that, within a day after this case, the police themselves immediately caused an impartial inquiry to be instituted; that they investigated this case immediately; that the dossier was sent immediately to the Attorney-General, who ordered the trial; knowing full well that the hon. the Minister said, as far back as a week ago, that the police had gone out of their way to trace the missing State witness so that they could prosecute; knowing full well that this case did come before the court, and that that important State witness, was in fact traced; knowing full well that the accused were brought to book and were punished by the court; yet, in spite of the fact that they know all this, they come along with this liberalistic agitation. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, what pleasure does it give people to try to make use of cases of this kind in order further to besmirch South Africa’s reputation abroad? I want to say that we on this side are bitterly disappointed to find that that is the sort of attitude that the Opposition adopts in times like these. One would swear that this sort of case has never occurred before, but hon. members opposite ignore all these things which are within their knowledge; they ignore the fact that under their régime, when the same things happened, they also refused to appoint judicial commissions of inquiry; they ignore the fact that the newspapers are full of similar incidents in other countries of the world. No, as far as those incidents are concerned, they remain completely silent; they are quite happy as long as they can get hold of something to make South Africa’s position more difficult in the outside world and to besmirch South Africa’s name. Sir, if that is the sort of Opposition we have, we and the people of South Africa despair, not only of our future, but I want to add that we and the public are beginning to feel ashamed of the attitude adopted by the Official Opposition in this country.

The hon. member who has just sat down should know much better than to say what he has just said, namely, that we follow the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) in this matter. Does the hon. member not remember that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had a motion under the adjournment Rule a little while ago in relation to this matter? That was the first opportunity the matter could be raised and it was raised by our Leader. Surely the hon. member knows that.

The hon. member tried to make a comparison between what happened in the days of Mr. Harry Lawrence and in the days of this hon. Minister. But there is a great difference and the difference is this that this hon. Minister has puffed out his chest in the Senate and said: “Dit hang van die baas af,” and then said: “I do not think it is necessary for me to say any more.” The hon. Minister has taken this on his own shoulders; we did not say it. The Minister is condemned, as my Leader has said, out of his own mouth. The Minister said this sort of thing happened in the days of Harry Lawrence but, of course, to-day “I am the boss, need I say more?” The hon. member who has just sat down elaborated on the point raised by the hon. the Minister, namely, that the next morning there was a senior police officer at the Bultfontein police station. Sir, it would have been monstrous had it been otherwise. When you have a body in your police station you have to do something about it. You have to have an inquest when you have a body on your hands; the cause of death has to be ascertained. So obviously this matter had to be dealt with. The Judge himself said so. What the Judge said was that the tragedy was that a man had to die for it to come to the notice of the public. No, Sir, that argument does not hold any water.

The hon. the Minister goes further. He says when Coetzee was giving evidence instructions were issued that every police station be investigated. So they are being the judges in their own cause! That is not fair to the police. Let me go further. They are going to be the judges in the Minister’s cause because the Minister has placed his honour and his political reputation on the fact that there would be no maltreatment of 90-day detainees. He staked his political reputation on that, Sir. What an impossible position to place the police in! He wants the police to investigate this matter and determine his political honour! What a thing to ask the police to do! The hon. the Minister quoted from the judgment of the learned Judge President in this matter. The learned Judge said he hoped Coetzee was not right. What he said was surely an indication. Because if it were right, he said, the court was at the end of its patience and this evil must be rooted out. If it were! He left the question there. He did not go any further. Surely the hon. Minister must take his cue from there. The learned Judge also said there were matters of public interest involved in the case.

The hon. the Minister tossed aside what my hon. Leader said to him yesterday about the affidavits in the 90-day case. Sir, if this can happen in the case of a theft of R 13.60 surely it is possible that it might happen when the security of the State is involved.

What are you alleging?

I am not alleging. I am saying that if this can happen in the case of a small petty theft, the allegations made in those affidavits might have more in them than they had before. This is not an isolated instance. We had a preparatory examination where a prima facie case was found to exist by the magistrate against two policemen in respect of a Native who died while in their custody. The marks on his body were consistent with hits on the head, consistent with being dropped on the floor on the head. We have Bultfontein; we have White River; we have a case in Bellville. There was a case in Johannesburg in 1957 in relation to electric shocks. There were cases in Queenstown, in Ladysmith, in Zululand. There is a pattern which stretches over the length and breadth of this country, Sir.

The hon. the Minister must not make any statements about this being not general in the Police Force. He either knows it is general or he does not know it is general. “Dit hang van die baas af!” Either the hon. the Minister knows this is happening or he does not know. If he knows it is happening then he should resign on the turn. If he does not know it is happening then he should also resign on the turn. Either way, Sir, the hon. the Minister must resign on the turn. Either the hon. the Minister is aware of what is happening in his Department or he is not aware of it. The hon. Minister said: Give me some instances. He said it in this House; he said it to the Press; he said it in the Other Place. Whenever the matter was raised he said: Give me some instances. Does he want any more instances, Sir? He has the instances and he has the evidence. He does not know it happened otherwise he would not make the extraordinary statement that he has made in this House.

The hon. the Minister said something else yesterday. He said something most extraordinary. Can he explain what he meant? He accused my Leader of wanting to cut off the hands of the police.

Yes.

The Minister says “Yes”. How? By having an investigation? By having a judicial commission? Is that how you cut off the hands of the police? Is the Minister saying he knows what the outcome of that investigation will be? Is this an admission that this is in fact general throughout the Police Force? Because if it is, Sir, then that remark itself condemns the hon. Minister and he must resign. What does he mean by that? Remember this, Sir, and this is the awful thing that hangs over his head; he put his honour on it; he put his political reputation on it. Now we have a gentleman with a political reputation that does not warrant the inspection of an independent Judge, because that is what it has come to; he has now made it a personal matter. It has nothing to do with the police any more. It is the Minister’s personal reputation that is at stake. [Interjections.] Oh, yes. I am not saying anything the hon. the Minister has not said himself. The hon. the Minister took it upon himself voluntarily when we discussed the 90-day clause; he said “My political reputation depends on whether there will be any maltreatment.” Why won’t he do it, Sir?

What is so distressing is that there appears to be a system. We have evidence in this case that electric shocking machines were used. There appeared to be two machines in this Bultfontein case. They did not plug into the electric light; they had shocking machines. There is evidence that there were apparently shocking machines at White River. There is evidence that people were shocked at various other places. Apparently also at Bultfontein, because that is where Coetzee lives. It has become a technique. And the hon. the Minister conceded yesterday that he also used this technique. There has been electric shocking in the midlands of Natal. The evidence in this case was that they sent for a machine—for an electric shocking machine. Are there machines in the Police Force? Because if there are—and the evidence seems to indicate that there are— it certainly makes out a very good prima facie case for an investigation into something that appears to be a system. The hon. the Minister is not in any position to judge it nor is his police in any position to judge it. They will have to judge the Minister’s personal reputation. The Minister will have to judge his own personal reputation. He must have an independent inquiry, Sir.

What I do not understand about this hon. Minister is that he is so naïve about this. Sir, the Minister has practised at the Bar and at the Side Bar. Surely the hon. the Minister appreciates that things like this do happen. Does the Minister ever investigate those confessions thrown out by a court because they were not freely and voluntarily made? Does he not investigate every single one? If he does he should know what is happening. And if he does not he is not doing his job properly. Let me say this to the hon. the Minister: The fact that he will not have a judicial commission of inquiry is not going to help the police at all. He owes it to the police to have an investigation. He owes it to those members of the force who do not indulge in these things. If the Minister persists in his attitude that he is not going to have it, he is going to do the police irreparable harm in this country. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down said towards the end of his speech that the hon. the Minister must investigate all those confessions. Does he not know that throughout the years confessions of accused have either been accepted or rejected? Had he wanted to do his duty why did he not ask that those confessions be investigated the first year he came to this House because that would have been prima facie evidence of the police having assaulted accused persons. He himself practises law and yet he talks such nonsense ! Why? Merely to launch an attack on the hon. the Minister of Justice and on the police. In doing that he and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) are conforming with the communist pattern. (Laughter.) Mr. Chairman, hon. members laugh. I think that is a guilty laugh. The communist pattern is to tie the hands of the police, as the hon. Minister said yesterday. And hon. members opposite are doing that. I want to lay this charge at the door of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he is, perhaps unwittingly, a willing tool in the hands of the leftists. I do not know whether the hon. member for Houghton is quite unwittingly a similar willing tool. Mr. Chairman, this request of the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) is absolutely scandalous. Now he is leaving the Chamber. He says “This evil must be rooted out”. The hon. the Minister of Justice agrees with him but he does not say “it must be rooted out”, but “it is being rooted out”, to the best of his ability. Does the hon. member for Durban (North) really for one moment think that a judicial commission of inquiry with all the accompanying slanderous talk and with all the evidence he and his leftist friends will submit, will root out the evil? On the contrary we shall render the police helpless because there will be so much slanderous talk against them that they will not know how to set about their work.

Then the hon. member for Durban (North) says it is no testimonial to say that Col. Faull was at the police station the day after he had heard of the incident and started with the investigation. He said it would have been monstrous had that not been the case. But he entirely missed the point the Minister made. The point the Minister made was that because the police investigated the matter so thoroughly there was no necessity for a witch hunt; not necessary to create a forum where people could spread slander stories.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Musgrave must not start. We know he is a child; he has been a child ever since he came to this House. He is again starting with his childish talk.

May I ask a question?

No, Mr. Chairman; I only have ten minutes and I still have a great deal more to say to the hon. member for Durban (North) and the Leader of the Opposition—and to the hon. member for Houghton. The point has already been made that these things happen throughout the whole world.

I want to deal in particular with the allegations made by the hon. member for Houghton. She accused the hon. the Minister of not doing anything in connection with this matter, as she put it, whereas steps are immediately taken in England. I should like to reply to that allegation. Here I have a cutting from the Daily Sketch of 29 July 1963—

This did not happen in South Africa, but in London. It reads—

Was there any investigation?

No, not at all. That is exactly the point I want to raise with the hon. member for Houghton. Knowing that these things happen regularly in London she says there was only one incident in London and the Prime Minister of Britain immediately ordered a judicial commission of inquiry. She knows that is not true. Here is another incident as reported in the Cape Times of 16 April—

The police in England are organized differently from ours. There the police are more a local matter. The Government introduced a new Police Act so that there would be more central control over the police. The report reads—

It was alleged that these people were whipped with a rhinoceros skin sjambok and with certain other instruments which they tied to their wrists. Hon. members say: “Very well, but there was an inquiry.” I notice the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) is getting geared up. But what happened? In this particular case the police refused to investigate the matter and the Attorney-General refused to prosecute; it was a case of nolle prosequi. A prosecution was then instituted privately and after the accused had been found guilty an investigation was ordered. But what happens in this country? It is not a case of the police refusing to prosecute; it is not a case of the Attorney-General refusing to prosecute; it is not even a case of our people covering up what has been exposed; it is not a case of a private person having to prosecute. We do it ourselves—immediately. That is what has always happened in our country.

What happened in this case is this: Hon. members opposite are annoyed with the Minister of Justice for maintaining law and order in this country. They are annoyed with him for having clamped down on the saboteurs. That is why they are dragging in the 90-day detention clause. I think it is very necessary, for the sake of the record, that we just record the testimonial history has given the Minister. I am referring to this matter, Mr. Chairman, because a part of the attack of the Opposition has to do with 90-day detention. The hon. member for Durban (North) was too cowardly to make the allegation …

On a point of order …

If he is not cowardly I withdraw it, Sir. The hon. member for Durban (North) lacked the courage to carry his inference through to the end. He said if this could happen where R 13.60 was involved, what did not perhaps happen where the safety of of the State was at stake? The Minister then asked him: ‘What are you insinuating?’ The inference is that when people are detained under the 90-day clause far more serious assaults are committed because the temptation on the part of the police to do so is far greater.

Hon members are annoyed because of the testimonial history gives the Minister of Justice. What is that history? It is this: The Minister gave these facts in the Senate on 10 March—

There were 203 cases. He said—

Why? Because the 90-day detention legislation was passed in June 1963. That frightened the potential saboteurs and hon. members opposite are the guardians of those people. Let me give you some further facts, Mr. Chairman. When these acts of sabotage were first attempted a large number appeared in court; 62 were charged with murder and found guilty; 258 were found guilty of having committed sabotage; 1,466 were found guilty of subversive activities—a total of 1,786. That is the testimonial the Minister of Justice can produce and that is the grievance of hon. members opposite.

Mr. Chairman, if ever we have witnessed reprehensible behaviour in this House on the part of the hon. members opposite we have done so to-day. Allegations have always been made against the police. When the Labour Party was still in this House we had those allegations from them but this side of the House always rejected those allegations. When Mr. Lawrence was Minister of Justice there were 203 cases out of a Police Force of 14,000. Now there are 177 cases out of a Police Force of 28,000. [Time limit.]

It is fortunate indeed that the hon. the Prime Minister is in the House because he is in the position to-day of hearing counsel for both sides placing the evidence before him. He will have to decide on the question of a judicial inquiry or other action. I think he will bear in mind that this whole question as to whether the police are to be placed beyond reproach depends on his action here. Serious charges have been made and everyone in the country wants to see the name of the police completely cleared. The Minister of Justice has said that there is so little to be investigated that it should be perfectly easy to clear the police’s name. He should do the police, the country and his own Government the service of seeing that that opportunity is taken.

The hon. member who has just spoken and who has now left the Chamber again referred to the question of cutting off the hands of the police. On the logic of his argument the police themselves were cutting off their own hands when they had this investigation. When the police charged these men and investigated the charge, on his logic, they were cutting off their own hands. But very rightly they investigated the Bultfontein incident at police level, as well as other incidents. We as the Opposition in this House are very rightly bringing the matter to the notice of the hon. the Minister of Justice and the hon. the Prime Minister who are responsible for the entire administration of the police. We reject with scorn the insinuation made against us of lack of patriotism as a result of our doing our duty. Hon. members on the Government side, and those organs which support them, take great pleasure in the propaganda stunt of saying how little the Opposition do. I just want to remind them that when we are doing our duty they resent it bitterly.

I think it is right that we bring these complaints and seek improvement in the administration of justice. I believe the police are a fine body of men. Indeed I have worked closely with them for many, many years. But I believe that this hon. Minister, and perhaps Ministers of Justice before him, have allowed the impression to get about that the police can go very far without incurring the displeasure of the Minister in these matters.

Nonsense!

I repeat: I believe this hon. Minister and others have created the impression that the police can go very far without incurring his displeasure.

Prove it.

I will give some instances. One of the instances I want to give concerns the whole counter-attack of the Government to the attacks we have been making to-day. They label us as being unpatriotic, as being liberal, when we bring reasonable complaints against the Minister and the Government. Obviously that line encourages people to believe that they can carry on and they will always get protection from the Minister. I go further: I think a grave mistake was made in regard to a certain sergeant of police years ago. He was protected to the very end by the Department. I think it would have been a much better service to the country for there to have been a clean breast of it, and an example set at the time.

Hon. members opposite have attempted to minimize this whole affair by suggesting that there have always been assaults. I agree there have always probably been assaults; one knows that. But I am not aware that there have been assaults of this kind where there has been an attempt to obtain information from accused people. Above all, I say, this is the first occasion, to my knowledge, where we have heard in South Africa of the use of electric machines and of sacks over people’s heads to obtain information. In any Police Force you will find people keen to solve a crime in the interests of the whole country; one can understand people going a little bit far. But this is an entirely new feature and one wants to know immediately where these machines come from. How do they come to be on the premises of the police? All these questions require reply.

Nobody will be more happy than this side of the House if the police get an absolutely clear name. We all depend upon the wisdom of all our branches of State to ensure that this country may evolve peacefully. I pay tribute to the police for the way they carry out their difficult task; they perform their task in extremely worrying and often frightening circumstances. They face risks and they face them bravely. Never was a truer word said than that a policeman’s job is not a happy one. And in this country it is even more so. Where we have these different races and where the police have to deal with these different races, it is essential that the name of our police is above reproach. There is such a weight of evidence, in the whole country, not to mention outside, which requires that the name of our police and of our country be cleared. I would say that if the hon. the Prime Minister could be said to have cleared his Government of the rather unhappy aspects this whole matter has brought up, he would have done his Government a service thereby. I sincerely hope therefore that he will do so.

Through this behaviour of the Opposition they are handing us over to the outside world, and not only to the outside world, but to the terrorists in South Africa. After this debate, what respect can those who subvert the State have for the Police Force? But I go further. We have heard here of assaults on Natives, but has there ever been a discussion in this House by members of the Opposition when murder and assault has been committed on the Police Force?

I introduced such a discussion.

No, then we hear nothing about it. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition now makes a fuss because he started something which he has regretted ever since, but as the result of the attitude of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) he was compelled to adopt this attitude. These attacks which are launched against our Police Force form part of the pattern woven against South Africa, against all the conservative elements, the education system, the churches, the administration of justice, the Defence Force and the police. All those conservative elements must be attacked. In 1960 or 1961 an article appeared in Africa South, a publication which has now been prohibited, which contained an analysis as to why a revolution would not take place in South Africa, and in it the author, inter alia, said that the reason was that the Defence Force and the police support the Government. That is the real reason why those elements who want to destroy South Africa make these attacks against the police, and the hon. members of the Opposition have now become the instruments of those persons who launch these attacks.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

I am not ashamed of myself, because that is the truth. But our courts will still also be attacked. They will not stop attacking our churches and our education system. They will still attack our courts as well. It is interesting to note that this has already been done. I have in my hand an article, “Current Legal Problems,” in which a lecturer at the University of London made an attack on our magistrates’ courts in 1960. In it he refers to the “ignoble role” which they played. But further, and that is why I say that these attacks form part of a pattern, he also referred to our Supreme Court and stated that the present Government appointed Judges who supported its political policies. But let me go still further. Two months ago, at the meeting of the International Association of Jurists, a cutting remark was made in regard to Dr. Percy Yutar, the prosecutor in the Rivonia case. That was already the beginning, and it shows that these attacks form part of a pattern. They are not isolated attacks; the pattern is clear. This Government has never yet been afraid to appoint commissions.

Why are you afraid now?

They have never been afraid. When the riots took place in Paarl, the Minister of Justice appointed Judge Snyman the following morning. That is also the case now in regard to the Defence Force, where the Cillie Commission was appointed. The Government has never yet been afraid to appoint commissions. When it considers that it is necessary to appoint commissions it does so, but it will not do so in this case where, as the hon. the Minister of Justice says, a person who was fighting with his back to the wall in court so as not to go to prison gave certain evidence. We all know that if a person is accused of murder it is only human, when fighting with his back to the wall, for him to say anything, but on that evidence given by a nineteen-year-old constable, an ex parte statement, the Minister of Justice must now appoint a commission. But these attacks on the police have been going on for quite a few years now.

I remember the Ganyile case, the so'-called abduction which took place in Basutoland and which became an international case. There it had already started. Was that not the case last year also in regard to a man who belonged to the Chinese Communist Party here in Cape Town, Dr. Kenneth Abrahams, who was alleged to have been abducted from Bechuanaland? Was that not an attack on the British also? There we clearly have the pattern, from Ganyile to Dr. Abrahams, who is a communist. That case has been disposed of and I am at liberty to mention it here now, these people who were charged in Cape Town together with Dr. Alexander. It emerged from the evidence that Dr. Kenneth Abrahams was a communist. But then the police were dragged in too. Only now has it been discovered that it was true that he was a communist. The United Party is playing into the hands of our enemies. They are just like Patrick Duncan. Listen to what the hon. the Minister of Justice quoted from that book of his. Here we have the hon. members for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell), Zululand (Mr. Cadman) and Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie). They do not really belong to the United Party; they belong to the Progressive Party, but they sit there under the mantle of the United Party. The hon. member for Musgrave will get up to speak to-dav, and then hon. members should listen to his venomous attack, and note the venom in his attitude and. in his voice when he carries on against the police. We are waiting for him, because we know him. He is full of venom against any institution in South Africa. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to render a service to South Africa to-day, he should immediately stop this debate.

