Mr. Chairman, last night the hon. member for Durban (Point) attacked the Government and said inter alia on the question of the language rights of English-speaking persons that the Government did not respect the language rights of certain persons, and he then quoted an example. I want to quote what the hon. member said—

Sir, I repeat—

Sir, I am surprised that a front-bencher of the United Party should make such an accusation without giving the Committee details, because no such letter was written to any person whatsoever. I have gone into the position. What are the facts? The facts are that this letter was written, but what the hon. member did not disclose to the House is the fact that the letter read—

The hon. member did not tell us that what was enclosed was a photostatic copy because that was in fact what the letter said. But let us carry on. To whom was this letter sent? It was not sent to any individual person at all.

It was sent to a company.

No, I will tell the hon. member to whom it was sent. I want to know from him why he did not disclose this to the Committee. He gave the impression that it was sent to a private individual. That is what every member in this House understood him to say and that is not the case. Why did the hon. member not tell this Committee about it? Five letters were sent out, not at anybody’s request, but the Department thought it advisable, immediately the hon. the Minister made the statement, to let these organizations know, and this letter was sent to organizations with Afrikaans and English-speaking members.

This was given to me by a person.

Who said it was written to a person?

Sir, to whom was sent? It was sent to the South African Hotel Review, the publication of the hoteliers, Afrikaans and English-speaking; it was sent to the Federated Hotel Association, consisting of Afrikaans and English-speaking members. It was sent to the Cape Licensed Victuallers and Hotelkeepers’ Association, consisting of Afrikaans and English-speaking members. It was sent to the Witwatersrand Bottlestore Keepers’ Association, and finally it was sent to the Restaurant Association of South Africa —five organizations representing Afrikaans and English-speaking licensees.

And not to any licensee?

The hon. the Minister of Justice tells me that it was not sent to a single individual.

It was given to me by an individual.

I challenge the hon. member to get up in this House and to name the individual to whom it is supposed to have been sent. After all, it did not come to him from fresh air; it was not Santa Claus who brought the letter to him; it must have been an individual who gave him that letter.

That is right.

I challenge the hon. member now to give us the name of that individual. If the hon. member does not do that then I will know what notice to take of him in future.

He lacks the courage to get up.

I have the assurance of my colleague—and I have no doubt whatsoever that the information he gave me is correct—that it was not sent to a single individual but to these various organizations. But the fact remains that the hon. member tried to bring this Committee under the impression that this was the sort of thing that the Department of Justice did. I must say that I am shocked at the behaviour of the hon. member for Durban (Point).

The hon. the Prime Minister has made a statement that this document from which I quoted last night, this letter, was sent to only five people.

To five organizations.

Yes, organizations, but I assume it was addressed to the secretaries or chairmen of those organizations. [Interjection.] I received this letter not from any of those organizations, or from the secretary, or from a person who received it from the organization. I was given this letter—at least I was not handed it personally, but I was told about this letter the night before last and I said I would like to see it, and I was told by a licensee that he had received this letter.

What is his name?

I am coming to that. I was told that it was interesting to see that the attached statement was only in Afrikaans. I said I would like to see it. He said he would send it to me on condition that I did not disclose his name. [Interjections.] I will tell you why he did that, Sir. It is because hoteliers and licensees are so terrorised to-day by threat after threat that if they upset the inspectors and the people who are concerned with reporting on their premises, and therefore influencing their licences, they are dead scared to disclose anything or to give any information.

Nonsense!

I have made specific enquiries about a number of matters and I have asked specifically why they did not report that and complain, and they said, “Because if it is found out that I have complained or that I have reported this, then the next time I get a report it is an adverse report, perhaps on some minor thing but justified, and I will be made to pay for it”. I was given the name of a police officer who said to a licensee: “I know what you are saying and I want you to know that I know what you are saying about me”. If that is not an implied threat, what is? The person who told me about this and who offered to send it to me and then sent it to me last evening, as promised, told me that he had received it as licensee. Die Burger this morning reported on its front page that such letters have been sent out to licensees and that licensees had been warned. Unfortunately I did not know the Prime Minister was going to deny that this letter had gone out, but Die Burger is quite easily available. A statement was in fact issued that this was happening.

Who sent you the letter?

The letter was sent out over a signature which I cannot decipher, for the Secretary of Justice, and under the heading of the Department of Justice.

To whom was it addressed?

The name, as arranged with the recipient, was excluded from the photostat. [Interjections.] Sir, Nationalist members may have no respect for a promise, but I have and I will not break my word without the permission of the person who gave it to me. If I can get that permission I will disclose the name. But I state now, as a fact, that I was told of this by a private person. who told me that he had the notice sent to him as a classified hotelier. If he had told me that it had been sent to an organization, that would have been a different matter. But, Sir, if it went to an organization, does that get away from the obligation of the Government to send a circular out in both languages? But the Minister says it was sent to an organization which has members of both language groups. Does the Government now determine that it can send out a circular or a notice in this or that language? The Government determines that if there is one Afrikaans-speaking member of an organization, then the Government is entitled to send out a major statement in Afrikaans only, or in English only. The Prime Minister has not dealt with the fact, or at least with the question I asked him last night, whether it is now the policy of the Government to interfere with the rights of businessmen to conduct their business in the language of their choice. Is it now Government policy to enforce bilingualism on private enterprise? Because if the Prime Minister and the Government want to start this, it works both ways. I said last night that no section is going to be a “bywoner” of the other, and I mean it. If we are going to start having witch hunts, and if bilingualism is going to be demanded … [Interjections.] Who started it? The hon. member for Umhlatuzana started it in his speech last night. I believe that it is the right of any individual to use any language which he wishes to use in the conduct of his private life or of his business, and if a person does not like it then he does not have to patronize that business. If an hotel or a shop or any other business does not give service in both languages, the Government is perfectly entitled to grant another licence and to give as the reason for granting it that the public need is not being met by the existing licensee. That right nobody will deny them, but to impose on individuals and private businessmen a compulsory bilingualism and to regard the sending out of circulars to associations or individuals as something which the Government will determine is to get away from the basic principle enshrined in our Constitution of equal treatment for the two languages. That is no answer to the charge I have made. I will try to get permission to disclose this name, but I claim that it was given to me by a licensee.

I want to tell the hon. member for Durban (Point) candidly that I do not accent his explanation, and what is more, I do not believe it.

On a point of order, Sir, does not the Prime Minister have to accept the word of the hon. member?

He need not believe it.

With respect, if I had said to the hon. member that he knows that his explanation is untrue, then it would have been unparliamentary, but there is nothing in the rules to say that I must accept an explanation given by an hon. member, and I candidly tell the hon. member for South Coast that I do not accept the explanation of the hon. member for Durban (Point).

Will you deal with compulsory bilingualism?

Yes, I will. The standpoint of the Government is—and it has always been the policy of the National Party —That people in this country be bilingual as far as is humanly possible. I said so yesterday and I say so again to the hon. member for Durban (Point). But apparently hon. members opposite do not believe in bilingualism at all, because I have asked the hon. member for Durban (Point) to join me and to call upon the people of South Africa to be bilingual, and he has not done so yet.

Of course—I said we take it for granted.

The hon. member has not done so yet.

Well, I do so now.

As far as licensees are concerned I will read out to hon. members of this Committee what the Minister of Justice had to say about this. Let me say that I subscribe to everything that the Minister of Justice has said as far as licensees are concerned. I will read out what he said, and I want the hon. member for Durban (Point) to tell me what is wrong with it. I am reading from the photostatic copy of the Afrikaans letter [translation]—

Not the other way round.

For the simple reason that not one single case has yet come to our notice where an Afrikaans-speaking licensee has offended anyone. That is the point.

Or the English-speaking people have not objected.

If they object. I shall adopt the same attitude as I am now adopting towards the hon. member for Durban (Point), because if any person has so little courtesy as not to respect the other person’s language rights, then, no matter who he is, I shall take action against him. I have said so repeatedly. The hon. the Minister of Justice continued—

I repeat: “on the basis of the public demand.” That is contained in the Act and the hon. member for Durban (Point) knows it. Because that is so, the Minister of Justice has the fullest right to write to licensees about this matter. It is a privilege which they are granted by Parliament in terms of existing legislation. The licensee has to meet public demand, and Afrikaans-speaking people form as much part of the public as English-speaking people do, and vice versa. I read further—

This is a much sought-after licence and the hon. member for Durban (Point) knows it. I read further—

This is elementary courtesy, and the Minister points out that it is not only the Afrikaans language which should be given its rightful place, but both official languages. I quote further—

People who refuse to co-operate voluntarily must expect to be compelled to do so, within the scope of the Liquor Act in the near future.

It is to be regretted that the Minister of Justice has found it necessary to send out such a circular, as I say, these are things which would have been a matter of course for any courteous person. For any decent South African these things are a matter of course.