I believe that there are two sections of the community in particular who appreciate, perhaps more than anyone else, the difficulties which face the South African Police in the tasks which they have to perform in this country. The one is the farming community, and the other is the legal fraternity, both of whom have direct contact with various aspects of police administration and activities, and anyone with his eyes open will appreciate the difficulties which that force has to face. They have to deal with a robust community, and one can expect at times that their behaviour will be robust. But we are a rugby-playing nation, and just as in rugby there is all the difference in the world between robust play and foul play, so is there in actions of this kind all the difference in the world between robust activities on behalf of a force and foul play by members of a force.

In this instance we have to deal with a case of death following torture. It is as simple as that. It is a case of death by torture. That is what we are dealing with.

It was fully investigated, and those people were punished. What more do you want?

I do not believe that any greater difficulty could have been placed in the way of the senior officers who are trying to stamp out this sort of thing in the Police Force than the show put up by the hon. Minister of Justice and by Government members in this debate. What has taken place? Imagine yourself as a senior officer trying to bring home to every man under you in the force your displeasure and your dismay and your annoyance and your anger at this sort of behaviour by one or two of them, and all they have to do is to read the Nationalist Press, or any Press for that matter, for a report of this debate and speeches by Government members and comment by political commentators of what has taken place on the Government benches, and what is the only inference that those young men can draw from them? Only one inference: that death by torture in South Africa is …

That is a shocking and a low thing to say.

That death by torture is regarded by the Minister of Justice as a matter for hilarity, that death by torture is the biggest joke that a hundred Government members had ever heard in their lives.

You should be ashamed of yourself!

That is an infamous lie.

Order! The hon. member for Wolmaransstad must withdraw those words.

With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, it is my honest opinion that that hon. member who is accusing the members of this House of Assembly of such a thing, does it deliberately, and he knows that it is a deliberate lie he is telling.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw from the Chamber if he does not withdraw those words.

[The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) thereupon left the Chamber.]

The regrettable fact of the matter is that during the whole of the debate on this aspect of the Government’s administration yesterday afternoon, there were gales of laughter from the Government benches, and the hon. Minister of Justice did his utmost to play down this issue as a matter of hilarity and a joke.

Why don’t you join the communists?

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member for Zululand a chance to address the Committee.

I regard that behaviour as the greatest disservice to the senior officers of the police which anyone could perform. I know many of the senior officers of the police. I have come across them on many occasions, professionally and otherwise, and they are to be admired by every section of the population in South Africa for the sort of force which they have administered, but their task is made immeasurably more difficult by this sort of reaction to a debate of this kind by the hon. Minister and by almost every member on that side of the House.

There is one other very regrettable fact which has emerged from this debate, and it flows from the type of remark, the type of interjection we have just heard from the hon. member for Cradock that I am a communist. We all heard it.

Why don’t you join the Communist Party?

Agitator!

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) said that the hon. member was an agitator.

Did the hon. member for Malmesbury accuse the hon. member of being an agitator?

No, Sir.

On a point of order, an hon. member behind him made that interjection.

Which hon. member used that word?

I used that expression, and I withdraw it.

Order! Hon. members must now please give the hon. member for Zululand an opportunity to make his speech.

The second regrettable thing that I have noticed about this debate is that anyone listening to it, and anyone reading it in a newspaper anywhere in the world, would be led to believe …

On a point of order, the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) just now said to me: “You are a coward.” Is he allowed to say that?

Did the hon. member for Musgrave say that?

Yes, Sir, I did say that.

The hon. member must withdraw that expression.

I withdraw.

The other regrettable thing about this debate, and the sort of remarks that are constantly being made when an objection is being raised against this happening which, as I said, was death by torture, is that one is immediately labelled as a Liberal or a Communist, and there is only one inference that people reading about this debate elsewhere will get, and that is that in South Africa the only people who are against death by torture are the Liberals and the Communists. And I can think of no more regrettable inference than that, the more so when the members who are principally concerned in this debate are the representatives of roughly half the electorate of South Africa.

I am sorry that the hon. Minister of Justice has adopted the attitude he has, because it amounts to nothing more than shielding behind the Police Force for the inadequacies of his administration. Every arrow that is directed on him, what does he do? He puts up a shield and slides it off on to the shoulders of the Police Force. Every criticism that is directed to him for the administration of his Department he shoulders off on to the shoulders of the Police Force. He will accept no responsibility himself.

That is untrue.

The whole thing is blamed on the senior officers of the Police Force, and all the criticism directed against the hon. Minister, he immediately passes off and suggests that it is a criticism of the Police Force and the senior officers of that force. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat said a few things which one cannot describe as anything but base and revolting. The expressions he used here are certainly humiliating to this House and certainly do mot redound to its dignity. The hon. member said that what he described as “death by torture” is regarded as a joke by this side of the House, and he referred to approximately 100 members on this side who regard it as a joke.

You laughed very heartily.

That is a scandalous thing to say. It is a scandalous and reprehensible thing to say in this House, particularly in view of the speech made yesterday by the hon. the Minister of Justice when he participated in the debate for the first time and commenced his speech by saying—and that was his whole standpoint—that the incidents which came to light at Bultfontein were deplored by everybody. Is that not what the hon. the Minister said? Is that not what he also said previously? Is there anybody on that side of the House who can deny it? the hon. the Minister of Justice dealt with the matter in detail and said how much we regretted it, and I want to repeat that there is not one of us who approves of what happened there or who wants to gloss it over. What was revealed in evidence at Bultfontein is not approved of by anybody here. The Minister of Justice said so, and we said it. But now the hon. member for Zululand comes along with that vile allegation that we on this side of the House …

On a point of order, may the hon. member use the word “vile” (smerige) in this connection?

I shall withdraw the word, but I really have no Parliamentary words in which to express my contempt of the hon. member for Zululand for making that allegation.

When we see what goes on in this House and note who takes part in this debate, it not only becomes clear to us that the intention is to bring even more to the notice of the world these unpleasant things which we ourselves have condemned, but we also see which members on that side of the House take part in the debate. The members on that side who are participating in this debate are known to us as people with leftist inclinations.

Oh!

Yes, there is the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). We expected him to participate in such a campaign. We expected the hon. members for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) and Zululand to participate, and the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) must still participate, because he also belongs to that group. But we might as well mention others also, the conservative element on the opposite side of the House, who are not prepared to take part in this smear campaign against South Africa. What are they asking? What they ask amounts to this, that anything that can be used against South Africa, anything unpleasant that can create a bad impression in the world, should repeatedly be brought to the notice of the outside world, and that as many of these things as possible should be made available to those who attack South Africa. What they ask is in fact nothing else but that this unfortunate incident in regard to Bultfontein, which we all regret and deplore …

Then why do you defend it?

I am not defending it in the least. I deplore it. But the hon. members over there now want there to be a further investigation and that the whole matter should be rehashed. That is what they want, so that those who want to make misuse of such matters will have a further and greater opportunity to do so. That is their object. Those hon. members would have had a case had they known about incidents and had they been able to adduce proof in regard to incidents of this nature, while at the same time proving that these matters were not investigated by the police or that prosecutions were not instituted. Then they would have had reason for complaint.

But what is really their complaint to-day? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition in the first place complains that improper things were done. We all agree with him. None of us approves of that. But now the Leader of the Opposition went further and said that there was no proper supervision in the Police Force. And he went even further and said, particularly with reference to the figures given here in regard to similar incidents which took place during the last four years of the United Party régime that the circumstances were different then. Sir, in the four years of the United Party régime there were 244 cases of this sort out of a total Police Force of 16,000. As was indicated by the hon. member for Standerton, during the past four years there were only 177 cases, whilst the Police Force numbered 28,000. Therefore there were 177 out of 28,000, whereas in the time of Mr. Harry Lawrence there were 244 cases out of 16,000. But then they were not concerned about these cases. I shall tell you why. It was because there was a responsible Opposition in those days, an Opposition which knew its duty and did not want to exploit South Africa’s difficulties for its own political gain.

That is a nice story.

These are nice facts. But there is another aspect of the matter. In those days we still did not have the difficult circumstances we have to-day. The position in Africa and in South Africa has changed tremendously. Conditions in South Mica to-day are much more difficult than they were in those days, but nevertheless we have so many fewer cases of this nature as compared with what we had during the United Party régime. But what is the reply of the Leader of the Opposition to that? His reply is a still more serious complaint, without any real basis, against the Police Force of South Africa. When these figures were brought to his notice, the Leader of the Opposition turned round and said: “Yes, but it is not only the fact that these things are happening, but the police do not investigate these cases. He therefore made a further accusation against the police.”

No.

What grounds did the Leader of the Opposition have for saying that?

I did not say that.

I myself heard the hon. member saying it. He said: yes, but it is because these matters are not being properly investigated to-day, and in those days they were investigated properly.

No, you should not put words in my mouth which I did not use.

I should not like to ascribe words to the Leader of the Opposition which he did not use, but the hon. the Minister of Justice yesterday reacted to the same point, that the Leader of the Opposition was now making a further accusation against the police. What is really his complaint? His complaint now is that they do not investigate these matters properly. Or is his complaint that improper things are done to prisoners, which he wants to have investigated? As far as I can see, the Opposition has no real complaint. [Time limit.]

I must say that I find it most extraordinary that at this stage of the debate we find that the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) asks this side of the House what our complaint is. Has he not been listening to the debate? The hon. members on the Government benches have been trying to suggest that our case for a judicial commission of inquiry rests solely upon the evidence given by a young police constable in the Bultfontein case that this type of behaviour, or this type of torture that went on in the Bultfontein incident, is general throughout the Police Force. Mr. Chairman, we do not base our case solely on that statement. We say that that is a factor which contributes to the case which we have made, but it is not the whole case. The case is this: First of all, the police constables concerned in the Bultfontein trial have been convicted and found guilty not of simply using unnecessary violence, but using brutal and cruel methods to extract information. They have been found guilty, as I said, of using very cruel methods, which are well known and which I need not go into again. There is another case at White River where other policemen have also been found guilty of the same methods. There is another preparatory examination in Johannesburg which is in progress at the moment where the same allegations are made; and in addition to that, there are innumerable cases throughout the country where allegations of this sort have been made on oath and on affidavit. Surely, that cumulative evidence of a course or conduct which is the same and which is nothing short of brutality and cruelty, warrants an investigation by an impartial judicial commission of inquiry, so that it can be ascertained whether or not this is general in the Police Force, and if it is that it can be stamped out as soon as possible.

Hon. members on that side of the House referred to the attitude of Mr. Harry Lawrence when he was Minister of Justice. But the position is very different at present. What Mr. Lawrence was concerned with were cases of unnecessary violence, and that sort of thing we know does occur in police forces throughout the world. But what we are dealing with here, is something quite different, is something which has gone far beyond circumstances which can be described as simply “unnecessary violence”. The hon. member on my left says it is nonsense. Does he, and hon. members opposite, suggest that the use of a shocking machine and a plastic bag to smother people, and trussing people and then dropping them on their heads can be described as simply unnecessary violence?

But these people are punished if they do things like that.

I am glad that the hon. member for Vereeniging has interjected to say that those people have already been punished. I emphasize again that our complaint does not only arise because of what happened in Bultfontein. Those people have been punished. I accept that. Our complaint, as I have just said, if the hon. member for Vereeniging would only listen, is based on the cumulative evidence of instances of the same nature in various police stations throughout the country, and those people have not been punished or even dealt with yet.

What do you base that allegation on?

I regard the attitude of hon. members opposite as nothing short of dishonourable when they try to suggest …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it. I regard their attitude as reprehensible in the light of the facts that I presented to the House a moment ago. Those hon. members suggest that all this stems from an attitude on our part to assist the agitators. [Interjection.] It is precisely the attitude of the Government members in refusing to have this whole thing investigated by an independent judicial commission of inquiry which must considerably assist those persons who are agitating against the country, and particularly harms the name of South Africa overseas.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) said that when I got up to speak I would express considerable venom against the Police Force. As was said before in this debate, the Police Force is, in the main, a good force and we have the highest respect for them, but these instances have happened and apparently are happening on the part of certain members of the force and they must be rooted out, and not only that, but they must be properly investigated to decide on the extent of it. The necessity for that arises because obviously, despite all the instructions that have gone out from the hon. the Minister and the Commissioner of Police, these things have nevertheless happened. Therefore there is a weakness somewhere, and the only way to discover where that weakness is and why it is there is by having the whole thing examined, not by a departmental inquiry, but by a judicial commission. That is the only way in which the police themselves can be cleared.

Hon. members opposite referred to various passages in judgments by Judges in various cases in which they praised the Police Force in those particular cases. We do not dispute that. Our case is based on the facts which have come to light in regard to this form of torture which is being used. The hon. member for Ceres criticized the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) when he said that hon. members on that side of the House think of this whole thing as a joke. Sir, there is no doubt whatever that they have tried to treat it as a joke and as something quite light which does not merit comment. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) said their case was based mainly on the evidence given by a young constable in the Bultfontein case.

That is just what he did not say. You are wrong in your very first sentence.

The Minister said yesterday that this young constable had only served at two police stations, at Bloemfontein and Bultfontein, so how could he say that these things were the general rule throughout the Republic? Surely it must be quite clear to the hon. member that this young constable could not have known about it, because he had no opportunity to gain that experience. If that is what their case rests on, it has no foundation.

The hon. member and other hon. members also said that they had a very high regard for the Police Force. That reminds me of the story of the mother who loved her child so much that she hugged it to death. They have such a high regard for the Police Force that they are doing everything in their power in this debate to cast suspicion on the Police Force; and this is not the first time. It has now become customary for the Opposition to attack every Minister of Justice under this Government, and to try to throw suspicion on him and to break him. That is what happened in regard to previous Ministers of Justice, and now they are trying it with this Minister as well. And do you know why they are so angry with this Minister that they ask that he should resign? It is because they are deeply disappointed because he succeeded, with the assistance of the Police Force, in putting a stop to riots and revolt in South Africa. [Interjections.] The Minister and his Police Force have averted that shock which the Opposition was hoping and waiting for, and now they have no more opportunity to fish in troubled waters, because he has ensured peace and quiet in the country.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself!

Why do they want a commission? They want it, and as soon as the Minister says he is prepared to appoint a commission, not only they but all the enemies of South Africa will say: There you now have an admission; it was necessary to appoint a commission of inquiry to investigate the Police Force.

Then why did he appoint the Snyman Commission?

That was quite a different matter. They want to use this Commission as a peg on which to hang their accusations. I say that if Black constables had assaulted Whites in this way they would never have made this request. [Interjections.] I want to prove that. When that party was in power two constables were stoned and killed in a location near Johannesburg.

It was three.

Yes, and what did that Government do? Their Minister of Native Affairs, the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. Van der Byl) went to that location the next morning, and what did he do? He told those Bantu who had stoned the White constables to death: I come as your friend and not as the police.

What is the name of that location?

There we have clear proof.

Of what?

It proves that where non-Whites are concerned they come as their friends. Did they then appoint a commission of inquiry? No, the hon. member for Green Point as the Minister went to those Bantu, and I do not want to do him an injustice but I almost think that he shook hands with them and said: I come as your friend. [Interjections.] This hon. member who is so childish let the cat out of the bag and said that the United Party was waiting for a shock because otherwise they would never get back into power, and now they are disappointed because this Minister has obviated that shock. I say this is petty and childish behaviour by an Opposition which ought to know better.

The remarks of the hon. member who has just sat down might have been a bit more apposite if he had taken the trouble to study his facts. His speech seemed to me nothing more or less than an attempt to persuade the forces of subversion in South Africa that the Opposition is on their side. I should imagine that he could do neither his own Government nor his own country any greater harm than that. His attack was based on false information, but he saw fit to mention an occasion when three White policemen were stoned to death and the previous Government appointed no judicial inquiry. Under this Government nine policemen were murdered at Cato Manor, a number of them being Whites, and I raised the matter in this House as a matter of urgent public importance and I was refused a judicial inquiry. I do not think it lies in the mouth of that side of the House to raise matters of that kind, especially in the ridiculous manner in which he has tried to do it.

This has been an unfortunate but necessary interlude in the debate in order to report the activities of the Minister of Justice to the Prime Minister. I think the Prime Minister himself must have been somewhat shocked by the attitude revealed on his side of the House and the incredibly poor attempts made to defend the Minister. In fact, they reveal a state of mind which can but do the country irretrievable harm. I suppose we must assume from the silence of the hon. gentleman that we are not going to have a judicial inquiry into the behaviour of the police. I must assume that he associates himself to some extent with the sort of defence that has come from that side for the refusal to grant a judicial inquiry. I will leave it there. I believe the hon. gentleman is making a mistake, in that he is losing an opportunity which would have given the police a wonderful chance to clear their name, and would have given the Minister an opportunity to show that his administration was effective, and would have shown the outside world that the South African people on both sides of this House are not prepared to let slurs of that kind remain on the name of their Police Force. It appears that that chance is to be lost, and we are back to a discussion of the policies of the Prime Minister and the reply he gave to the debate yesterday.

I want to say that I believe that reply could have been regarded as pathetic, were it not for the fact that it had such very serious implications for the people of South Africa, for our future well-being and for the future of the White race and Western standards here. It seems that as the position of the hon. the Prime Minister becomes more desperate, he is trying to develop two propaganda themes, both of them dangerous, and because they are dangerous the public should be warned against them.

The first of these propaganda themes is that the South African situation as it exists to-day is a perfectly normal one; it is a logical development of policies selected in the best interests of South Africa; and, secondly, virtually the whole population thinks as he does. Those are the two themes which he tried to put across in his speech, if you look behind the camouflage of politics. To bolster up his first theme that the situation was normal and that it was just a logical development of policies selected in the best interests of South Africa, he tried to persuade us, firstly, that his policy is the only policy to maintain a sovereign, independent White nation in South Africa, and he described that as his paramount aim. Secondly, he tried to persuade us that this policy of his was chosen for that purpose without having any regard to outside opinion, or pressure from the outside world. Let us deal with the second point first, that this policy was chosen without any regard to outside opinion.

When that statement is made one cannot help but think back to that fateful day in April 1959 in this House when the Prime Minister got up and stated that this was the direction in which he was moving, the direction of independence for these Bantustans, with the possibility of future Commonwealth relations. He said it is not something we would like to do “want dit beteken ’n sekere mate van verbrokkeling, maar inagnemende die magte wat toesak op Suid-Afrika, is dit onvermydelik”, or words to that effect. How can he now come and tell us that this policy was embarked upon without any regard to world opinion or world pressure? The Prime Minister embarked upon this policy as a concession to world opinion, in the hope that it would alter world opinion. He still hopes it will alter world opinion. He still tries to tell us that perhaps one day the outside world will realize that this policy is getting away from discrimination, and one day the world will be more sympathetic towards it. I believe that this policy has failed utterly already in that regard, but to try to put across the story to the public now that he did not embark on this policy because of world opinion is absolutely ridiculous and is belied by his own words in this House.

As to his other allegation, that this is the only policy which can preserve a sovereign, independent White race in South Africa. I want to say that I believe the policy which he and his Government are following is one which is placing the future of the White race, the future of Western standards in South Africa, in mortal danger, possibly in more mortal danger than any other policy except that of the Communist Party. And why is he doing that? Because he is destroying our strategic position which is so valuable to us in the event of any fight against Communism. What do we have from the hon. gentleman? When we point out to him that he is going to create seven or eight independent states which might make common cause with Communism and become Cubas, he says: Oh, but we may get two or three Cubas already in the form of the Protectorates, so why worry? Let us have seven more. Sir, if I have three men to fight, it is bad enough, but do I want to add seven more? Surely a little common sense makes one realize how ridiculous that argument is. But let us take it a step further. Why is it that we have no chance of having the Protectorates incorporated with South Africa to-day? It is because of the policies followed by the Government. If there is a Cuba established there, the Prime Minister will have to take some measure of responsibility for the fact that it is because of his activities that we lost the chance of getting the Protectorates incorporated into the Republic.