On a voluntary basis, yes.

No, Sir, I did not expect an attack from the hon. member for Durban (Point). I expected him to get up in this House and to say that he agreed with the hon. the Minister of Justice.

On a voluntary basis, yes.

If people refuse to comply with that, does it simply have to be tolerated? Because it is not a private individual, it is not a private business in the sense that a shop is. If a shop tells people, “Look, I do not want to address you in Afrikaans,” it is its own concern, or if a shoemaker says, “I do not want to mend the shoes of Afrikaners, I refuse to do business with them,” it is his affair.

He gets a licence from the State.

But anybody can become a shoemaker as long as he sticks to his last! Anybody can take out a licence, but it is not anybody who can take out a hotel licence. In the case of a hotel licence it is a question of having to meet public demand— that is what the Act says, and the hon. member told me a moment ago that he knows what the provisions of the Act are. The hon. member knows that there are quota systems. As soon as a certain number of licences have been granted, no further licences may be granted. The hon. member knows that it is a closed trade which is not open to anyone. Surely the hon. member knows that? Not only in respect of hotels, but for all kinds of licences. If a person has obtained a licence in that way, public demand has to be satisfied. He dare not even refuse to provide a member of the public with accommodation. The hon. member knows that. According to the Act the licensee has to provide him with accommodation. Therefore it is not a private business. If the hon. member wants to come here now and pretend that it is the policy of the Government to force private businesses to speak Afrikaans, then I tell him that it is not so—and he knows it is not so.

It is a private business.

No. it is not. It is a business which gets a specific licence to serve the public and it dare not refuse to serve the public. It then commits an offence and its licence can be taken away.

Just like many other licences.

I say, Sir, that I expected that the hon. member who makes great play of wanting to improve relations between Afrikaans and English-speaking people would support me. Last night I gave him the example of his colleague, the hon. member for Durban (North), who is busy sowing blatant racial hatred amongst the English-speaking people of Natal. I expect the hon. member to react to that. If he has the courage he will either side with the hon. member for Durban (North) or he will repudiate him. But this is not the kind of thing that can simply be left undone.

Order! the hon. member for South Coast raised a point of order just before the hon. the Prime Minister spoke. I will now give my ruling. In accordance with a previous ruling a member must accept an explanation by another member but he need not accept his word about whether something is true or not. This ruling was given in 1947 by the then Chairman of Committees.

May I submit that the hon. the Prime Minister said that he did not accept the explanation?

He said he did not accept the hon. member’s word. [Interjections.] He said he did not accept the version of what the hon. member said.

I want him to accept the hon. member’s word. He said that he did not accept his explanation.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the essence of what I said is this, and I repeat—I do not accept the explanation of the hon. member about the letter. I do not accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I am not rising on a point of order. I am merely rising to tell the hon. member for Durban (Point) something.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I thought that the hon. member for Brits was rising on a point of order. I understood you now to give a ruling that a member must accept an explanation given by another member in the House.

Order! I will read out the whole ruling for the hon. member—

I repeat: in explanation of a speech, not in explanation of a certain incident—

I think that that is a sound ruling and it covers the point.

Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful that the fig leaf excuses of the hon. member for Durban (Point), with which he sought to conceal this propaganda hate campaign, have been stripped so ruthlessly. What we enjoyed here was so to speak a political striptease. What is left of the hon. member’s political garments? There he is, in all his nakedness. His only clothing is his political complexion, and that is horrible. The hon. the Chief Whip of the Opposition is looking at me. He is the friendliest man in this whole House, because he smiles purely from hate and fury. He is the champion and the architect of the hate campaign in all these debates in which we deal with the Prime Minister’s Vote. Today I am going to deal in a charitable and friendly fashion with this hate campaign of his. Before I deal with him, and he will not deter me by his physiognomical expressions, I just want to deal with this matter first. I have been awaiting this opportunity for a long time, because I am a patient man. [Interjections.]

Order!

Yes, Sir, it is well that you call the House to order, or you would see chaos here. The Chief Whip went to the hon. member for Durban (Point). Because that is the record of this Chief Whip. He is destroying his party. He is the architect and planner of this hate campaign. Do you remember 1964, when he produced the anti-Semitic label which he hung around the necks of Afrikaans-speaking South Africa, and when they received a thorough drubbing? Do you remember that? Last year, in the last gasps of a similar debate, he also produced this hate propaganda. The Chief Whip is no longer a Chief Whip; he is becoming the political undertaker of a dying party. The attitude of the hon. member is such that he has not had the moral courage this year to use the same tactics. He knows that they disgusted the House. That is why he went to the hon. member for Durban (Point) and to the hon. member for Wynberg yesterday. I watched his movement, and temperamentally he could not have been better suited to the role, because that hon. member has a natural aptitude for handling these things. If you ever want to degrade this Parliament and its dignity to a political jungle, and want to have Tarzan of the Apes raise political havoc, club in hand, then there is the hon. member. This hate campaign is not the way to whip. It is not the way to whip between English-and Afrikaans-speaking people. It is not the way to achieve national unity. Does the hon. Chief Whip not know that hatred consumes the hater? But the United Party will not be destroyed by the Afrikaans-speaking people; they will be destroyed by the English-speaking people. They know that we advocate a nationalism which is a common sentiment to both English-and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans, and the more progress we make on the way to nationhood and co-operation between English-and Afrikaans-speaking people, the more they hate us. But they are not destroying us. The hon. member glares at me. He is not only a funeral undertaker; he is the murderer of his party. No, he is not the murderer. They are all committing suicide. The hon. member for Wynberg was also asked to take part in the debate. The hon. member called on her to do this work.

Are you speaking for your party?

Yes, I am speaking for my party, and for myself and for South Africa, against this hate campaign. Would you defend it? The hon. member’s Chief Whip will bury the Leader of the Opposition just as he buried another leader while he was still alive. They have instigated a political civil war as a result of this hatred.

What a shocking exhibition.

No, it is not a shocking exhibition. It is a shocking exhibition if a Leader of the Opposition is a monotonous parrot.

It is scandalous.

It is not scandalous. But in all charity we shall calm down. I want to come to this hate campaign we have to cope with every year. [Interjections.] I have just as much right as the hon. Leader to address this House. [Interjections.] I want to expose this hate campaign, because the more we gain the goodwill of English-speaking South Africa, of the Coloureds and of the Bantu, through our policy, which is inspired by charity and self-sacrifice and Christian justice, the more they rise to incite those people against each other and to light the fires of racialism. Take the hon. member for Wynberg. Is it not true that the hon. member is exploiting the education system to incite racialism, blatant racialism in respect of the education system? Her entire speech on the immigrants was in that vein, was it not? I think the most venomous and the most hateful and the worst tempered woman I have read about in history was the wife of the old philosopher Socrates, but that was before that hon. member made her appearance in this House. That such an attractive person should use such repugnant expressions! One day Socrates’s wife poured a bucket of water over his head, but he had a temperament similar to that of this Chief Whip, and he said: “Yes, my dear, after the storm cometh the rain.” But this hon. member comes along with a bucket of evil-smelling political racialism to pour it out and contaminate national life in South Africa. That is what is happening. It is scandalous to deal with a Prime Minister’s Vote in such a way, and then they want to tell us what the debating pattern should be. But let the Opposition be fair. They may talk to each other if they like, because they will not put me off my stroke. The United Party has only one type of propaganda and that is hate propaganda. It is hate propaganda morning, noon and night. Let us be fair. Since the National Party came into power in 1948, the United Party has never made a fair, honest and objective study of the policy of racial separation. No, they have had only one objective. Do you know what that was? It was not judgement of a policy, but crass condemnation of that policy. They had only one object, and that was to represent this policy of equitable race separation to the Asiatics, the Coloureds and the Natives as a policy which is filled with hate. They were conveniently silent on the moral and humane and positive aspects. They read something into our policy which never was in our policy.

Your policy is “baasskap”.

It is your Party’s policy which leads one along the road and to the abysses of “baasskap”. We have accepted the consequence that any man, be he black, brown or white, is a human being, and because we accepted that as our basic premise, we have accepted the logical consequence that that man may develop as far as he pleases, no matter whether he is an Asiatic, a Coloured, a Bantu or a white man. That is our policy. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the hon. Chief Whip from time to time but I think that he has really reduced the proceedings of this House to a very low level by the speech which he has just made. When all is said and done he is the Chief Whip and I do not think that that kind of speech brings any credit to him or his party or Parliament. The hon. member laid an accusation against the hon. the Chief Whip on this side of the House which is of course entirely in line and in conformity with the political law of contamination by association. That is becoming a cult on the other side of the House. The hon. the Prime Minister is also guilty of it.

Will you substantiate that charge?