Then there is another danger in this policy. He places the Bantu population with their independent states in a position of strength against us, a position of strength but one in which they will always be complaining about the treatment of their labour force inside the Republic; one in which there is a great danger of their becoming hostile to the Republic; one in which the maximum pressure can be brought to bear upon them from overseas. Then this policy has another weakness, another great danger. It undermines the very core of existence which he spoke about, because the Coloured people and the Indians are accepted by the Prime Minister as permanent residents of the White portion of South Africa, and he offers no solution for them at all. What is his answer as far as they are concerned?

Are you going to continue?

Yes.

Then I will reply later.

What is his answer in respect of the Coloureds and the Indians? How do they fit into the scheme of things? Where will they be represented when we have this Commonwealth of the various races which he speaks about?

Then I believe there is another weakness, and that is that he and his party and his supporters are not prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to make the so-called White area white. It will always remain grey under his policy, and as the result of that it will probably be riddled with fifth columnists. I believe this scheme is deadly dangerous to the future of White South Africa, and because it is dangerous—and I give the hon. the Prime Minister the credit for realizing that it is dangerous, and he himself has admitted that there are risks—he must try to destroy any alternative. Especially must he try to destroy any middle-of-the-road solution. So he gives us examples of what has happened in the countries to the north of us. He says integration has failed there. Can you really make a comparison between those countries and ourselves? The Prime Minister spoke of Tanganyika, where there is one White man to 409 Bantu, and he spoke of the Federation, where there is one White man to 36 Bantu. He said he knew of no country in the world where integration, even amongst people of the same colour, has succeeded. I wonder whether he can point to one country in the world where all the people are of the same race or breed? If he wants an example of countries where people of different races though of the same colour have integrated happily, need he go further than Switzerland and Belgium?

What about the conflict in Belgium?

The hon. member says there is conflict in Belgium, but it is a state which has existed for several hundred years.

Only since 1848.

Well, I accept that. It has existed for over a hundred years and it has a far more peaceful history than many other states. Then the Prime Minister suggested that Southern Rhodesia was an illustration because it had the same policy as the United Party. I think Sir Edgar White-head would be horrified to hear that, and also Mr. Field, and I believe the present Prime Minister, Mr. Smith, would also be horrified to hear that.

I said that Britain had the same policy in regard to Southern Rhodesia as it had with Tanganyika.

I want to make it plain as far as I am concerned that the policy of Southern Rhodesia, or the British policy in Southern Rhodesia, is not the same as the policy of the United Party. As the Prime Minister knows, there is an alternative, but he has tried to make out that there are only two alternatives, on the one hand complete integration and on the other hand complete separation. He is trying to make out that the only alternative which will be considered by the West is complete integration, with one man, one vote. Well, here is the speech made by Mr. Thomas, the British delegate to the UN Special Committee last year. He said—

There is still room for persuasion and influence. We still hope that South African opinion will come increasingly to realize that a change of course is essential. Ought we not to give consideration to the possibilities of finding some bridge, some compromises, between the ultimate objectives of the South African Government as we have heard them stated in this Assembly, and the concept of a full multi-racial society to which the vast majority of nations subscribes? If all we can offer from the outside is hostility and pressure, are we really assisting those inside South Africa who are looking for a better answer? It is our firm belief that possibilities for a peaceful solution still exist.

Does that sound like one man, one vote?

That is only in the beginning.

Then there is the Star of October last year—

Africa’s position. It is the direction that matters, not the number of steps.”

We believe that the policy we are advocating will be defensible, for a large number of reasons. The Prime Minister, I believe, thinks that too, because both he and certain other speakers on his side of the House concede that under the United Party’s policy there will be more sympathy from the West, but it will not last; there will be more sympathy at first, but it will not last. And they quote Rhodesia immediately. Sir, is the problem in Rhodesia not still the problem of colonialism? Is our problem not purely a racial problem by contrast? You see, Sir, this is the opinion of people who have misjudged every single international situation with which they have been connected. Where have they ever been right in their international judgment? Here they are making another judgment, I believe another misjudgment. But it is necessary for them to make it; they have to make it to try to get this propaganda theme across. But then, Sir, what about the second propaganda theme that everyone thinks as the hon. the Prime Minister does; that the whole population is with him? Well, it is quite clear that the Coloureds do not think the way he does. I think Chief Poto has shown that the tribal Natives do not all think the way the hon. the Prime Minister does. I think there is no doubt about the attitude of the detribalized Native. I think half the White population think differently, and I think the world should realize this, because I believe the fact that half the White population and a large section of the non-European population think differently is the greatest shield of protection South Africa has in the outside world, because they realize that there is a chance of things being brought to a sensible solution here as a result of the activities of the Opposition themselves. But, Sir, that is dependent upon one thing and that is that they leave us alone to solve things for ourselves. I say that deliberately, Sir. I stress it because we on this side of the House have protested against outside interference; we have protested against boycotts. We have stood with the Government over the invasion of Article 7 (2) of the Charter of the United Nations. We have objected firmly to outside interference because we realize that not only will it assist the Government to chase the electors into just one kraal, which they are trying so desperately to do, but we realize also that it will interfere with our opportunities of getting rid of this Government and arriving at a sound solution in South Africa.

It is clear to me that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now wants the debate he initiated last night in connection with the Department of Justice to come to an end. I also think it is high time that that unsavoury debate came to an end. He said he thought I was shocked. I am. I am shocked at the irresponsibility of the Opposition in not only raising this matter but doing it in this manner. I am particularly shocked at the way in which the Leader of the Opposition, who introduced the matter, raised it. I shall say something more about that later. I particularly want to say that I am shocked at the low level to which some of his followers took this debate by the consternating insinuation that the defence of this side of the House against the attack of the Opposition on the Minister of Justice, and against the indirect attack on the reliability of the Police Force, justifies the accusation that we condone violence or even that we laugh at murder. I think the words the hon. member used were that we were prepared to laugh at murder by torture. I am greatly shocked to think that such an accusation can be made in this House even by backbenchers. The facts of the matter, it seems to me, are that if they, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition, were very desirous of trying to get an investigation, he would have approached this matter from a totally different angle. Then he would have launched a purely factual discussion of the pros and cons, particularly because he raised it under my Vote. That he did not do; he did not try to do it in such a way that one could simply discuss the matter on its merits. He launched an indignant attack on the Minister of Justice, accompanied by a demand that either the Minister of Justice should resign or that I should dismiss him from the Cabinet. Only as support for that main accusation did he argue that the Minister of Justice had refused to appoint a commission of inquiry. Judging from his approach to the matter, the main object of the Leader of the Opposition was not to get a commission of inquiry appointed in the first place, but to get rid of the Minister of Justice. If he had in any way wanted to make it easy for me clearly to consider the question of whether a commission should be appointed or not, he would never have approached it from that angle. As a politician, he knows that very well.

Apart from that political angle, I also want to say this, that I will not allow the Opposition to dictate to me who the members of my Cabinet should be. I will particularly not allow them to do so by making attacks or levelling accusations, because obviously they are our political adversaries and obviously they would like to see a Government here which is as weak as possible, because that would increase their hopes of ousting us.

We already regard it as a weak Government.

They do not regard this Government as being weak. That is why they realize that they cannot come into power, and that is why their followers and their newspapers tell the public so frankly. I shall therefore continue to take the responsibility to ensure that this-Cabinet is constituted in such a way as to implement the policy of this side of the House as effectively as possible, and not to play into the hands of those hon. members and do what they want. Having said this in regard to the general principle in regard to the constitution of the Cabinet, I want to add this, that this side of the House and I and the country outside have the greatest confidence in the present Minister of Justice as being an extremely efficient person who looks after the interests of the country in his sphere. I do not think there is any doubt among the members of the Bar and the Side Bar, who come into closer contact with him than most people, as to the outstanding ability of this Minister. I think that in general the members of the Opposition know that even their followers all over South Africa have expressed admiration for the way in which this Minister of Justice has performed his duties and has maintained safety and good order in the country. I suspect that to some extent the reason for the Leader of the Opposition’s very personal and direct attack on the Minister of Justice and his appeal to me to get rid of him are in fact due to his consternation about the effect of the Minister’s actions. That stands to the credit of the Government, also amongst his followers all over the country. Therefore I reject completely and very clearly and definitely any request to get rid of the Minister of Justice, and I wish to say here clearly that I regard him as being very efficient in performing his duties, and that I will support him, whatever the Opposition may say.

Now those hon. members have asked me to undertake to appoint a commission of inquiry in spite of previous refusals. I must say here that any previous refusals were given on be‘ half of the Government, and on very reasonable and understandable grounds. If I listen objectively to the representations made from both sides, apart from this main reason which I have already dealt with, then really two kinds of allegations were made. The one is that I should follow the example of what was done in Britain, and the second is that it will be in the interests of the Police Force if such an investigation is instituted. Let me first deal with the first argument. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) yesterday quoted Mr. Macmillan as an example, but what she quoted, if I remember correctly, was that he was expected to appoint a commission—“It is expected” …

In fact, he did so.

She now says that it was in fact done, but in her speech she merely quoted “It is expected”. I was going to add that I did not know what followed on that, because she did not say so yesterday. Now she says that he, in fact, appointed a commission.

There was a commission of inquiry.

I think the hon. member should keep quiet for a moment. Nor did she say then whether this was a case where the police instituted a prosecution and where there was a trial, and where Mr. Macmillan, as Prime Minister, after the case was concluded and the police offenders had been convicted, and notwithstanding the fact that it was due to police action, still decided to institute an investigation. If those were the facts —but those are not the facts—then she was dealing with a parallel. It would now appear that she was not dealing with any parallel, because there actually was an investigation because the police did not take action. Other examples were brought to our notice to-day by a speaker on the Government side of a case in Britain where an inquiry was asked for after the police had taken action, and where that inquiry was refused—there is, therefore, also a parallel for refusing—and then a case was mentioned where the police had refused to take action, but where an inquiry was still refused. Therefore, we are not dealing here with a parallel which we have to follow, but in any case the argument that. South Africa must imitate what is done in Britain or in any other country is nonsensical, because a Minister has the circumstances before him on which he has to make a decision, and he must act on the merits of the case and have regard to all those circumstances. But apart from this basic principle that one has to act on the merits of the case, we are not even dealing here with proper examples which should be followed. What has actually happened in South Africa on which we must decide? The position is clear and simple. The police are anxious to ensure that no offences will take place either by members of the force or by non-members of the force. They are serious in wanting to ensure that this will not happen, either by officers in the junior ranks or by high-ranking officers. They take the matter seriously, as is proved by their actions in trying to prevent it. If orders are not obeyed, the Police Force take action by investigating the matter and instituting a prosecution as a deterrent whenever possible. In regard to the Bultfontein case the Police Force did everything that could be expected of them. In that case, when the police have done everything which they could justifiably be expected to do as a decent Police Force, must we still place them under the magnifying glass, thereby insinuating that they did not do everything they could have done? But what is more, after the decisive action taken by the police in respect of the case which was mentioned here in the first place, they, as the result of an allegation which was made in evidence, immediately took further action the very next day and made a country-wide investigation which was of such large scope, due to the size of the machinery available to them, that no commission of inquiry could hope to equal it. No commission of inquiry can go to every single police station in this country to ascertain whether something which is wrong is being done locally.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

When business was suspended, I was pointing out that in so far as the appointment of a commission of inquiry was concerned, we are really concerned only with two aspects of the matter. On the one hand the question is whether we are dealing with a force which maintains discipline, which is prepared to investigate cases of injustice to its utmost ability, and which is then fully prepared to take action to avoid any forms of assault taking place. On the other hand, the question is whether we are dealing with a machine which was established to maintain order, irrespective of who is concerned, but which will not or cannot perform those duties. I pointed out that what we are dealing with here, according to the evidence submitted to us to-day, is clearly a Police Force which is fully conscious of its responsibilities and does its utmost to try to fulfil them. The only source of all the information available to hon. members, the only information giving rise to their request for a commission of inquiry is, in fact, clearly the very thorough action taken by the police themselves. If the police had done nothing, hon. members would not even have had anything to talk about.

What would they have done with the body?

It would have been impossible to prove guilt and who was responsible. It is because the police were so conscientious that, at the slightest indication that something was wrong, they instituted the most thorough investigation. It was pointed out in the Bultfontein case that a careful investigation had to be made to obtain the evidence required by the Court and to convince the Attorney-General that he had a case. It is true that there was a corpse, and it is true that the police would have been negligent in the highest degree if they had not done their duty to the utmost—we do not quarrel about that—but the point I am making is this: The fact that they followed up every clue until they could institute a prosecution, even though it was against their own people, proves that this is a body which does its duty in the highest degree, and which is prepared to take action irrespective of who is involved. That is the one important fact. But then there is another fact to which I have already referred in passing, namely that the Police Force (immediately after it was alleged in evidence that they were dealing here with a very universal phenomenon) applied the most effective method possible by immediately issuing instructions, at the command of the Minister and the Commissioner of Police, that all officers had to visit all police stations to investigate personally at every police station whether something like that takes place, and that thereafter they had to report to Head Office. Then action would have been taken. The police, therefore, did not wait for a commission of inquiry, which would have had to take evidence to ascertain whether or not there was something wrong in general. Now, as the result of that, there is no necessity or reason for the appointment of a commission of inquiry because an investigation has already been made by a country-wide machine in the most perfect manner in which it could be made.

How many shock machines did they find?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is now talking about machines for giving shocks. All we know is that at a few places a local machine was found which was in the possession of somebody. The insinuation, the deplorable insinuation, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s question is, however, that implements are provided by the Police Force, or distributed to the Police Force. The insinuation has already been made by backbenchers that there are electrical machines specially used to administer shocks. The insinuation was not that there just happened to be little instruments used for such a purpose by individuals, but that machines were acquired by the police for the purpose of administering shocks either locally or on a larger scale. That is the insinuation I inferred from the speeches of backbenchers and also from the question which the Leader of the Opposition has just put. I repeat that this investigation has taken place. What is the meaning of thereafter asking for a commission of inquiry? It means that we say: “We suspect either the scope and thoroughness and seriousness of the investigation made by the Police Force, or else we believe that in fact headquarters received certain evidence and that that evidence was suppressed.” In other words, the appointment of a commission of inquiry would mean, in spite of the thorough action taken by the police in the two respects I have mentioned, that it is a direct indication by the Government to South Africa and to the world that we have reason to doubt that the police made a thorough investigation, or that they told us the truth, or that injustices do not take place on a large scale which are covered up by them. We have no reason to think that. I am not prepared to be an instrument in the hands of people who want to harm the image of South Africa by making this type of attack or suggestion; I am not prepared to be an instrument in their hands by appointing such a commission. I still want to add this. If in future we find that we are dealing with a Police Force which is unwilling or powerless or too ineffective to investigate probable cases of ill-treatment, then it will be our duty to appoint a commission of inquiry. Therefore if any proof of ill-treatment is produced and also proof that the Police Force is not willing or able properly to investigate those cases, we will have a better investigation instituted. I am convinced, however, that our police are willing and able thoroughly to investigate every case of alleged ill-treatment which should be investigated. I also have the fullest confidence that they are honest and reliable and that they will be prepared to report any case to the Attorney-General, irrespective of who is concerned, so that, if a case can be made out, it may be brought before the courts, which will give a decision. As long as I have that conviction I am not justified in appointing a commission of inquiry and the Government is not entitled to do so, nor is the Minister of Justice. Having said that, I leave the matter there.

Yesterday two other matters were raised to which I have not replied yet. Perhaps it was not really necessary to do so, because I had replied to it earlier in the one case, but to round the matter off I will give my replies. The one point was the question whether South Africa has in mind leaving UNO as a matter of policy, or whether she is prepared to remain there and to defend herself.

I have said before and I say again that South Africa’s membership of various bodies is dependent upon what is in the best interests of South Africa in the opinion of the Government. The Government judges the situation from time to time in the light of the prevailing circumstances. We are not prepared to leave South Africa in the lurch in any way. I reject as absolutely incorrect and untrue the insinuation that continued membership is the only proof of our readiness to fight for South Africa and that we are leaving South Africa in the lurch when we give up our membership under certain circumstances. There are circumstances in which one serves the best interests of one’s country by not being a member of a particular body and in which one serves the best interests of one’s country by not fighting in the way in which they would like to see one fight but by choosing one’s own methods of fighting. The same thing applies to the United Nations: The policy of South Africa is to remain a member of the UN as long as it is considered to be in the interests of South Africa. If circumstances should arise under which it will no longer be in the interests of South Africa, then she will no longer remain a member. But in the meantime we will put South Africa’s case at the UN and elsewhere in the correct way, as the Government, which has the confidence of the electorate which returned it to power, considers necessary from time to time.

I was also asked yesterday whether it was our policy to have diplomatic relations with other Africa countries. Sir, I replied to this question before; I explained that diplomatic representation was usually based upon friendship and harmonious relations between the states in question. I said that one seldom found that states which were absolutely at loggerheads had reciprocal representation and that I was positive that no State would allow diplomatic representatives to enter its country with the deliberate object of interfering with the domestic affairs of that country and undermining that country’s Government or policy. I also stated that there were various countries in Africa who were not only intent on undermining the policy of the South African Government but who were training people to do so by force of arms. It goes without saying that one would never agree to give diplomatic representation of any kind to countries whose only object is to establish a cell here in an attempt to undermine South Africa.

In dealing with this matter on previous occasions I went on to add what I had reiterated in interviews with various persons from time to time when they asked me whether this meant that we would be willing to have diplomatic relations with Africa states if they stopped uttering threats against us, if they stopped expressing hostile sentiments, if they stopped their boycott movements, in other words, with countries which desired to have friendly relations with South Africa. My reply was “yes”. I pointed out what I had said to the Prime Minister of Nigeria at the Prime Ministers’ Conference, where I was present, in reply to a similar question. I explained that friendship between nations was the basis of diplomatic representation and that open avowals of hostility and hostile actions, whether in a cold war or in a hot war, were inconsistent with diplomatic relations. I said to him, “If you yourselves adopt the attitude that you do not wish to boycott us, that you are not going to try to interfere with our domestic affairs and to subvert our policy, then the question of diplomatic representation will necessarily have to be considered.” But I said that if we got on to such a friendly footing, there would also be an understanding of the difficulties that presented themselves and of the best way in which diplomatic relations could be maintained. I then referred to what had already been done under Dr. Malan’s Government, and that is that for our part we had gone so far as to appoint someone who was going to be a travelling ambassador in Africa; that we were a prosperous country but that we did not see our way clear to have resident diplomatic representatives in all countries of the world; that we only had them in certain chosen countries. I pointed out that with the large number of states which were being created in Africa it would be impractical even for us as a prosperous country with our own money at our disposal to have diplomatic representation in all those states. I contend that the states of Africa are in no position to have diplomatic representation everywhere. As it is they have to use the money which is donated to them by a few big powers to maintain their representation in those countries with whom they are on such a footing that it is worth their while to be permanently represented there. But I said that if they wished to have contacts with South Africa in a reasonable and honest way, it would be more sensible for them to find some cheaper method. I did not use the words which were attributed to me in a report which appeared recently, and that is that since we were prepared to pay continual visits to the capitals of the Africa states through a travelling ambassador and to establish diplomatic relations in that way, I expected all the Africa states to join forces and to appoint one travelling ambassador to represent all of them! How could they do so? In any event, where would he travel? South Africa would not be the only country which he would have to visit! I did not say that. What I did say was this: I said that the quid pro quo for our travelling ambassador could be this, that those countries which were close to us and which could reach South Africa by air or otherwise within a day could visit South Africa through their Minister, when they considered it necessary and important to do so, and that in that way they could maintain their links with South Africa. I went on to say that at that time visits were being paid to South Africa by Black Ministers in the case of Katanga, that is to say, while it was still an independent state. Those Ministers were received here. Just as non-White states like India and Egypt had had non-White representation here in the past, suitable form could be found for the maintenance of harmonious relations between ourselves and the Black states of Africa; it depended on them not on us. The people who were unwilling, who were interfering, were they, not we. I think that was a sensible reply. I still maintain that since we have so many neighbouring states, an easy and sensible method would be to appoint a travelling ambassador who, when any problem presented itself, would be available to visit the country concerned. In the same way it would be sensible on the part of the Black states, when they have dealings with us in connection with some matter or other, to pay us a visit through one of their Cabinet Ministers who is best informed on the subject so that the particular matter can be ironed out. We are near enough for all of them to follow this cheaper method. That is the form in which a beginning can at least be made with diplomatic relationships, and that form, in my opinion, could continue to be used effectively for a long time to come. That is my reply on that point.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated this morning that I had claimed that South Africa’s position was perfectly normal.

I said nothing of the kind. Sir, I described the Leader of the Opposition yesterday as a puppeteer (“popspeler”). I want to put it even more clearly. He is like a man who goes to a circus where there is a stall in which one shoots down dolls in order to win a prize. The difference is simply this: He is the manager of the stall; he puts up the dolls himself and shoots down his own dolls to win his own prizes. [Interjections.] He may shoot straight— he says he shoots straight—he may shoot straight at his own dolls, but in shooting at our arguments he misses the target time and again.

Give an example.

I am going to give a series of examples. I am going to give a series of examples from what he stated here this morning in a few words. He alleged that my attitude was that the position here was normal. The position is not normal in any part of the world to-day. Nobody has ever said that we are living under normal world conditions. We are living in a troubled world, and everybody admits that world conditions have their effect on South Africa. Even if the Opposition had been in power they would have been powerless to do anything about the abnormal atmosphere and the disputes which exist in the modern world and which have also their effect on South Africa. No Government could exist • in South Africa to-day which tried to do everything that the world wanted, and even then we would still be living in an abnormal world and an abnormal South Africa with all sorts of troubles. That is a fact. What we do say is that, bearing in mind the situation in the world and the charges against South Africa, there is so much stability, so much confidence in South Africa under the rule of this Government, and that there is so much peace and quiet, relatively, that most countries of the world envy us our stability and our peace and order. That is certainly a degree of normality of which we can be proud and that we need not sneer at. It is nonsensical, therefore, to come along with the charge that we pretend that there are no difficulties and that we close our eyes to whatever difficulties there may be. I say again that the fact that we are pleased about and of which we are proud, is our economic situation is so stable that investors from all over the world are anxious to invest their money here. They would not do so if they expected political unrest or race unrest here in the near future.

We can be proud of the fact that the efforts of agitators, aided by persons and forces and money from various parts of the world, including the two conflicting communist groups, have not succeeded; that we have succeeded in maintaining order here. We can be proud of the fact that we have every reason to believe that rebellion will not be able to fear its head here in the near future, thanks to our Police Force and its efficiency, amongst other things; thanks to the thoroughness of the Minister of Justice in combating those elements which seek to stir up unrest, and thanks to the fact that, like the Government, he has not allowed himself to be intimidated by the pressure groups and by the attacks made by members of the Opposition, attacks for which they seek the support of the outside world, into abandoning the measures that were taken to discover the sources of unrest. That is why we have normality in that limited sense of the word.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also put up another skittle. According to him, I am supposed to have said that our policy was chosen without regard to world opinion. He quoted what I had said previously about the fact that we were working out the further details of the Bantu homelands policy with due regard to what is happening in the outside world, But that is simply another skittle that he himself put up. I advanced the argument that, in striving to achieve our aim. we were not allowing ourselves to be influenced by the outside world into accepting the policy that they want us to accept, the course that they want us to adopt, namely the course of integration, because that is what they want. I never said, however, that we were taking no notice of the outside world. Naturally, a State like South Africa must take into account what goes on beyond its borders. At the United Nations Organization, for example, we are fighting for the interests for which we must fight, but there is a great difference between choosing your own policy (with due regard to the problems which are created by attacks which are made upon you) and allowing other people who attack you to choose your policy. I said at that time, and I say it again, that both the Opposition and we and everybody in South Africa would have preferred to have continued to live under the traditional system of, say, the days prior to World War II, when it was perfectly natural, and accepted as perfectly natural and customary throughout the entire British world, including South Africa, which was then a part of that British world, for the White states to act as the protector of a whole series of Asiatic and African nations. That was a situation which was much more convenient to us than the situation which developed after World War II, when, because of the competition between the communist and the Western ideologies, and under the pressure of the growing liberalism, which was in fact conditioned by the communist ideology, there was a change in the spirit, the demands and the expectations of all nations. Britain and Belgium and France then fell in with alarming rapidity—and it is admitted to-day that that was a great mistake—with the idea which was held out to them as to how they could bring about peace on earth. I said that we must take that new situation into account. In other words, I am saying nothing strange in saying that all of us—and I include the Opposition; it would also have been much easier for them —would have preferred to have had the old situation, where we did not have to deal with these problems, and where everybody was happy with the situation as it existed. And if I add to that that we are all influenced by world trends, then I am not saying anything that is unusual either. I said that in that new world situation we must all think and decide how we can achieve our aims. I do not dispute that. But—I repeat this—there is a great difference between the way in which the Opposition want to take world opinion into account, and the way in which we take world opinion into account. We are not going to allow world opinion to dictate to us, but we do take into account the fact that all nations strive to achieve freedom and self-determination. We say that the way the world wants to see that ideal achieved in South Africa, viz. through integration, is wrong. We say there is an alternative and better method. Even though the whole world does not want it, we can and must apply this alternative method and we must convert the world to the realization that by means of this alternative method that ideological object can also be attained, viz. the freedom of people and the right of self-determination over their own lot, and self-government. That is what we are doing. We take world opinion into consideration, in regard to the new spirit which has developed, but we do not agree with the demands it makes of us in regard to how we should act, because such a course of action would lead to self destruction. I attack the United Party because it bows to world opinion in the sense that it gives heed to those demands also in regard to methods of action. The United Party pays heed to what is said outside in regard to what the internal policy of South Africa should be, even if that would lead to the destruction of the White nation and its Government here. The United Party says that is not what it wants and that it will not happen, but it is wrong in its judgment. Events in Africa and elsewhere prove that it is wrong. I shall come back a little later to the distinction which the Leader of the Opposition draws between us and Southern Rhodesia. In the meantime, I again emphasize that he has put up a skittle here by attacking me because I am alleged to have said that I take no notice of world opinion, whereas in fact the gravamen of my argument was that I bear it in mind but that I do not want to allow the outside world to die tate to me what South Africa’s method should be to save its White population from going under.

Another skittle he put up was to say that this policy puts South Africa in deadly danger, inter alia, from the communists. He said that we in South Africa would be of less use to the West in the struggle against Communism as the result of the policy we follow than we would have been if their policy had been implemented, or if the policy which others want to enforce on us, and which the United Party wants to implement, is followed, viz. that of integration. But is that true? Is that true if we test it by what has happened in other parts of Africa? Was it not said at that time also that the guarantee for Western civilization to retain the support of, e.g. Ghana, was to give such countries self government? It was said that if they were given self-government they would be so proud and glad because they had received it from the hands of their mother, Britain, that they would stand by her side for ever in the struggle against Communism.

Just like in the Transkei.

I am now dealing with something else. I am dealing with the argument that we are creating a deadly danger here, but there the opposite would be achieved by giving them freedom. Therefore in that case something was done which we should not do. That course of action in fact gave Communism a foothold on the West Coast of Africa. In the case of Zanzibar, which was given its independence, an instrument was placed in the hands of the communists immediately on the East Coast, according to all the signs and the evidence we have had so far. On two sides of Africa—there are also other examples which may be mentioned; I could mention examples in North Africa—footholds have already been gained by Communism. If South Africa is made a multi-racial state in the same way, and if the Black man could be influenced by Communism when he gets his Transkeian territory, then that same man, when eventually he gets domination over the greater South Africa with all its assets, will similarly be able to be a better and stronger instrument in the hands of the communists. Is that not a more deadly danger? As against that, if the White people maintain their position in South Africa as a strong nation, economically and also militarily, then even if it should happen (and it need not necessarily happen) that some of the Bantu areas which develop towards increasing independence, whether they belong to Britain or whether they are ours, would give the communists a foothold, the powerful White South Africa can be a great asset and a fort in the world struggle against Communism. I say we are not placing the world or South Africa in deadly danger as the result of our policy. On the contrary, we will retain for the Western world the only certain ally in Africa which it can have, even though what the hon. member for Yeoville predicts should happen, something which I do not think is likely to happen. In any case, we will do our best to prevent it happening. However, even if their worst fears materialize, the continued existence of a South Africa governed by Whites will be a great asset and sanctuary for the White man of South Africa and for the Western world in this struggle against Communism.

Let me give another example of the skittles set up by the Leader of the Opposition. He says it is the fault of the Government that we do not possess the High Commission territories. Now I want to ask whether anybody dare in all sincerity allege that before the world and before this country? Ever since 1910 persons like General Smuts and General Botha could never succeed in getting the High Commission territories put under the protection of South Africa. Even at the time when the old outlook prevailed, viz. that the White man should govern the Bantu, Britain kept her hold on those territories by making the excuse that the people there had to decide for themselves. Can the Leader of the Opposition now honestly say that, in the new spirit of the post-Second World War period, when Britain inter alia freed the territories in Africa which were under her sovereignty, these High Commission territories would have been willing, or that even Britain would have been willing, to hand them over to South Africa? Would they have handed them over to a South Africa which according to the United Party policy says we will allow them to participate in a limited representation in this Parliament, but as Whites we will retain our domination? Everybody sees what is happening in Southern Rhodesia. World opinion, in so far as it is expressed by UN, says that Britain may not argue in that way, namely to have a partnership with the Whites in supremacy. Can the Leader of the Opposition therefore rightly say that it is our fault that these Protectorates have not become part of the Republic? I say that Britain would not have and could not have handed over the High Commission territories to any Government in South Africa. I further say this: Talking about realistic politics, as the Leader of the Opposition did yesterday, the only realistic politics is for us to say to-day: Let us accept that the Bantu inhabitants of those territories want to govern themselves; let us, by accepting that, lay the foundation for the possibility of having a policy of good neighbourliness. Then one can at least try to avoid whatever dangers there may be. Still laying claim to those territories, as the United Party does, as part of a White-dominated, although multi-racial, South Africa, is just looking for trouble and conflict with the inhabitants of those, with Britain and with the outside world.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also again put up the skittle that we are alleged to have said that the High Commission territories would also become like Cuba or Zanzibar, while the United Party says: Rather three Cubas than seven additional ones. They therefore immediately presuppose that all Bantu states in South Africa will develop into communist states. They express a great lack of confidence in the Xhosa, the Zulu, the Tswana and every Bantu group in our country. Let me now, as against his lack of confidence in their commonsense, say the opposite. I believe that the Bantu of South Africa—and I speak from experience—feel very strongly about self-government, but they are also very much opposed to coming under the domination of Communism. I further believe that if only we can avoid these continuous attacks, both by the Opposition and by others, on our good intentions towards the Bantu, then we will prevent those areas from becoming communist satellites.

I say that the accusation of the Leader of the Opposition in this respect is also very deplorable. It is a very deplorable demonstration of lack of confidence by the same party which says that under a multi-racial Government it will retain the friendship of the Bantu. But today he is prepared to malign them and to say that independence will lead to the establishment of seven Cubas or Zanzibars! I condemn that from the point of view of the Bantu; I condemn this form of attack on their spirit and feelings.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition further says that we are putting the Bantu in a position of power where he can not only become more inimical towards us but can also blackmail the Republic in respect of the conditions of service of the labour coming from the Bantu areas, over which we are giving them a greater say. That is of course a position which exists in any case in regard to a portion of our labour force, but that the Leader of the Opposition does not mention. Are the Bantu who come to work in our mines from Nyasaland not workers from another state? Will the workers coming from Basutoland not also come from another state? And is there not already proof that those states attach so much value to the income earned by their citizens here that they—and even the communist group in Basutoland says so—want to maintain good relations with South Africa? The fact is that their workers here are already earning so much money which they take back to their territories that it almost forms the basis of their economy. Why now insinuate, why now suggest, that those states will cause trouble for our mines over the wages their people earn? Or that they will cause trouble for our farmers or our industries over the wages earned by the workers there? I think that is just stirring up feelings which do not exist yet. No, the contrary is rather true, namely that they are grateful that that source of income is so near and is still willing to employ that labour, which is paid so much more than Bantu labour can earn in any other part of Africa.

Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that we are undermining the basis of our resistance in respect of the outside world by accepting the Coloured and the Indian populations as a permanent part of our population. On the one hand, of course, we are dealing with the Coloureds who are a permanent part of our population. There it is not a case of “accepting”. Then, secondly, we have the Indians to whom he is really referring. It is true that it was our policy that the Indian section of the population should rather be repatriated, but neither does their country or origin want to accept them, nor do they want to leave South Africa, in spite of all the criticism of South Africa (whether that is expressed by some of them or emanates from their country of origin). They want to remain here because they are so much happier and more prosperous here. It is therefore clearly necessary for anyone who follows a realistic political policy— and again I cast that word back at the Leader of the Opposition—to accept that the Indians are here as a settled community. If the Leader of the Opposition says that he is not yet prepared to accept the Indians as a permanent community here, I could have understood his attack. But that is not what he is prepared to do. He is prepared not only to accept them as a permanent part of the population of South Africa, but also to accept them as a permanent section of the multi-racial nation he wants to create.

It already exists.

Our standpoint is different. We accept that the Indians are here. We accept that the policy of repatriation has come to naught. We accept that we cannot keep on not creating machinery for self government for them in the hope that they will all return to India. We do not, however, accept them as part of our nation. Under those circumstances we must now decide how, in terms of our policy of apartheid, our policy of separation, we can also give them a way of life and create conditions as a result of which they can be given self-government in regard to matters which particularly affect them. The model for that is to be found in what we are doing for the Coloured population. In other words, it is true that we have accepted them as a permanent section of the population of the country, but in addition we have suggested a method by which they are not to be integrated but by which, as in respect of our Coloured population, they can be given their own government and opportunities for making a living and increasing possibilities for rendering service to their own people. With that also the world can find no fault, except those who like the Opposition, want them to be integrated in one multiracial nation, in one common Parliament, where they will be rendered powerless by the Bantu majority. That is something which we cannot and will not allow.

Then the Leader of the Opposition put up another skittle. He said that the United Party policy was not comparable with the British policy. What was the crux of the British policy in respect of its territories in Africa?

Separate Bantustans.

No, the crux of the British policy in regard to predominantly Black countries like Ghana was in fact separate Bantu states, but elsewhere it was partnership. The word “Bantustan”, which the hon. member for Yeoville is now using in respect of Ghana is, in passing, a sneering term which members of the opposition use for something which is not really regarded as a state. In view of the fact that the hon. member does not usually refer to Britain sneeringly he ought not to do it in regard to Britain’s actions in the case of Ghana either, which he formerly also triumphantly held up as a model state …

I challenge the hon. the Prime Minister to say where I did that.

Before I went to the Prime Ministers’ Conference hon. members opposite lauded Ghana and even told us that we should beware of what Ghana thought about this, that and the other. If that was not lauding a British creation, then I do not know what it was. But in any case, the point is this, that in respect of countries in Africa in which there were reasonably large White populations, like Kenya, Tanganyika and the Federation of Central Africa, the British policy was to have the Whites as the senior partners in a multiracial state, with the non-Whites as junior partners. That was the course Britain adopted and hoped would succeed. I allege that we find that basic standpoint also adopted by the United Party. It is true that the United Party talks about a racial partnership, whereas in some cases Britain thought in terms of a constitution for a Central Government, with all kinds of ways of electing representatives, and with all kinds of arrangements by which White domination could be ensured. In certain details that is different from the race federation plan, but basically it is the same; it has the same basis of integration, of a multi-racial state, of White senior partners and Black junior partners. All those essential facts were characteristic of the British policy and also characterizes the policy of the United Party. That is my comparison. Now I say that thereafter Britain deviated from that standpoint in the case of Tanganyika and Kenya, although when it first tried to apply that policy it knew what the ratio was of Black to White, that ratio which is now used as the excuse for the latest development. Britain allowed itself to be forced away from a partnership government which the Whites dominated, and in the direction of Black domination. I am not now accusing Britain in this regard, but I am just stating it as a fact that from the moment it accepted the policy of integration and multi-racialism, the logical consequences in which it landed are the same as the logical consequences must be in terms of the policy of the United Party, even though they still do not want to recognize it.

Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition makes the point that in the Central African Federation the position was different from ours, because their ratio was one to 36, and here it is one to four. Of course we are aware of that difference in the ratio. But that is not the important point. The important point is that when the Federation was established ten or more years ago, it was held up to us as the ideal solution. Then the Federation was held up to us as the solution which would eventually convince the Republic that we were wrong in regard to our apartheid policy in South Africa and that we would have to follow the road of racial integration and multiracialism; the Federation would still one day prove to us that the United Party was on the right road. Then those hon. members opposite also knew about the ratio of one to 36 there and the ratio of one to four here. Then that difference did not cause any difficulty. Then the British policy in regard to the Federation afforded them reasons for saying that South Africa should adopt it as its model. The ideal policy was being applied there! The ex-member of the United Party who became the High Commissioner of the Federation in London, Mr. Robinson, said so himself. He said in this Parliament that the United Party policy was the same as the one being followed in the Federation, and not a single member opposite, including the Leader, denied it. But now that it has failed, now that this ideal test, this great proof, the contrary of apartheid, has failed, they say: “No, but it had to fail there because the ratio was wrong, and now we will prove it”. To that my reply immediately is that the ratio of one to four with a policy of multiracialism and partnership affords just as little protection as a ratio of one to 36. Again a skittle has been put up in order to attack us, but this attack has no actual substance.

I want to mention another example. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to prove that integration can succeed by giving examples of where it succeeded. What are the examples he gives? On the one hand he takes Switzerland, an old composite state which has to this day preserved the Italian sections, the German sections and the French sections. To a reasonable extent they still exist independently next to each other. The various cantons have been preserved as they were in years gone by. In any case, this long history of a highly civilized White population proves that it developed over the same long period during which the states of Italy and Germany and France grew, also from smaller sections. They experienced precisely the same long history of inner amalgamation. Now the Leader of the Opposition calls this integration as if this were a recent throwing together of sections of separate large states or nations which already existed! When Switzerland was established, there was no united Italy and there was no united Germany. Then there were widely-scattered loose tribal groups, and of their own free will, and under special circumstances prevailing in those mountainous regions, Switzerland was formed from related language groups which, however, never formed part of the present large neighbouring states. Therefore it is not a comparable state to prove that integration can succeed, even between Whites and Whites, and certainly even less between Whites and Blacks or between Indians and Malays and Chinese. I took my examples from attempts to assimilate strange groups in order to prove that integration fails. When one deals with groups which differ greatly from one another, integration fails. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned Belgium as his second example, a country which came into being under certain political circumstances, where even to this day there are sources of conflict, even though all the people are White and fairly closely related racially. What the Leader of the Opposition avoids doing is to mention a better example, a better comparison, namely Cyprus, where until recently UN and everybody else thought that they had succeeded in integrating two races, the Turks and the Greeks, into one integrated state. There we see what happens when one tries to bring together people who do not belong to the same race. That is another skittle which was put up, and also this attack was futile.

I want to mention another example of a skittle he put up. He said that I alleged that there were only two alternatives, but that there was also a third one which would satisfy world opinion. It is correct that I said so, and I continue to say it, viz. that one either follows the course of separation, when one must accept the logical consequences right up to the final point of having separate states, or else one believes in the course of assimilating the various races in one state, and then one must also accept the eventual consequences, viz. domination by the majority in those states, i.e. Black domination. Those are the two alternatives. There is no middle course except during a transitional stage. Now I am told: But how can we gain the friendship of the outside world, how can we get world opinion on our side by merely making concessions in the interim, because what have a few of the leaders overseas not said already. What Mr. Thomas, the Deputy-Minister of Britain, said at UNO is then quoted. He is alleged to have said that if only there were “moderation” it would at least give friendly nations a chance to breath, a chance to assist more. That was precisely what was said to me at the Prime Ministers’ Conference, namely, that if we would only concede this one point we would be able to continue to remain a member. But what was the other point we had to take into consideration? If friendly countries were given a chance to breath because South Africa had sacrificed her principles, further pressure would be brought to bear on them after they have had that chance to breath, further concessions would be expected so as to give them a further chance to breath. That was what was literally said to me at the Conference referred to, namely, that “it would give us hope”. I said: If we want to remain a member what must be conceded? The reply was in connection with the Coloured. I put the further question: Say for instance we do what you say we must do in connection with the Coloureds, will that put an end to all the disputes in the Commonwealth about our membership? Will you also promise never to talk about our domestic affairs?” The reply was: “No, we cannot promise that, but it will give us some hope.” Hope gradually to force us further, step by step! The only meaning that can be attached to the statement by Mr. Thomas and to that of any other person when they adopt this kind of attitude is that we must make a concession which will give us the opportunity once again to fight and to argue with the Afro-Asiatic organized group of nations for a period, until the pressure becomes so great that we shall once again have to give them something that can once again be negotiated about. That has been my experience throughout. Was our entire struggle at UNO not a concatenation of precisely the same requests? Where we could we did assist without sacrificing our principles or policy. Yet further demands were continually made. The Leader of the United Party now wants us to sacrifice all our principles, the very foundation on which we want to build our future. We must now give the Western nations an opportunity of speaking to the others and of saying to them: “These people have now conceded and made way; we are now on the road to integration; be a little more patient; give us more chance and we shall ultimately achieve what you want us to achieve; but do not squeeze the peach ripe.” That is what the Opposition is actually saying by implication and that was why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition used the words that it would be “a moderation of direction”. He said there were “a number of steps” that were important. So you see, Sir, they want to change the direction. They want to change the direction in which I said the one road was running to the direction of the other road, the end being what it is heading for. The important thing is not the number of steps the United Party or we may perhaps take! As long as there is a change of direction. That we cannot and shall not accept. If we were to do that the “mortal danger” to South Africa to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred would exist', the mortal danger to the continued existence of the Whites.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition put up a last puppet that I want to deal with. He said I alleged that “everybody thinks like the Prime Minister, the whole population”. I call hon. members present here as my witnesses. When did I ever say everybody thought like we did? When did I ever say the entire population thought like we did? I did not say that. What I did say was that if he claimed that half the White population thought like the United Party, like the Opposition, and he based that statement on the figures of the last election, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was making a very big mistake. I also told him there were many United Party supporters who would still vote for his Party but who, as far as this matter was concerned, agreed with us and agreed with us to such an extent that if we were forced to fight for the continued existence of the Whites they would stand by us on the basis of our policy. I added that there were many who had already gone so far as to be unwilling to vote for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition but I never said the entire population supported us. I still maintain that he cannot even lay claim, as he thinks he can, to half the White electorate. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition went further, he said the Coloured community did not agree with us.

I dispute that. I accept that a large section of the Coloured community may perhaps prefer to be integrated with the Whites and that consequently they will be sympathetic towards the policy of the United Party. But I maintain equally strongly that our experience has been that large sections of the Coloured community have no illusions about the apparent benefits they will derive from such sham-integration with the White people. They remember the past. They remember the days when there was supposed to have been integration in the political field and how that meant nothing to them. They are also aware of the extent to which their lives have been improved and of the improvements that will still come their way under the policy of separation, improvements in the level at which they will be able, professionally, to render service to their people, in the other services to their people in the posts that have been created for them, in the financial benefits that flow from that and the self-respect which accompanies that, They also realize that there is a better relationship between the Government and their community, between the White individual and their community. They realize that and the result is that large sections of the Coloured community will not follow the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

He then talked about the Bantu people and he gave the example of Poto. Poto is a decent person. He is an agent who has unfortunately fallen into the hands of a small liberal group who have abused him. But Poto does not represent the spirit of the Bantu in the Transkei or of the Bantu in South Africa. The Bantu in South Africa are fully aware of the benefits they can derive from our policy. It is undoubtedly true that there are sections of the Bantu people who are influenced to prefer the method of integration. Some of them, particularly the agitator type, do so, hoping that they will in that way be able to lay their hands on the whole of South Africa with all its wealth and to govern it. The sole object of others is only to have a say in the government of the country on the theoretically liberal basis of multi-racialism. As opposed to those, I say, you have the major portion who think for themselves and who are aware of the advantages of the set-up which flows from the policy of separate development. They desire it. I can give many examples because I am in close contact with them and I continually receive letters from leading Bantu who state that directly on their own behalf and on behalf of people in their vicinity.

What is the effect of the point made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? The effect of it is to add grist to the mill of the Oliver Tambos and others who give evidence before UNO and its committees in order to harm and injure South Africa. If the impression can be created that South Africa is weak and divided internally, that South Africa can consequently be attacked and its Government overthrown, with comparative little trouble or danger, in the interests of another one, then South Africa faces the big danger that we shall be involved in a struggle not only against boycotts, but in an armed struggle. That is where the danger lies. But once the world outside realizes that South Africans will stand together to the bitter end to defend their rights as stated by this Government, namely, the continued existence of the Whites and the granting of their rights to the non-Whites, in each case according to the method most fitting they will think twice. If our assailants realize that they will have to deal with a united South Africa, a united South Africa that will resist any attempt to deprive it of this right by way of boycotts or armed force, it will not be so easy to launch either of these two forms of attack. This is the evidence I am giving now and which I have often given before and which I want to echo through the world, right into the forums of UNO and right into the governmental bodies of the mightiest nations of the world, namely, that they will have to deal with a united South Africa should they try to force us off our course. I deprecate it most strongly when the United Party, vis-a-vis its Leader together with Tambo and others, try to undermine this faith in South Africa’s power of resistance.

I do not want at this late stage to participate in the debate we had this morning on Bultfontein, because I want to deal with another matter which is a question of an attack on my honour, and I hope the hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter) will not leave the House because I want to refer to him. But before I deal with him I want to say it with all the sincerity that I possess that the attitude of this Government, from the Prime Minister down, together with the behaviour of hon. members on that side of the House when this serious matter was debated has done more damage to the good name of South Africa than anything this Government has done in the last 15 years. Sir, it is not too late for the hon. the Prime Minister to get up at this last minute and show that he is a big man by saying that he will accept the suggestion of a full judicial inquiry. But do not confuse bigness with greatness; the terms are not synonymous.

But I got up to deal with the attack on my honour by the hon. member for Vryheid. Sir, this is not the first time this has occurred. He has done it three or four times before. We are supposed to be honourable gentlemen here who take each other’s word, and each time I denied it and I say that the statement he made during my absence, this gallant, honourable, chivalrous gentleman, is completely false. He has suggested that after three policemen had been murdered under the most appalling circumstances in a township near Johannesburg, I had gone in the next day or the day after and told the Natives that I was their friend, in other words, sympathized with them after these murders. That was the impression given to the House.

He said that you said that you were not a policeman but their friend.

Yes, that makes it still worse. The facts are as follows: I say that this is an appalling insult to me. After that dreadful thing had happened, I, after a discussion with the Prime Minister, took my car alone, only with my chauffeur and my private secretary as far as I can recall. We did not even tell the police or the Press, but we went into that township where there were about 20,000 or 30,000 Natives, we went in alone and they collected around my car and I told them …

What a brave man!

Very much more courage than we saw from certain gentlemen opposite when 20,000 Bantu marched down De Waal Drive towards the city. Anyhow, I am talking seriously in regard to a question of my honour and I trust the hon. member will have the decency to shut up whilst I am talking. I went there alone with my chauffeur and private secretary, who can bear me out. I said to these Africans, about 1,000 of whom had congregated around my car: “Up to now I have tried to be your friend because I was your spokesman who put your case before the Government, but since you have behaved like this, since you have murdered these innocent policemen who were doing their duty, you have put yourselves completely out of court and there is nothing I can do for you now and there is no excuse I can make for you in any way at all.” or words to that effect. I tried to make it clear that up to that moment I had been the man who put their case before the Government, but after their disgraceful behaviour I could no longer do so. Now, those are the facts. I say to this hon. member who made this disgraceful attack on me, that that statement is a cold, calculated lie.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Out of respect for you. Sir, and for the dignity of this House, I withdraw it. That is the only reason I withdraw it, but I want to say this, that if he ever repeats it in future he will know that he is a cold, calculated liar. Now it is on record. Sir, I want to show my contempt for that hon. member by walking out of this House now so that I need not breathe the same air that he breathes.

The Prime Minister has expressed the desire that the discussion on the Bultfontein case be dropped. I want to respect his wishes, but in the course of that portion of the debate something was said here which is so shocking, so explosive, so dangerous to the safety of South Africa, that we cannot leave it at that. There are certain members on that side of the House, in the official Opposition—I do not accuse the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) or the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Oonnan) in this regard— but there are certain members who are in the minority on that side and who are playing a certain role in South Africa and I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition knows what is going on. [Interjections.] We all know —that side of the House knows and we all know—that there are certain groups in this country and in the outside world who are going out of their way and doing their utmost to cause incidents so that there can be military intervention in South Africa.

Are you not ashamed of yourself?

I am not talking about the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor), but can she deny that the sole object of this conference which is being organized in London is to have sanctions applied against us and, if that does not work, to bring about intervention? That is all I said; I say that there are groups in this country and abroad who are causing incidents which are designed to create a state of mind that may cause a situation which must eventually result in military intervention in South Africa. We have a great deal of evidence Within South Africa to prove that; there is the fact that people have been sentenced to death in recent times; in the outside world we have evidence of this in the shape of the congress which is being held under the leadership of Segal—and the people who are taking part in that congress are not unimportant people. There is the fact that the Secretary-General of the United Nations is saying that people should not be sentenced to death in South Africa because they committed acts of sabotage or because they committed murder. What is the object of all these things? The object is to create hostility against South Africa, so that the pressure on England and America will become so strong that they will be obliged to apply economic sanctions against us and, if that does not help, to persuade America to take military action against us through the United Nations. That is the only reasonable analysis of what is going on within and outside of our borders, and in the face of all these things, in spite of the fact that the Secretary-General of the UN says that we must not impose the death sentence on people who commit acts of sabotage in this country, in spite of the fact that Mrs. Barbara Castle says that no accused in the Rivonia trial should be hanged, the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) comes along and tells the world that we have a Government which has no objection to torturing Black people to death. [Interjection.] He says that that is perfectly true. In the face of all those things they tell the world and U. Thant and Barbara Castle and Mr. Stevenson and President Johnson that there is absolutely no reason why they should not take steps against South Africa, whether by means of economic sanctions or by military force, because we have a Government here which has no objection to Black people being tortured to death.

He did not say that.

He did.

He said that what happened there was “death by torture”, and that this side of the House viewed this case in a frivolous light and as a joke.

Why did you laugh so much?

What we regarded as a joke was the figure that the Leader of the Opposition cut. But he went on to say that the Minister of Justice was cultivating a certain spirit amongst the police in this country; that he was preventing senior police officers from taking steps against people who cause “death by torture”, and he then said that what the attitude of the Minister of Justice amounted to was simply that young policemen would believe that there was no objection to their torturing people to death. That is what he said.

Well, why does the hon. member say that? He is one of the most intelligent members of this House. Why does he say it if it is not his intention to stir up hostility against this country? He himself does not believe that the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice or I would joke about a case of “death by torture”. Why then does he say it? I shall tell you, Sir, why he says it. It is because there is a devilish plot being hatched against the Republic of South Africa. I accuse the hon. member over there of the mildest thing of which I can accuse him; he is an unwilling instrument in the whole of this pattern, and I make the accusation here that there are members of that party who were fully aware of the publication of Patrick Duncan’s book; my accusation against them is that there are members in that party who knew that that book was going to be published.

Who are they?

The hon. member for Yeoville can draw his own inference. Let me put this question to him. Does he believe that there is any member on this side of the House who is sympathetic towards the idea of “death by torture”?

Why did you laugh then?

That is not what we were laughing at, and the hon. member knows that. We do not know what is going to happen, but it is as clear as a pikestaff that there are certain forces within South Africa and in the outside world which are working this thing up to a climax, where a state of mind will be created that will lead to an incident that may cause a situation which will make it almost inevitable for America and these other countries to take military steps against us.

That is treason.

I know it is treason. But let me put this question to the hon. member for Maitland: If we have a Government in this country which is sympathetic towards the idea of “death by toruture”, or if that can be said of a large section of the members of this House, does he not think that that would be an invitation to those people to intervene? [Interjections.] Sir, I see these things as three parts of a pattern; the one is the publication of Patrick Duncan’s book, a book which tries to make the world believe that the police in this country are more cruel than those nations who killed people in gas chambers; that we are dealing here with people who are extremely cruel, people who do not shrink back from “death by torture”, who are completely indifferent to “death by torture”. The next part of the pattern is to work this thing up to a climax where people may possibly be sentenced to death and the rest of the world will then put its foot down and say, “No, that we are not going to stand for!” Sir, I have been sitting in this House for 11 years and I sat for a few years on the Press Gallery, but never have I had more cold shivers running up my spine than I did when the hon. member for Zululand spoke here this afternoon. [Interjections.] Let me put this question to the hon. member for Yeoville who has such a big mouth and who sits there laughing and who is one of the leaders in this country: Does he think it is in the interests of his party or of this country that the impression should be created in the outside world that a large section of the people of this country sympathize with the idea of torturing Black people to death? [Time limit.]

Last night, when the Minister of Justice was responsible for what I think was a disgraceful performance in this House, some of the greatest sounds of hilarity came from the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). Therefore I ignore his remarks this afternoon.

That is a deliberate lie.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it unreservedly, but the hon. member accused me of being in the House and that I was concerned in the laughter when there was reference to “death by torture”, but I was not in the House at all then.

On a point of order, the allegation is made against the hon. member that he laughed when this matter was mentioned, but he was not in the House at all then.

Order! That is not the point.

That is a very serious accusation, if an hon. member on this side makes himself guilty of that sort of thing. I do not think it is fair that such an accusation should be made.

Will the Leader of the Opposition repeat what he said?

I said that last night the Minister of Justice was responsible for what I thought was a deplorable incident, and some of the loudest sounds of hilarity came from that hon. member. If he says he was not in the House then, I immediately accept it unconditionally, and I will say that the loudest sounds of hilarity came from the corner where he usually sits and where he is usually responsible for a lot of noise. But if that is so, one wonders how he could have tried to play the part in the debate which he is playing now, criticizing what members on this side of the House said last night in criticizing what the Minister said.

On a point of order, will the Leader of the Opposition be courageous enough to reply to a very clear question? This hilarity that the hon. member talks about, will he tell us exactly what it was about? Was it in regard to death by torture?

The hilarity in this House was due to a disgraceful exhibition of levity by the hon. the Minister of Justice in answering my charges against him.

Then you are not a courageous man at all.

The second thing I want to say is that the hon. member has sought to drag Patrick Duncan into this debate, but he seems to forget that I was the first man in this House to repudiate Patrick Duncan. When Patrick Duncan tried to participate in suggestions of a boycott overseas against this country, I repudiated him in this House.

Now, let us come back to the hon. the Prime Minister, who must be somwhat embarrassed by the manner in which he is defended by some of his supporters. Let me say quite frankly in reply to him that I sought the resignation of the Minister of Justice first. I sought it because of what he himself had said, and I sought it because of his behaviour in this House, and I still seek it. The hon. gentleman has given his reasons for not appointing a judicial commission and has indicated that the appointment of a commission would mean that his Government does not trust the police or are admitting that they are not controlling the police properly. I wonder whether it is necessary to suggest things of that kind, except in defence of the case he is putting up. Why then was the Snyman Commission appointed? Were they not prepared to accept the results of the police inquiry into what happened in Paarl? Why is there a commission now investigating certain activities in the Defence Force? Are they not prepared to accept that the Defence Force is able to investigate these things itself, through courts-martial, etc.? You know, Sir, when you are inconsistent it is a little difficult to apply logic in regard to matters of this sort.

Let us come back then to the debate concerning more particularly the policy of the Prime Minister. We still have not had an answer in respect of UN. I expect the Prime Minister will not take it any further. Perhaps he has reasons for it, but it does seem to me that we are still in the position where there is considerable uncertainty in that respect.

Now, I accused the hon. the Prime Minister of having two propaganda lines, one of which was to try to persuade the public that everything was normal in South Africa and that the present position was just the logical development of policies chosen in the interest of South Africa. His reply was that the position is not normal in any part of the world, and indeed, one remembers his saying not so long ago that the world was sick and that perhaps it was as well that we were isolated from it. In fact, it seems that in his view we are the only country in step. But he says that in this sick world we have achieved such stability and normality and such peace and quiet that the investors of the world have shown their confidence in us, and our prosperity is an indication of their confidence. Yet in 1963, even with control, there was a net outflow of private capital to the extent of about R94,000,000. Is that evidence of normality? Here are the figures from the Quarterly Bulletin of Statistics for March, 1964. I do not think I am quoting them incorrectly, although I do not claim to be a financier. Then we had a difference in respect of non-White policy and the effect of world opinion on that policy. The Prime Minister indicated that in his opinion there was a difference between choosing your roads with regard to world opinion and letting it be chosen for you by the world. The Prime Minister says he chose his road with regard to world opinion. I told him we chose our road regardless of world opinion, because we believed it was in the best interest of South Africa. I still say that I believe the road we have chosen is one which can be defended in the world, whereas I do not believe his can. I say I believe it can be defended because it is first of all a fundamental change in direction from the untenable proposition of the Government, partition or die, as the hon. gentleman said. I believe, secondly, it can be defended because it has regard to the facts as they are, and not as the Prime Ministter would like them to be, as is the position in regard to his policy.

I believe it can be defended because our policy provides for an immediate relief from racial tensions, and not a future hypothetical one, because we provide for an immediate sense of function among the non-White population by giving them participation at administrative and legislative levels. I think it can be defended because we show that we are prepared to share our civilization, although not to sacrifice it. I believe it can be defended because under our policy the Republic will be controlled by civilized people. I believe it shows a proper regard for the dignity and the freedom of the ordinary individual. It enables us to make the best use of our labour resources, and above all, it is being applied because we believe it is in the best interests of South Africa, and not as a concession to outside pressure. [Time limit.]

We in this corner wish to express our strongest disapproval of the allegations made against us by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and I wish to put it to him that we over here will rather laugh when they react in that rash and foolish way when they get a beating from this side. But we shall hit back loudly when such remarks as “death by torture” are made by the hon. member for Zululand and when reference is jeeringly made to the groans in the “laager” when we shall resist the Black attack of the so-called liberating army as made by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). In that case our voices will be heard across the floor of this House until you call us to order, Sir. We shall not remain quiet when the Leader of the Opposition insults us the way he has.

But I want to come back to the actual theme followed by the Leader of the Opposition in his first speech, a speech which, all in all, actually amounts to only one thing and that is that they still suffer from the misconception that this hostility on the part of the entire world towards South Africa is because of the Colour policy of the Government. Surely it is clear to every sober politician and to every person who has a clear idea of the new set-up and of the new mental political outlook of the world that that is simply a handy excuse of the Western countries, an excuse they use to support the Blacks when they attack us, thereby making a friendly gesture towards the Blacks. That is all it is. It is not the Colour policy of the Nationalist Party which is the cause of this hostility. It is something else. It is a fact that South Africa is the only stumbling block in the road of the Blacks, a stumbling block that has to be removed in order to get the whole of Africa, from north to south, under their control. It is not the Colour policy, but the result of the undeniable success the Afro-Asiatic states have had in consolidating the Western countries and in converting them to their way of thinking and their aspirations. That is why we have this hostile attitude towards us. The Black states have had great success in winning the support of the White Western countries in their aspirations and they are now indoctrinating the Whites in this country and conditioning them to the same idea. The hon. member for Sea Point laughs but it is the truth because he himself has already been conditioned. The Progressives have been conditioned to such an extent that they openly admit that they subscribe to a positive policy which will ultimately end in the Blacks taking South Africa over, which actually means, I think that they are committing treason, and according to the words of the leader of the Progressives they are publicly exposed as renegades because they wish to hasten the process and openly support the Blacks by admitting that they will submit to them.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to call me and my party renegades?

What did the hon. member say?

I said the policy they advocated amounted to that. I did not accuse the hon. member personally, but her party’s policy. [Interjections.] But this conditioning goes further and further. It already has such an influence over the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters that they say things which prove that they too are undergoing that process and we also detect that in certain circles in our national life where we did not expect it, in intellectual circles and in our churches. We detect a process of conditioning towards Liberalism whereby the Blacks are beginning to succeed in preparing people to accept their ideas as to who should control Africa in the future. The Black man wants South Africa, and as he has succeeded in conquering the major portion of Africa without any bloodshed by means of one man one vote, he similarly wants to conquer South Africa as well and if he cannot do so without any bloodshed he wants to call in the White countries to assist him in sending a liberating army to South Africa. The initial step, however, remains the conditioning of the White man to accept the plan the Black man has for Africa. The struggle the Afro-Asiatic countries are waging in Africa to-day is no longer a struggle based on economic factors. Financially they are being fattened by America and Russia. Nor it is so much a geographical ideal they are striving for, an ideal to get more “lebensraum”; they annex the entire Africa in one single word which is condensed in the motto of the Black man “Africa Wethu” (Africa is ours). It is not a struggle which is waged on those grounds; no, it has become a racial struggle; a struggle between Black and White in Africa. This Government is building the final bulwark against this process in this final bastion of White civilization at the southern tip of Africa.

Are you against all the Blacks?

Sir, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) also said something stupid yesterday when he said: “We say that in the days when General Smuts represented us at UNO we still had friends; it is true that he had opponents but he also had friends, but this Government no longer has any friends.” Sir, the hon. member completely ignores the revolutionary changes which have taken place at high level in the political world. There is a completely new setup in respect of the Africa policy. I believe General Smuts would no longer have had any of those former friends of his because he would not have been able to agree with them on their Africa policy. Nor do I believe he would still have any friends in the present set-up.

The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) let another cat out of the bag when he admitted that their policy would not satisfy the world either but that if the United Party again came into power it would create an opportunity for South Africa to rectify its Colour policy; it would give them more time to do so. He said what South Africa needed was time to make the necessary adjustments. He therefore frankly admits that their policy will not satisfy the world. That really only amounts to this that they want to have the advantage of an interim-period Government in order to hand White control in South Africa over to the Blacks. They will then supervise the transition from White to Black control. The “more time” they hope to get will only mean the end of the road which will take South Africa to the edge of a bottomless precipice; that is where the integration policy of the United Party will take us. [Time limit.]

I am sure the hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) will forgive me if I do not follow his argument immediately.

He could not follow it himself.

I am a little anxious to reply to certain of the remarks made by the hon. the Prime Minister. I was explaining why I believed that the policy of this side of the House was defensible by the Western powers whereas that of the other side of the House was not. I believe there is one fundamental reason, which I failed to add, and that is that the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister and his side of the House is a policy which is driven by fear and induced by the belief that it is not possible for White and non-White to co-operate within the framework of one State for the common good, and induced also by the belief that contact between White and non-White must lead to friction. I want to say, Sir, that we have a different approach, a different philosophy. We believe that contact can lead to understanding; we believe that there are loyalties which can transcend the differences between colours and races and that it is possible for two or three peoples to co-operate within the framework of one State for the common good. That is why I believe that our policy would not only be defensible but would lead to a very much more sympathetic approach from the countries of the Western world. The hon. gentleman has suggested that South Africa as a whole under communist control would be a far greater asset to the communist world than any other state in Africa. I could not agree with him more, but what does that prove? All he is trying to suggest is that under our policy it would come under communist control sooner than under his.

No, if it could happen to the Transkei, then in the same way it could happen to the whole of the multiracial society.

The hon. gentleman puts it that way; I accept it that way; he says that if it could happen to he Transkei it could happen to the whole of the rest of South Africa. Well, if it could happen to a White country it could happen to White South Africa. I believe that there is infinitely less chance of its happening while you have White and non-White co-operating for the common good within the framework of one State, and I believe that to try to put it that way is merely once more avoiding the issue and trying to establish what the hon. gentleman has been trying to establish for so long, which is that his is the only policy that will save South Africa, whereas I believe it is the greatest danger to South Africa that one can imagine, except perhaps Communism itself. Sir, we are at issue over the protectorates. I think the hon. gentleman in his heart of hearts would like to have some say in the development of those areas. In fact, if I am to judge from statements made by him to his own congress, perhaps somewhat unwisely on the occasion that he chose, he himself would like to see that South Africa has some say in the development of those states. I think he will agree with me that prior to the last war the stage had been reached where it was agreed that they would not be handed over without consultation with the inhabitants of the territories, but consultation did not necessarily mean consent. Sir, what happened? It was when this matter was forced into a public debate by the Nationalist Government, not under his leadership but under the leadership of a previous leader, that the British Government took the line that as far as they were concerned consultation would in future mean consent. And, Sir, what has happened? They have drifted further and further away because of the disapproval of the outside world of the policies of the hon. the Prime Minister. When I say that I believe that it is the activities of this Government which have minimized our chances of being able to co-operate naturally with those territories, I have reason for saying so.

Now, Sir, I come to the Coloureds and the Indians. The hon. gentleman has tried to draw a distinction between the policy of his party and the policy of this party in respect of the Indians and Coloureds. He has told us on many occasions that if you have two different groups within one State it is not possible to keep one in a permanent state of inferiority. What is he doing with the Indians? What plans has he for giving them representation in this House? [Interjection.] I have stated my plans many times. I even printed them, if the hon. member can read. What have we got from the hon. gentleman? What are his plans in respect of the Coloureds? He talks about the impossibility of keeping them in a permanent state of inferiority. Those are his words, not mine. I believe that you can find other standards by which to judge, that you can find other basis on which to found your representation, which can lead to a very happy and a very permanent association. But, Sir, this is the hon. gentleman’s principle, and this is the principle which he himself is now denying and attacking. Then, Sir, he sought to say that the policy of the United Party was similar to the British policy in Africa, and he tried to make us believe that this side of the House spoke with approval of Ghana before the Commonwealth Conference. If I remember rightly, my warning to the hon. gentleman was that if we moved in the direction of a Republic our future Commonwealth membership might be determined by a country like Ghana—and I was right, Sir. He delivered us over to a country of that kind. But he said that the British policy in Africa was one of partnership, with the Whites as senior partners and the non-Whites as junior partners, and he said that the result under our policy would be the same as in those territories. Sir, I have drawn his attention to the differences in the ratios; I have drawn his attention to it on many occasions. Bu when he speaks of his treatment of the Asiatic and the Coloured, is he not destroying the force of his own argument? Because the very thing of which he accused me is the thing of which he is guilty himself, and I cannot see how he can argue that way.

Then I come to the last point that I want to make. The hon. gentleman says that there are only two ways in which you can get world opinion on your side; the one is by handing over the country to Black domination and the other is to have complete separation. But he does concede that perhaps for an interim period, under our policy, we might have the sympathy of the Western world. He says that I want him to sacrifice principle. I do— not because of outside pressure but because the principles which he is following are in my opinion dangerous and disastrous for South Africa. I believe that it is only under a policy of the kind which we advocate that you can ever have that co-operation between the races which could lead to a situation where he could have virtually the whole population on his side in the event of interference from outside. May I remind the hon. gentleman, and I think I am correct in saying this—that my note reads, “virtually the whole population”, not the whole population. I know that there are some who will support the hon. gentleman under most circumstances, but I do not think I could have been guilty of saying “the whole population”; I said “virtually the whole population”. But, Sir, he will not have it now because he cannot carry the Coloureds with him; he cannot carry the Asiatics with him and he cannot carry a very large section, I believe the vast majority, of the Bantu population with him, and I say again that I believe that the greatest weapon for South Africa in the outside world is the fact that here is an organized Opposition that does think otherwise and does give promise of another solution without the use of force or sanction so far as the outside world is concerned.

We have had the opportunity of listening here for two days to Opposition speakers, and I think it has become perfectly clear to all of us on this side of the House that the only object of their speeches is to create chaos in this country in the hope that the United Party will then come into power.

Sir, various members on that side have attacked the hon. the Minister of Justice here. As one who knows the platteland well, as one who knows the views of the public outside, I want to give the United Party the assurance that the National Party has no better propaganda machine than the United Party itself. It is generally admitted to-day, on this side and on that side of the House, that we are living in an unsafe world. We all admit that that is the case. In these circumstances, where steps have to be taken against saboteurs, against people who commit high treason, against people who are out to commit murder and manslaughter in this country, against people who are out to damage people’s properties, who are out to blow up and to destroy innocent women and children, I want to ask the Opposition whether they think it is the right thing to do to make such a frivolous attack upon the Government and to come here with the accusation that the Minister of Justice is acting too harshly. Sir, the best evidence that one can adduce to refute the Opposition’s charges is the judgments of our courts. So far, with very few exceptions, nobody who has been detained and charged with sabotage has not in fact been found guilty by the courts. I do not want to do the Opposition an injustice by saying that they no longer have confidence in the judgments of our courts, but one cannot help doubting it. These are the circumstances which prevail in our country, and in these circumstances the Minister of Justice must take stringent action. I can assure the United Party that many of my friends, who are supporters of the United Party and who openly talk to me about the conditions in this country, are constantly expressing their appreciation of what is being done by the hon. the Minister of Justice. The Opposition have now asked the hon. the Prime Minister to dismiss the Minister of Justice from the Cabinet because the steps taken by him are allegedly cruel. As far as this side of the House is concerned I think I have every right to say that we all have the greatest respect for him; that we all have the greatest confidence in him, and we want to give him the assurance that we appreciate the steps he takes to maintain peace and order in this country and to protect the lives and properties of our people. The steps taken by him are appreciated not only by supporters of this side of the House but also by supporters of the other side and by the entire nation. We want to assure him that we stand solidly behind him.

The Opposition have launched an attack here which is clearly a disguised attempt to bring the police into disfavour with the public. Sir, there are 28,000 members of the Police Force and it is humanly impossible to exercise such effective control over 28,000 men that there will be no transgressions at all; there are bound to be one or more cases where people overstep the mark. I accept that amongst these 28,000 there are isolated cases, as in the Bultfontein case, for example, where the police do overstep the mark. We on this side of the House disapprove of such conduct; we have nothing but contempt for it, but we are dealing here with human beings. We know what a difficult task the police sometimes have, and in order to bring out the truth they sometimes resort to methods which cannot be justified and which are in conflict with the law. But that does not entitle us to proclaim to the world that all members of our Police Force are gangsters and cruel individuals, and, after all, that is the impression that one is given by United Party speakers. This attack by the United Party amounts to a disguised attempt to create chaos in this country so that they can get into power because they know that even their own newspapers have predicted that unless there is chaos in this country they have no hope of ever getting into power again. Sir, I can only say that one deprecates these methods used by the United Party. In my constituency there are United Party supporters, born South African Party supporters, children of people who supported General Botha and General Smuts, who do not like this sort of thing; they are despicable and mean and beneath our dignity.

Sir, I want to refer here with great appreciation to the assurance which the hon. the Prime Minister once again gave the people of our country yesterday afternoon that he is not going to allow other nations to poke their noses into our domestic affairs. As the hon. the Prime Minister pointed out, they would not allow us to interfere in their domestic affairs; why then should we allow interference in our affairs? We have our own philosophy; we have a history of 300 years behind us, and racial separation, which we continually fight about in this House, is a heritage of ours. Racial separation is one of our traditions; it is one of our most important possessions, and precisely the same position obtained in the days when the South African Party and the United Party were in power; they maintained separation between White and non-White by means of legislation, and where loopholes were discovered in the laws that were passed to bring about separation, amending Bills were introduced from time to time to close those loopholes. We have always had separation between White and non-White; we had it in the past and the vast majority of our people are still in favour of it to-day. We are not going to allow other countries to dictate our policy to us.

The hon. the Prime Minister has rendered a very great service to our country by giving us this assurance and by making it known to the world that we are not going to allow other countries to dictate our policy to us. There is no investor who is going to invest his money in a country where the Government in power follows a vacillating policy which it changes from day to day. [Time limit.]

I find it very difficult to follow the hon. member who has just sat down in his attempt to continue a debate that has, by tacit agreement, been concluded. The United Party, the Opposition, raised this question of the Bultfontein judgment and put forward our request that the matter be investigated by a judicial tribunal in which the police would assist in order, firstly, to clear the issue, to clear the good name of South Africa and to clear the good name of the majority of the members of the South African Police. The Government have decided not to grant that request, chiefly on the grounds stated by the hon. the Minister, that it would chop off the hands of the police, that it would render the police helpless. That has clarified the issue. We now know where we stand. We do not want this debate to become an opportunity for the Prime Minister to escape his responsibility for the fundamental problems that we face in South Africa. We do not want the Prime Minister to escape his responsibility for the very attitude that has been created in the minds of many people in South Africa, which leads young policemen to believe that they are serving their country when they are guilty of things such as those committed by the accused at Bultfontein. We do not think the Prime Minister should be allowed to get away from that responsibility.

Who started discussing the Bultfontein case?

Sir, hon. members opposite are perfectly welcome to go on discussing this matter; we cannot stop them but the Prime Minister will not escape in that way. We were most interested in the two entrances by the Prime Minister into this debate, in which he tried to justify his attitude and his creed once more. I found it fascinating because we know exactly the course that South Africa has taken since 1948. In the first ten or 11 years after 1948 when the new Government took over we found a hardening of race attitudes in South Africa, a determination to cast into rigid laws all the conventions which had existed before and which were observed by 99 per cent of the people; and contraventions of those laws were punishable by sentences of imprisonment and other of extreme penalties. But that, of course, was never intended to solve and never could solve the problems of South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister, when he became Prime Minister—and I give him full marks for this— realized that the Government could not continue on the purely negative course they had embarked upon in 1948; he realized, as he told us to-day, that the world was changing and that a policy was necessary for the Nationalist Government, a policy not only with a negative aspect but also with something that could be presented as a positive aspect. And then in 1959 on 9 April he announced this Bantustan fantasy of his. The Prime Minister is entitled to believe in that policy, and I know he does; he is entitled to call upon the people to support him; he is entitled to advance all the legitimate arguments that he can find in support of that, but why must he create his own history in trying to support this argument? We heard to-day from the hon. gentleman that this idea of keeping the Black people of South Africa in their own country, so to speak, is the traditional policy of South Africa; that he as Prime Minister is actually fortunate that he has these Native territories ready-made to turn into sovereign states. Sir, where are these territories? So far there is only one; the only one which can reasonably be expected to develop into a separate political entity is the Transkei, which is situated in the Cape Province. But where is a similar territory in Natal or the Free State or the Transvaal? Why has the Prime Minister not created any Transkeis in the Transvaal and Natal? It is because they do not exist; because territories such as the Transkei are not part of the history of South Africa. The history of South Africa has been in the opposite direction everywhere except in the Cape. The wisdom of the old Republican Governments of the Transvaal caused them to break up the Native areas, and to-day you have more than 80 separate Native areas in that province, areas which the hon. the Prime Minister cannot yet consolidate, so thorough was the denial of his thinking by the old Transvaal republicans. And in Natal you have the same position. In Natal I am told that there 112 separate Native territories which the Prime Minister has not yet consolidated because it was the deliberate policy of the old Natal settlers not to create cohesive, potential separate Native states, and where they existed, as in the case of Zululand, they broke them down by bodies which they whimsically called Delimitation Commissions. The exception is the Cape Province. I can remember that when I was at school I had to read a history book written by a certain gentleman called Stocken-strom, a history book which was obviously written to indoctrinate young Afrikaans lads such as myself at that time. We were taught through that book, and if we did not have intelligent teachers to give us a true perspective we might have fallen for this trick, but we were taught through that book that the most wicked thing that the poor people of the Cape Province ever suffered under was the policy of 10 Downing Street to create and to maintain a Native state for Kaffraria, east of, first, the Fish River and afterwards east of the Kei River. We were told of the continuous wars that came about as the result of that; we were told of the desperation of the settlers on the frontiers and of the resistance by enlightened British Governors in the Cape against Downing Street’s policy to create a Bantustan in the Eastern Cape. We were told about that wicked man Lord Glenelg who was responsible very largely for this policy; I remember it so well. It was only when a greater man came to the Cape Province, Sir George Grey, and broke down that policy by putting White magistrates into the Transkei that there was peace in the Eastern Cape for the first time. But now the Prime Minister comes along and tells us that the British policy is wrong; that the British are wrong to make Ghana free when it is predominantly Black; that the British are wrong to make Tanganyika free —from a South African point of view, of course.

I never said it was wrong to make Ghana free.

No, I am sorry, the hon. the Prime Minister did not say that it was wrong to make Ghana free, but he thought that the British were a bit precipitate in the case of Tanganyika and other territories. He said that many people to-day say that they were wrong; that they made a mistake in doing so. Sir, that may be so. But why is the hon. the Prime Minister now reverting to the Glenelg policy?

Why does the Prime Minister pretend that this British policy, which was so bitterly resented by the old colonists, is now the traditional policy of South Africa? That does not make sense. [Interjections.] Of course not. But I am not ashamed to travel in a British motor car. The Prime Minister is. The Prime Minister tries to disguise it by a good South African Volkswagen. The Prime Minister feels very strongly about this. He is wrong. He creates his own history. He fabricates—I do not think with any dishonest motive—arguments to support his case. He tells us with tremendous conviction that his policy is the only hope for South Africa.

It is.

“Zo als de ouden zongen, zo piepen de jongen”. It is not enough, Sir, to have conventional separation and social and residential separation, you must have complete separation. There must be a separate political embodiment for, at least, the Black people of South Africa and a separate one for the White people. He believes that if you do not do that, the White people, and with the White people, I presume, civilization will be doomed in South Africa. That is a very important belief and one that I respect. If a man believes that it would be wrong not to respect him. But what I cannot understand, what South Africa cannot understand and what the world cannot understand, is this: If one really believes that the only solution for South Africa is the disentanglement of the races why does the Prime Minister not make that the first object and the first purpose of his policy? Why does he carry out a policy which is proclaimed to have that as its object but which in practice, every day, means the re-entanglement of the peoples of South Africa, only in different geographical situations? The problem the Prime Minister faces is the fact that there are huge areas of South Africa where White enterprise is sustained by the brains, the skills, the experience and the managerial ability of the White man and by the labour of the non-Whites. [Time limit.]

I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) why he takes so much pleasure in mutilating historical truths to such an extent. He said that the complaint against Downing Street over the years was that they wanted to set up a separate state in the Transkei. I read in history that the complaint was—and this was also one of the causes of the Great Trek—that Downing Street was not prepared to protect the borders. They were not prepared to protect the White men against the Blacks who respected no boundaries. I shall come back just now to two interjections made by the hon. member for Yeoville in the course of this debate but I firstly want to address a few remarks to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson).

The hon. member tried to give this House a false impression yesterday. He attacked the hon. the Prime Minister for not having attended the mixed party given by the British Embassy. Just after making this remark and in order to prove how inconsistently the Government acted, he accused the hon. the Minister of Finance of having attended a mixed party.

You are wrong.

I have the hon. member’s Hansard here. He said: A few days ago the hon. the Minister of Finance attended a big wedding. Guests of all races were present at that wedding. That report was only carried by one newspaper—the Sunday Express. The Cape Argus and the Cape Times carried different reports in regard to this matter. They did not report it as being a mixed party. The fact of the matter is that different races were present at the church. But there is nothing extraordinary in this fact. That is tradition in South Africa. That was the position when the State President was sworn in. That was the position at the funeral the other day of the late Senator van Aarde. Non-Whites were present there. This does happen at religious functions. But the impression which the hon. member tried to create was that the hon. the Minister of Finance attended a wedding reception at which people of all races were represented. He tried to defend himself here this morning but I do think that he owes the hon. the Minister and this House an apology for the false impression that he tried to create.

I just want to ask the hon. member whether I did not say anything further. I congratulated the hon. the Minister on having been present at the wedding, a function, in other words, at which people of all races were present.

The hon. member must read his speech. He mentioned this matter apropos the mixed party given by the British Embassy. He told a great untruth. The two cannot be compared at all. The hon. the Minister told him this morning that he was present at the Mount Nelson and that there were 40 White guests present there with him. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout did not have the decency to stand up and to apologize to the hon. the Minister. He is still trying to defend that false impression he tried to create.

What is wrong with that?

Yesterday, while the hon. the Prime Minister was speaking, he said, amongst other things, that things were going well with South Africa and that there were important investors who supported the policy of the Government and had confidence in the Government. The hon. the Minister mentioned the name of one person—Mr. Sam Collins— who has declared himself to be a Nationalist. Then the hon. member for Yeoville interjected and said: “People who have been given diamond concessions!”

Correct.

That is correct, is it not? Then the hon. the Prime Minister said: “The interjection of the hon. member for Yeoville is what I call a low type of interjection.” Mr. Chairman, that is a low type of interjection, an interjection which is not supported by any facts at all. That interjection was made about a man who cannot defend himself in this House. I say it is false …

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member will have an opportunity to speak. As I know the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) he will put all four of his feet into it this afternoon! I shall give him the opportunity to do so.

I want to say here that Mr. Sam Collins was not given one single diamond concession by this Government. The first sea diamond concession that was granted was granted in South West Africa by that Administration and it was granted to a group of Afrikaners. A few years later the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) took an option on that concession. That is the history. He then offered that option to Mr. Harry Oppenheimer for the sum of R200,000. Mr. Oppenheimer then told him that he first wanted to discuss the matter with his experts. After he had consulted his experts he informed the hon. member for Peninsula that he was not interested in the offer because his experts had told him that there were no diamonds in the sea. Then the hon. member for Peninsula sold that northern diamond diamond concession to Mr. Sam Collins for R480,000. The southern concession was granted by the Government to a company headed by the late Captain Strydom. Captain Strydom floated a company and got Mr. Collins to finance that company, which he is still doing at the moment. I want to tell that hon. member for his information that he has done an injustice to a person who cannot defend himself in this House. He has done so for one reason and for one reason only—to undermine the influence of that man, any influence that he may possibly have as a Nationalist, in the outside world, and to undermine his influence as an investor. He wants to tell the world: Mr. Collins has become a Nationalist; this Government has bribed him with diamond concessions to become a Nationalist. [Time limit.]

I have been listening to what the hon. member who has just sat down has had to say. He started by blaming the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) for apparently having said that the hon. the Minister of Finance attended a multi-racial reception at the Mount Nelson on the occasion of a certain wedding. The hon. the Minister of Finance said that there were no non-Whites present at that reception. I accept that fact. What worried me and what I would like to know from the hon. the Prime Minister is this: Is it the policy of this Government not to permit Cabinet Ministers to speak to Coloureds at functions of this nature? Is that the position that we have now come to? Have we reached the stage now where this is looked upon as a crime, so much so that a senior Minister, a man who has tried to become Prime Minister, has seen fit to stand up as indignantly as the hon. the Minister of Finance did in order to deny that he had attended a multi-racial reception? What would have been wrong in that?

He was indignant because the information given was wrong.

No, he was not indignant on that score. If he had been indignant because the wrong information had been given, he could have stood up and have said: Your information is wrong; no non-Whites were present. He denied the whole thing vehemently as though there was a terrible stigma attaching to an action of this nature. He demaned an apology. What gives the hon. the Minister of Finance the right to imply that it is his and my traditional way of life to treat these people as untouchables? He himself grew up at a mission station where his playmates were of necessity Coloured children, just as mine were. But the hon. the Minister did not stop there. When he attended London University he was very proud of the fact that some of the members of the cricket team for which he played were Coloured. He advertised that fact. That is not the end of the story either. I am sorry to have to say these things and I hope that nobody will consider this to be an attack upon a person for whom I have nothing but the greatest respect. When the hon. the Minister’s daughter grew up, he wanted to send her to the best university possible, a university to which I should also have liked to send my daughter if I had the money—he sent her to the University which boasts about the fact that it is the most highly integrated university in the world—the Sorbonne University.

Is that in South Africa?

Did you hear what the hon. the Minister said, Mr. Chairman? I would like to put this question to the hon. the Prime Minister. Is it the policy of the Nationalist Party that one can have social intercourse with Coloureds outside South Africa but not with the citizens of our own country in South Africa? Is that the policy of “partnership”, is that the policy of good-neighbourliness mentioned by the hon. the Prime Minister? A Coloured can be entertained, can be seen in one’s company, can be spoken to, all on condition that he is not a citizen of South Africa! Is that the policy of the Nationalist Party? Is that the future that we are creating for the people whom we told not so long ago: We are grateful for the assistance that you have given us?

You do not know your own way of life.

I know my way of life very well. But I do not have one way of life within my own country and another way of life outside my country! I know my way of life; it is an honest and sincere way of life. I am not in the least ashamed to be seen at the Mount Nelson at a reception which is also attended by non-Whites because they will be the kind of non-Whites of whom I need never be ashamed.

Mr. Chairman, South Africa is heading for a bleak future if the declared policy of the hon. the Prime Minister is that one is not allowed to have social intercourse with the citizens of one’s own country. Outside the country, yes; outside the country one can attend Commonwealth conferences where, so he said himself, most of the representatives are Black. As far as I know, these people are entertained at South Africa House. Is that correct? Is this no longer the case?

There is nothing to prevent your doing so if you want to do so.

It is very easy for that backbencher to speak. It is that kind of backbencher who places the hon. the Prime Minister in a difficult position. If this Government wants to take its place in the council of world nations, it will of necessity have to give mixed receptions and have to attend mixed receptions. They are doing so now. Each year we vote money to enable this to be done. What sort of feeling is generated in the Nationalist Party from a psychological point of view if one can do these things overseas on condition that the ordinary Nationalist in the Prieska constituency does not come to hear of it? What sort of action is this?

I have been in politics for some years now. I want to refer to something which the late General Hertzog said in this House—that the relationship between the Native and the White man in the past had always been one of co-operation and goodwill. He said amongst other things that he was trying to maintain that position and that when he left his farm, he made a practice of shaking his domestic servants by the hand. His words were: “to greet them by hand”. That expression of General Hertzog was dagged into the political arena and was peddled around the country by the political agents of the Nationalist Party. What troubles me is the measure of success which the Nationalist Party has achieved in so destroying the traditional decency of the Afrikaner that the hon. the Minister of Finance now regards it as a crime if somebody tells him that he attended a reception which could also possibly have been attended by Coloureds. If this is so, we must not talk about good relationships between the races. Nobody is advocating social integration. No, Mr. Chairman, I do think that we must be a little more realistic. What worries me is this: The Nationalist Party are not prepared, in these dangerous times in which we are living, to lead their followers in the direction of and advise them in connection with building up better relationships. Instead of guiding the Nationalist Party, the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet are following the wild ones in the ranks of the Nationalist Party.

Who are the wild ones?

I am speaking of those wild people in the Nationalist Party who consider it to be a crime if one is seen at a multi-racial reception.

Mr. Chairman, if ever there was a time when all of us, particularly the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, should, by our example, show tolerance to other races, it is now. I hope that the hon. the Prime Minister will realize that the correct conduct on the part of the members of the Cabinet and the members of his party will be far more conducive to establishing good relationships than the legislation that he is placing on the Statute Book of this country. It is not logical if, on the one hand, the hon. the Prime Minster and his Cabinet say: “We do not want to come together; we do not want to speak to one another; we may not speak with one another”—we have been kicked out of the Commonwealth where the representatives of the Black states are in the majority—and then, on the other hand, say: “We are going to establish our own little Commonwealth of Black nations in Africa where their representatives can meet our representatives as long as this does not take place at the Mount Nelson Hotel”, according to the hon. the Minister of Finance! [Time limit.]

There is an old saying to the effect that those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. Since yesterday we have been given irrefutable proof of the front which that party has chosen for itself, a front on which is now fighting, and a front which gives all of us much cause for alarm. Let us forget the jokes. Let us discuss the front on which the United Party is now fighting. What front has it chosen on which to fight its political battle? We must not forget that it is the Vote of the Prime Minister which is now under discussion. We expect important policy problems to be discussed when the Vote of the Prime Minister is under discussion.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition stood up to speak yesterday. He started by discussing agriculture and then he switched over to South Africa’s isolation. From that topic he went on to discuss our Bantustan policy. Then he discussed influx control and the so-called blackening of the White area. They did not pursue the question of agriculture any further. Then they waited for a report so that they could discuss the Bultfontein case, the Bultfontein case which is not a fundamental matter in this debate. It is not a fundamental political matter. It is an isolated, unfortunate case in regard to which the hon. the Minister of Justice has taken certain steps which he has explained to us very clearly.

Then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) attacked the hon. the Minister of Finance on a front which had nothing at all to do with fundamental political problems. Then the hon. the Prime Minister rose to speak and, in an excellent speech, pinned hon. members opposite down to fundamental matters. (Laughter.) Yes, they can laugh; I was watching them; they were listening to him far more attentively than I was! The hon. the Prime Minister tried to bring them back to a discussion of the fundamental matters which are relevant under his Vote and, Mr. Chairman, I leave it to you to judge. Where do we stand? Nothing fundamental has been said by hon. members opposite. Why is this so? It is because they are now fighting on a front which is a common front and I want to say a few words in this regard.

What is their common front? With whom do they share that front? I have been listening attentively to the debate and I want to warn that hon. member (Mr. Hourquebie). I want to give him some sound advice. He will talk himself out of politics in South Africa just as the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has already talked herself out of politics, and 1966 will prove it. What is this common front? The other day I read the charter of the Committee on African Solidarity which was set up at Addis Ababa. I read the charter of the so-called Liberation Bureau which has been set up there. I read the report on South Africa by the Committee of Experts, a report which is to be submitted to UN. Believe me, Mr. Chairman, the language used by these members is the language to be found within that charter of the Solidarity Committee! What is this front? It is an all-out attack against what? It is not an attack against the things which are fundamental to our policy nor is it an attack against our economic position. It appears to me as though the prosperity, the dynamic force and the strength of our economy and our industry is something that is beginning to worry them. These things are a necessary and fundamental requirement for the peace and good order which we are enjoying to-day. More than this; this prosperity was one of the reasons why they had to change their date of 1963 and choose another date. They did not choose another front but they had to choose another date. I make this accusation in all honesty against the Opposition. I say that they have revealed an attack here on a front which is the same as the front on which we are attacked by our enemies in other parts of the world —those enemies of ours at UN, our enemies at Addis Ababa or wherever they have the opportunity of gathering. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition …

On a point of order, may the hon. member say that we associate ourselves with the enemies of our country, that we form a common front with the enemies of our country?

The hon. member was not out of order in making that statement in the context in which he did make it.

On a point of order, is the hon. member not virtually suggesting that we are the enemies of South Africa?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

When I say that in their assault upon us the Opposition are moving on the same front as our enemies, then I have every right to say so. I am not to blame for this, they are.

You are moving on the same front as the enemies of South Africa.

Sir, they are moving on the same front as far as their method of attack is concerned and I want to go so far as to say that as far as certain members are concerned—and I am absolutely convinced of the fact that I am correct in this regard— the essence of that attack is the same. I do not want to say this of all members opposite and it worries me. We all realize that South Africa is a Western nation and because of the fact that we are part of the West, we are the enemy of all the enemies of the West, and everyone knows who those enemies are. Our hostility towards the rest of the world who are our enemies—or rather, let me put it in this way: Their hostility towards us does not exist as a result of our policy of separate development. It is because of our Western character. I want to make an appeal to the Opposition: Let them attack us in regard to our education policy, let them attack us in regard to our handling of economic matters, let them attack us in regard to shortcomings in the agricultural sphere, if there are any, but when we have to contend with a common attack which is not restricted to us alone but which is directed against the entire Western world and against us because we belong to that Western group, then I appeal to hon. members opposite to reveal a greater sense of responsibility. If they do so, we shall have greater respect for the Opposition and the public will also have greater respect for them. I must excuse some hon. members opposite. Their jesting is sometimes not jesting at all. Their jesting sometimes goes far deeper than they like to make out. I want to agree with what was said by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) and I want to say to a few of those hon. members: One is disturbed in that, because of a régime which has resulted in the fact that certain people have become members of this House, people who can so easily shed their sense of responsibility under the guise of privilege. … [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) gave us the impression that he was going to bring this debate down to fundamentals, and at the finish of his speech he said of himself that he was speaking like a “tight Afrikaner”. Perhaps he said “kwaai”, but, Mr. Chairman, I must say that some of the utterances we had to listen to this afternoon from the hon. member and others certainly gave some indication of a completely confused state of mind. I propose to answer the hon. member, I hope with his approval, by addressing myself to the hon. Prime Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, because in fact what the hon. member tried to say this afternoon was more or less what the hon. Prime Minister has been trying to give forth and out to the world and to South Africa for several years and that is that not the actions of the Government, not the legislation it has placed on the Statute Book, not its conduct in the eyes of the outside world, but the words and deeds of the honourable Opposition are the cause of the hostility to South Africa! That was his thesis, and I propose to deal with it.

Let me say immediately that the hon. the Prime Minister, having, as my hon. Leader pointed out this afternoon, announced in the noconfidence debate that the world was sick, the whole world was sick and only South Africa was well, he has in fact said that the head of every state, the Government of every state, the leaders of every state, including those of the Western world, are all crazy, but only he the hon. Prime Minister, is sane! They are all mentally sick and he is the only one who is mentally hale.

You should be in hospital.

Yes, I know I come from Hospital, with a capital “H”, but this is something the hon. member cannot change. The point is: How can any reasonable man come to this conclusion, unless he takes a one-eyed look at the world? It is impossible to come to that conclusion unless you deliberately shut at least one of your two eyes and then look at the world and say: “Everybody else is sick, only I am well.” What is more, playing the role, as he has done recently, of a latter-day Lord Nelson, who, as you know, put his spyglass to his sightless eye and then said: “I do not see this, but I do see the other …”

That is exactly what you are doing.

No, Sir, this is what the hon. Prime Minister does. But if that is not enough, he adopts the favourite Yoga position of standing on his head, and then he takes a one-eyed look at the world, and then he announces to the world that not what he and his Government have done in the 16 years that they have been in office, while all we have been able to do was to plead and urge upon them sane policies—not what he has done has caused all the damage to South Africa’s reputation, but what the Opposition has done, and that that is the reason why we are surrounded by enemies. In the very brief time that I have, I want to give a few examples to show how fallacious that is, in the hope that some of the hon. Prime Minister’s followers, as loyal as they are to him, will decide once and for all to look at South Africa as well as the rest of the world with both eyes, and to stop accepting his one-eyed view of the entire world and South Africa’s position in it. Let us take, for example, the simple fact that for 16 years the party opposite, of which he is now the Prime Minister, has been in power, and he, the Prime Minister, has in recent years shaped the policy of the Nationalist Party. Is it then the fault of the Government or the fault of the Opposition that, by way of one example, in a newspaper like the Boston Herald, a very conservative newspaper, coming from the most conservative part of the United States, New England as they call it, the following was said on 16 June 1963—and I only give you the one example, although I could give you dozens of newspaper extracts—under the heading in an editorial “Liberty of the Person”—

A state in which the police are free to deprive individuals of liberty for extended periods, with neither criminal charge nor judicial sanction, is a police state.

Who said that? The Opposition? Or a newspaper in the United States of America? And about whose policy was this said, about whose law was this said? That of the Government, or that of the Opposition?

Why did they say so?

Because the simple fact screams out to the whole world that this Government adopts policies which offend the civilized world.

Did you not vote for it?

Did we vote for the 90-day clause? You know exactly what the position is. Once again the hon. Minister of Information, who has been known to be wrong three times in one week, is wrong to-day. Take another example: Here is a statement by Ambassador Sydney R. Yates, at the United Nations, in which he said on 30 October 1963—

On what evidence is this statement based? On the legislation and the activities of the Opposition, or of the Government? It goes on to say furthermore—

And let me tell you immediately, Mr. Chairman, that the only aspect of our public life that makes South Africa remotely respectable in the outside world, is the attitude and the activities of this Opposition to the Government. [Interjections.] Anyone who says “no” has never been outside of South Africa in the last 15 years, because he would have come back with exactly the same conclusion.

Another point which I think should be cleared up is that we are constantly being told that the whole world expects South Africa to become a sort of Coloured state where everybody has been integrated socially, and I think the other day the word “biologically” was also used, and that that alone would satisfy the outside world—and that in this way it was hoped that our enemies would be able to plough the White people of South Africa under. This is a favourite theme. Now here is a statement made by the delegate of India, an enemy of South Africa, in the United Nations—and I happened to be there when this man addressed the particular committee at the United Nations towards the end of last year; he said, talking about sanctions, which he urged upon the committee—

Even the Indians will deny that what they desire is that the White man should disappear from the scene. It is true that they, as other nations, expect a certain change in policies. But if I am told that these are the voices of our enemies, what does Mr. Clarence B. Randall say? We have heard a great deal about this gentleman from the United States, the year before last and last year. According to all those hon. members, he is a friend of the Government and its policies. He said in the course of an interview during a very recent visit, on 16 March 1964, concerning a certain international decision—

My country would be deeply distressed to be called on at such a time. But the United States is committed to the rule of law, as expressed by the UN. Personally, I would not like my country to be put in that position.

He says—

Did the United Party tell Mr. Clarence Randall or the people of his country to take up that attitude, or does it flow from the policies and the attitude of this Government? And finally, I have another statement here of a person who by any standard is not an opponent of the Government, Sir Francis de Guingand, the President of the South Africa Foundation. No hon. member opposite will suggest that the South Africa Foundation does anything or says anything to embarrass the Government. He says on 20 March, according to the Cape Argus—

Then comes the quotation—

Then he says—

That is exactly what the Opposition keeps on saying. And if that were not enough, talking about the Bantu homelands, he says—

Besides this, I found some aspects of “little apartheid” received general condemnation.

But when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) speaking in this Chamber on behalf of the Opposition says exactly the same thing, there are roars of protest and condemnation—and we are called the enemies of South Africa because we ask the Government to change its policies! So I put this to the hon. Prime Minister in all fairness: If he would say categorically that not only does he take all the credit, as my hon. Leader pointed out to him yesterday, but that he and his Government must take all the blame, too, then the position would be completely different. Meanwhile, he cannot be heard to blame the Opposition for the actions and policies of a very, very unfortunate Government, a misfortune for South Africa. [Time limit.]

If ever we needed proof that the expressions used by the Opposition are very clearly used by our enemies against us, then the hon. member who has just spoken has proved this to us. I want to start by saying that the quotations which he made from that American newspaper in which we are called a police state, were couched in precisely the same terms as those which were used in this House last year by the Opposition. I repeat, therefore, that the expression “a police state” used in the newspapers has been coined by the Opposition, and that is why I say that they are very definitely playing into the hands of our enemies. By making this quotation, the hon. member proved exactly what he did not want to prove. I want to go further. The expressions that are used here add fuel to the flames of hostility against South Africa. I accept the fact that in their struggle against us hon. members opposite are only trying to blacken the name of the National Party, or are trying to take over the Government of the country or something of that nature, but those terms which they use every day are, in their turn, grasped at by our enemies. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) used the expression “gas chambers” a short while ago in one of the debates. What was he seeking to achieve thereby? What did he achieve thereby, except to fan the flames of hostility against South Africa and give people the impression that that could possibly be the position, irrespective of what the context was in which the expression was used. During the debate on the Bantu Law Amendment Bill this specific statement was made: “If ever a Berlin Wall has been built, it is the Wall of this Bill which brings about segregation between White and non-White as far as labour matters are concerned.” Why was that term “Berlin Wall” used, when they know that it is nowhere near the truth? They continually use terms of this nature in order to give the outside world terrible impressions of the position here in this country. I think, and this is my biggest objection to the Opposition—that they are ostensibly opposing us, but the manner in which they are doing so—this has again been borne out by the use of the term “death by torture” this afternoon—is aimed, even though it may be done innocently and unwittingly, at eventually achieving what hon. members are still waiting for, something which various hon. members have already pointed out—that a shock from outside, or a crisis of some kind will be the only way in which to bring about the fall of this Government. I reject that accusation of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorsbel) with the contempt which it deserves. Whenever that hon. member participates in a debate he puts his brain into neutral and then lets his lips idle on for half-an-hour or longer.

I want to come now to the next point that I want to make—the attitude adopted by the United Party to-day and their view that the concessions which they propose are all that is required to safeguard the future for South Africa. How naïve can the United Party be as far as their approach to the matter is concerned? Their entire argument and attitude is bound up in the view that our policy as such is the cause of all this hostility towards us, but that if we accept their policy, we will suddenly experience a change in world opinion and this will eventually lead to freedom and a successful solution to our problems in this country. I want to say firstly that their policy is unacceptable not only to the White voter in South Africa but also to the Bantu in South Africa, as well as the Black States of Africa and the Western powers. Not one of those groups whom they hope to satisfy by means of their policy will be satisfied with that policy. Let me prove what I say, and I want to start with the attitude of the Bantu in South Africa.

I want at the start to give the United Party credit for the fact that its policy is not as extremistic as is the policy of the Progressive Party. The example that I now want to quote lends even more weight to the point that I want to make. On 3 May 1961 Dr. de Beer, a member of the Progressive Party and a member of Parliament at that stage, held a meeting at Durban. He addressed a large number of non-Whites in the Gandhi Hall there and explained the Progressive Party’s policy to them. Amongst other things, he compared the policy of the Progressive Party with the policy of “one man, one vote”. This question was then put to him—

Dr. de Beer replied that he did agree with it. But then he was asked why his party was trying to amend the provisions of that charter in that the charter made it clear that every man was entitled to a vote. He tried to avoid the issue by saying (translation)—

The Bantu reacted as follows to this statement (translation)—

To which Dr. de Beer replied (translation)—

The result was that the non-Whites walked out of the hall and said that the Progressive Party was just as bad as the National Party because it discriminated just as much against them as the National Party did! Now, if the non-Whites are not prepared to accept the policy of the Progressive Party, then they will also not be prepared to accept the policy of the United Party. The policy of the United Party will also not be acceptable to the Black States of Africa. In the event of there being any doubt in this regard, I just want to quote what the Ghanaian Minister of Foreign Affairs had to say—

We demand universal adult suffrage, the right of one individual to one vote regardless of race, colour, creed or civilization.

That is the demand of the Africa States. But I go further and say that the policy of the United Party is not acceptable to the Western powers either. In this connection I want to quote from the speech made by Mr. Macmillan on 22 March 1961, that is to say, when he was still Prime Minister of Britain. The report of his speech was made available to us by the United Kingdom Information Service. The point that I want to make is that the policy of the United Party of making concessions is not acceptable either. Let me make the following quotation—

To which “possibilities” was he referring here? He was referring to the fact that if we made a first concession in this regard the force of circumstances for which the Africa States were responsible would continue until the Africa States had their way in the end.

Where is that mentioned in the document?

Let me continue with the quotation and then the position will become abundantly clear. Mr. Macmillan went on to say—

What in actual fact was the reaction of Mr. Macmillan to the strong attitude adopted by the Prime Minister of South Africa? He was discouraged; South Africa had left the Commonwealth and it was such a pity that Dr. Verwoerd did not want to make concessions; it was such a pity to have to lose a good country like South Africa. This to my mind was the underlying reaction on the part of Mr. Macmillan. But, he said, everything was not yet lost. He put it in this way—

Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise certain matters relating to defence with the hon. the Prime Minister. These are rightly being regarded by the Official Opposition as being of such importance and priority, both financially and from the point of view of their impact on the future and even the survival of the Republic that there cannot be any further delay in getting a decision on them. May I make it clear at the beginning that by raising these matters under the Prime Minister’s Vote we have no intention of bypassing the hon. the Minister of Defence. The fact of the matter is that any decision will have to be made at Cabinet level under the direction and control of the Prime Minister. Consequently, in view of the situation which is developing, we feel it is appropriate that we should bring these matters to the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister direct. By making this direct approach, it is also our aim to endeavour to avoid any further delay in reaching a decision on these matters, a decision which we feel is becoming more and more urgent almost every day. No matter what we may think of it, there is a steadily increasing demand, one which we can only regard as being a demand for external aggression, against South Africa. This must be coupled with the significant changes in the balance of power resulting from events on the East Coast—Zanzibar. Each of these factors has a direct impact on the security of this country. The hon. the Prime Minister himself has, and quite rightly, repeatedly called for unity and for a national approach to defence matters. We in the Official Opposition have consistently dealt with defence matters on that basis. As I say, we have endeavoured to discharge our responsibilities as an Official Opposition on that basis even though at times we found it necessary to criticize certain features of the Government’s defence policy. But if such a national approach is to produce the useful results it might very well produce, then there are three important steps which must be taken, steps which we feel are very closely interrelated. A decision on these steps has become imperative. The first is one which we have raised in this House before, i.e. the setting up of parliamentary machinery, firstly to enable Parliament to exercise a more effective control over defence expenditure involving as it does large amounts which Parliament itself has to vote, and secondly, to bring Parliament into a much closer relationship and touch with defence activities which, due to reasons of national security, cannot openly be discussed across the floor of the House. This principle I think we all accept. The second step is that there should be, as far as it is consistent with the requirements of national security, a lifting of the veil of excessive secrecy on so many aspects of defence, aspects which may well be disclosed and which the Press should be entitled to deal with to the benefit of the country itself. The third step is to adjust, urgently, the conditions of service particularly in the Permanent Force. This includes pay as well as long-term security for officers and men so that they may make defence their life profession. This is necessary particularly in the Permanent Force so as to offset the advent of the new and more intricate weapons demanding greater responsibility in handling.

These three points cannot, however, be divorced from one another or the general picture of defence as a whole. What is more, each one of them can only be resolved at Cabinet level. It is to avoid any further delays, which so easily occur when such matters are approached departmentally, that we make this plea here to-day. In March 1963, we first asked for a select committee on defence to be set up, a committee broadly on the lines followed in the United States and Great Britain. Naturally it will not be on such a large scale and will of necessity have to be scaled down to meet the requirements of our own commitments in respect of defence. As part of the new approach to defence matters, we also requested the issue to Parliament of a White Paper on defence, here again on the general lines followed by the two countries I have referred to scaled down to meet our own requirements. This is asked in order to assist Parliament when dealing with defence issues. Since March 1963, threats against South Africa have steadily increased coupled with our steadily increasing isolation which is dangerous. However, as far as the Government is concerned, there has so far been no response at all to our request. We believe that the position to-day is such that instead of having only a select committee of this House we should have a select committee representative of the two Houses of Parliament so as to be able to cover the broadest possible field of what we consider to be a most important national problem. Full details of the proposal were given before and I do not propose giving them again. They will be found in Hansard of 29 March 1963, Col. 2504 and in Cols. 3600 to 3606. But I just briefly touch on a few of the main points to refresh the hon. the Prime Minister’s memory. Both White Papers I referred to are available to Members of Parliament in Britain or the Senate of the U.S.A. and deal not only with the actual money to be devoted by their respective Parliaments but also with practically every reason in support of such proposals as well as the results that they expect to achieve by that expenditure. They cover the training systems in force and the long-term planning for years ahead and they cover the replacements with which the country may be faced. In the case of the U.S.A., which is much more far-reaching than the British one, it also deals with the economic benefits and dangers inherent in unproductive defence expenditure. Both of them also deal with the impact to be expected internationally and locally as the result of these defence proposals. Both reports give comparisons and reasons for variations in the annual expenditure. In both cases they comprise a most instructive and valuable guide to every Member of Parliament to assist him in dealing with the Defence Estimates when they come before the House, and as a matter of security, they eliminate the necessity for a large volume of open talk across the floor of the House. Each arm of the fighting forces is dealt with under a separate section. I repeat that all the necessary information to enable Parliament to carry out its responsibilities in controlling efficiently the expenditure of which it has approved, and to ensure that the country as a whole is getting the full benefit of that expenditure, is covered by these documents.

We on this side accept that there are certain aspects of defence, especially under the growing pressure of world hostility to the Republic, which in the interests of national security are best not discussed over the floor of the House, but alternative means for such discussion must be found. We consider that the alternative suggestion we have put up, adapted to meet our requirements, could well fill that gap. We also believe that these important matters could and should be thoroughly discussed and the answers arrived at in the calmer atmosphere of a select committee than one can ever hope to do in debate across the floor of the House. [Time limit.]

I do not want to discuss the question of defence; I just want to complete my quotation. I refer again to the speech made by Mr. Macmillan in the British House of Commons. He said—

Mr. Macmillan thought that the best way of helping South Africa was to make a success of the Federation in Rhodesia. That was his opinion in 1961 because, according to his argument, if it was a success there, South Africa would learn that a partnership could be successful, as in the case of the Federation, under African conditions. Three years have now gone by since 1961, and I wonder what Mr. Macmillan thinks of the position now. The Federation has proved a failure and Britain has certainly helped us in that the Federation in Rhodesia has not been a success and thus the only alternative which Mr. Macmillan saw for the problems in Africa has failed. Britain has also helped us to become 100 times more determined to follow the road which we have chosen—that of separate development and equal rights for every group in their own areas.

What is the actual position in Africa today? The fact is that the Black man in Africa has awoken from his centuries old sleep. He is no longer prepared to stay in Dark Africa and to be satisfied with his minimum daily needs. He demands the right to decide his own destiny. I want to accuse the United Party and say that the policy which they are following and which they are trying to sell to South Africa and the world is one in which they tell the Black man: You must achieve your political aspirations and ideals through my political institution, through my Parliament. The moment that the United Party says this, world opinion will ensure that only one thing will happen and that is that Black and White will eventually be represented in this Parliament in the same proportions as exist in regard to the population groups to-day. It must end there and the United Party cannot tell us how they are going to succeed in avoiding that eventual result by means of artificial means. There is no way in which it can be avoided. That is why the United Party is deliberately placing its foot on the road along which the Black man will have to live out his political aspirations in our political institutions, and this must lead to the fact that the number of Black representatives in this Parliament will eventually be in proportion to the numbers of the Bantu in the country, and the United Party will not be able to prevent this happening. [Interjections.] There is no way in which to prevent it; it has been proved in Rhodesia. “Race Federation” may be a wonderful theory but in practice it has the same inherent shortcomings of any other federation—the fact that eventually the majority must rule. If the majority do not rule then it contains an element of discrimination and discrimination is not tolerated either by Whites or by Blacks in the outside world. And so, there is no solution to be found in the policy of the United Party along those lines. In contrast to this, our policy is very clear. I say that the eyes of the Western nations will one day be opened and they will realize that our policy is the only solution to the problem. The Black states in Africa will realize that their Black brothers here in the Republic are being given exactly what they want in terms of our policy. They will have their own Black areas and governments in which they can live their lives to the full without discrimination or interference on the part of the Whites. That is why I say that the policy of the United Party is acceptable to no one. Although at the moment our policy is unacceptable to the world because it is not understood and because it is deliberately blackened by the United Party in the Press and is not given a fair chance to defend itself, I say that it will eventually succeed because it is the only policy which makes provision for a practical solution to the problem on a moral basis. That is why we cannot do otherwise than continue along this road.

In conclusion, I want to discuss the question of little apartheid which was mentioned by the bon. member for Bezuidenhout and also by the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson), and the reprehensible attack which the last-mentioned hon. member made upon the hon. the Minister of Finance. The United Party say that little apartheid, the pin-pricks, must be done away with. I want to ask them whether they are in favour of big apartheid? Are they prepared to subscribe to big apartheid if the pin-pricks are removed? [Interjection.] How far has apartheid developed? Let me state this concept correctly. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout gave us examples yesterday. He said that we must do away with the notice-boards in post offices and other State offices and so forth. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout attends mixed parties or social functions. He congratulated the hon. the Minister because, so he falsely alleged, the hon. the Minister also attended a party of this nature. Is it the policy of the United Party that social apartheid must be abolished? They have always been in favour of social apartheid. And in this regard I want to quote the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I have here a cutting from the Cape Times of 8 February 1958 dealing with education, the specific question of mixed or separate schools in regard to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition deemed it necessary to make a statement. This is what he said—

Is the United Party still in favour of that policy or is this also part of little apartheid? I ask: Where does little apartheid end? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to say—

Is a mixed party “social segregation”, or has the United Party since 1958 moved even further away from the policy which it advocated at that stage? And mixed bathing—is that little apartheid or big apartheid? A little while ago the United Party in the person of Mrs. Murray moved a strongly worded motion in the Provincial Council to the effect that she as a White woman objected to the fact that the United Party was accused of being in favour of mixed bathing, of people of different races bathing together. They voted for separate bathing facilities. Is that little apartheid or big apartheid, and where is one to draw the line? But the position in regard to little apartheid and big apartheid is precisely the same as it is in regard to this policy of theirs of making concessions. Once one starts making concessions here and there, one cannot apply the brake. Once one starts removing notice-boards here and there, one cannot retain other notice-boards. [Time limit.]

Following on what I said earlier I want to make it clear to the hon. the Prime Minister that we are unable to accept the offer of the hon. the Minister of Defence that a small body of people should be given authority by the leader of the party to receive defence information from time to time from him or the Minister of Defence. Sir, this is a matter of parliamentary responsibility, and that responsibility cannot be shouldered off onto a small body of people who would have no official standing. It is a system which we believe may eventually even result in muzzling defence discussion in this House. We believe that the responsibility has to be carried by Parliament as a whole. We also cannot accept that the Public Accounts Committee is able to carry this additional work. It is already heavily overburdened. It is already anything from six to eight years behind in its scrutiny of the accounts of control boards. Sir, this is a specialized matter in which we believe that the interests of the country can best be served roughly along the lines that I have suggested. There are and there always will be disquieting suggestions and reports as to what is happening in defence. The extreme veil of secrecy which I mentioned earlier is one of the biggest factors responsible for arousing that type of suspicion, but a time must come when the Official Opposition has to face up to responsibility and have these deficiencies in defence discussed by Parliament. We accept the view of the Government that for certain matters they would be better discussed in private rather than in open discussion across the floor of the House. In support of our plea I just want to refer to the second report of the Public Accounts Committee recently placed before the House. The special committee which examined certain aspects of the custody and maintenance of defence equipment and stores, fully supports our request; it bears out the criticism that we have put forward from time to time. It refers here to the use of obsolete equipment in the training of recruits, a point that I dealt with only a few days ago in the House. It says that “the accelerated rate of compulsory military training imposes a tremendous burden on maintenance services,” and then it goes on to say—

Sir, these are some of the very points that we have been making. It goes on to deal with the grave manpower shortage which has developed in all branches of defence and which must be causing the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister just as much concern as it does anyone of us who are interested in the future security of our country. Sir, specialists who have been trained at considerable expense to handle the modern weapons we require are drifting away from defence. We are losing the services of those people to outside industry due to the unsatisfactory conditions of service and the unsatisfactory salaries and wages which obtain in defence. I know that at the end of March an adjustment of salaries was announced. That adjustment was announced not long after we had raised the matter in this House. It had been under consideration apparently and an improvement was then effected, but that improvement is still only a stop-gap. It is in no way making this new type of Defence Force service attractive enough to retain the services of the people we want. This same report, on page 73 dealing with the South African Navy, says—

Sir, the electrical section is the lifeblood of all the new ships that we are getting out from Britain and for which we are paying R30,000,000. Without the electrical section being fully equipped and fully up to date those ships are useless to us. Then the committee, goes on to say (Page 72—

That means that there is a shortage of about 800 artisans in the Army. Sir, not long ago we brought out the new type of transport aircraft, the Hercules type. We sent selected people to the United States for specialist training in the handling of these massive transport planes which are vital to our Defence Force. Sir, I am not going to quote figures but I would ask the hon. the Prime Minister or the hon. the Minister of Defence to tell us whether it is not a fact that the number of those people who were specially trained in the United States for the handling of these aircraft has been so depleted by resignations that that particular branch of the service is in a pretty grave position to-day. We understand that practically 80 per cent of those 28 men who were specially trained have now left the service. Sir, these things call for inquiry and they can be inquired into on a broad basis by a select committee clothed with the authority of this House to deal specially with the aspects of defence, and we claim that the national value of secure defence completely vindicates our request for such a committee, a committee on which we can pool our knowledge, our experience and our resources in the interests of Defence of our country. Sir, the time that one has in a debate of this sort is so short that it is impossible to do full justice to the subject, and there are other features of Defence that we will take up when we come to deal with the Vote of the hon. the Minister. Those I have referred to however, are the top-level features which we felt should be brought to the notice of the hon. the Prime Minister, and I would urge him, in the best interests of South Africa, which is what we are all working for in this particular instance of Defence, that he should give our request his most serious attention and endeavour to implement them or to institute roughly a parallel form of control which will be acceptable, as soon as it is possible to do so. It will be in the best interests of South Africa and certainly in the best interests of Defence as well as of the taxpayer whose money we are spending to produce something which is essential and vital for the safety of the country.

In talking about Defence matters we are talking about one of the most important aspects affecting the Government of any country. Sir, if I correctly understood the hon. member who has just sat down he said that there must be complete unanimity between the Opposition and the Government as far as the defence of our country is concerned. The United Party have indicated on previous occasions that if this country ever gets into difficulties we will stand together as one nation to defend our country and to maintain our rights. The hon. member repeated that here this afternoon, and I want to convey my thanks to him for having done so. He touched upon certain other factors which deserve very serious attention. In particular the hon. member suggested that a Defence Select Committee should be established on which both parties will be represented. I do not know what precisely he will achieve by establishing such a committee. I remember very well that in the days of the late General Smuts they also established a committee which was known as the Defence Committee. The duty of that Defence Committee was to advise the Minister of Defence, but it subsequently transpired that that Defence Committee had not met once over a period of eight years; that it had never functioned. In other words, they established a committee but that committee did absolutely nothing. Sir, when the hon. member puts forward the proposal that we should again establish a committee to advise the Minister on Defence matters and with regard to the purchase of military equipment, etc., I just want to remind him that the hon. the Minister is being advised at the present time by a Defence Council which consists of experts in the sphere of defence, and I want to put this question to him wjth all due respect: Assuming the hon. the Minister acceded to the request that we should again establish a Defence Select Committee, what precisely would the functions of that select committee be? Even if such a committee were to put forward suggestions, I think I am entitled to say that those suggestions would come from people who are laymen as far as Defence matters are concerned. It is true that there are members here with war experience but that certainly does not mean that they are experts in Defence matters, and even if we appointed such a committee to advise the Minister, the recommendations of the committee would still have to be referred to a council of experts on Defence matters. I cannot see therefore what useful purpose can be achieved by appointing such a committee, because in the last resort the decision as to whether such a proposal or recommendation is acceptable will have to be taken by the hon. the Minister of Defence, together with his experts on Defence matters. I personally cannot see therefore how such a committee could serve any useful purpose. Then there is still another factor: We are living to-day, as the hon. the Prime Minister has mentioned here, in a very troubled world; we do not know what may happen to-morrow, and as far as Defence matters are concerned, I feel that the fewer people there are who have information about our Defence position the safer and the better it will be for this country. After all, Defence secrets are not things which one shouts out from the roof-tops. The hon. the Minister has stated very clearly here to-day that we will only purchase military equipment which will really be of use to the Republic of South Africa. Sir, when we look at the conditions prevailing in this country to-day and we see what the Government has already done to cope with those conditions, when we see how the Government has expanded our Navy in particular, then each and every one of us sitting here to-day must admit that our Defence is in good hands and that it will be very difficult to put forward better suggestions. The same applies to our Air Force and to our land forces. Sir, never before in the history of South Africa, in peacetime, have we been as well prepared for war as we are to-day. This year the Government is making a sum of R410,000,000 available for Defence.

R210,000,000.

Pardon me, R210,000,000. Bearing in mind this expenditure, I think it must be perfectly clear to everybody here that the Government is indeed giving its serious attention to all matters affecting our system of defence and the expansion of our Defence Force.

The hon. member also made reference to a shortage of technicians in certain fields. It may be true that we have a shortage of technicians, but does the hon. member want to allege that the council suggested by him will solve this problem and wipe out that shortage? These people have to be trained; they cannot be made available by a council waving a magic wand; it simply cannot be done. The fact that the Government is giving its serious attention to this matter ought to convince the Opposition that they can leave the defence of this country with the greatest safety in the hands of this Government. [Time limit.]

Business interrupted to report progress.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.