Yes. I shall substantiate that charge. That charge was substantiated for me by the hon. the Prime Minister just now when he was dealing with a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Durban (Point), which the hon. the Prime Minister has not yet answered.

What is that?

The question he asked yesterday.

About what?

Why was the letter itself not sent out in both languages?

The letter is in one language only, and that is English.

I mean the statement. Why was the statement not sent out in both languages? It is a simple question. But let me proceed. If we take to its logical conclusion the allegations made by the Chief Whip on the other side, is he going to accept responsibility for all the speeches made by members on that side of the House who may come into a debate from time to time? He is holding out the fact that the Chief Whip on this side is responsible for what speakers say, when he as a whip brings in certain speakers and does no more than that, in conformity with the common usage in Parliament. The hon. the Chief Whip on that side says that the Chief Whip on this side is now responsible for what those members say and for the sentiments that they express. Is he going to be responsible for what hon. members say in debates on that side of the House?

My members will not be so irresponsible.

The hon. the Chief Whip must not talk about irresponsibility. A more irresponsible and childish contribution to a serious debate I have very rarely heard. I think it is the worst I have heard in this House.

Let me proceed to deal with another matter. The hon. the Prime Minister last night dealt with a statement in the newspapers. I did not ask for a reference last night from the Prime Minister. It was an article published by the hon. member for Durban (North). The hon. the Prime Minister did me the courtesy just now of allowing me to check on the particular article, of which I have a copy here. I assume that this was it. This article, which appears in the Natal Mercury of Friday. 7th April, is headed “How Nats plan and plot to exploit the Education Act”. In the course of the article, which is set out at considerable length—some two full columns and two shorter columns—the hon. member, after having dealt with certain provisions in the Act. and having dealt with the debate, goes on to make the statement to which the hon. the Prime Minister has taken exception, as I understand. The statement reads as follows—

Subsequently he says—

Why does the hon. the Prime Minister say that that was a scandalous thing to say? I do not know why he says that is a scandalous thing to say. Let me say at once that the hon. the Prime Minister called on me last night to say whether I agreed with what the hon. member had said in this article. It does not stand in the abstract. It is not isolated. It is not in vacuo. It is part of an article where the hon. member is dealing with the content and the effect of the Education Bill. I was surprised when the hon. the Prime Minister, in dealing with this language question, took exception apparently to what is in essence a statement by the hon. member that the English language is in peril in South Africa. [Interjections.] I shall tell you why I was surprised. I wrote to the hon. the Prime Minister in December and told him the same thing. It was my opinion.

You said that before the Republic too. You said that that was going to happen, and it never happened.

I never said before that I wrote to the Prime Minister.

You said the same thing about the English language before the referendum.

It is no good the Minister of Transport dealing with that. I am dealing with the Education Bill. That Bill was not before us then. I am dealing with the effect, as far as we are concerned, of the Education Bill. I make no secret of it. Sir, nor do I think anybody in this House does. The Bill is introduced. not for educational purposes. That was a lot of guff. It was introduced for party political purposes, to try and cramp the English language. Hence the emphasis now on the children of immigrants, who are to be prevented from being educated through the medium of English. Why? Here is the proof of it. The hon. the Minister of Education will not stand up and say that he is going to see to it that the children of immigrants are educated through the medium of English. He will not say that.

I did not say that they would only be educated through the medium of Afrikaans either.

No. the hon. the Minister did not say that. The hon. the Minister is trying to throw the responsibility on to the future council. He says that he is not going to commit himself at all. [Interjections.] He is willing to wield the axe but he is not willing to be charged with the execution. That is the point.

Nonsense.

No, he has himself wielded the instrument for his purpose. Do not let us make any mistake about that. This is common knowledge. The hon. member for Durban (North) now says what is going to be the effect of this cramping and knee-haltering of the education of our children in this fashion. He said that it is up to us to have parent-teacher groups and committees to work on this basis. They must be up and doing if we are going to protect our language. If that is so, then I repeat that I wrote that at the beginning of December to the Prime Minister myself. I said that I believed that that was the position. [Interjections.] No. he did not reply. I received no acknowledgment from him. That is the position. Let us have a look for a moment at a statement which appeared in Die Transvaler on the 12th of this month, yesterday. This is a statement by Mr. D. P. Goosen, director of the “Akademie van Wetenskap en Kuns”. This is a speech he delivered at Florida when he dealt with the question of national “Volksfeeste”. He takes exception to the fact that there can be claimed to be a “volksfees” in which two languages are spoken. He says that it cannot be. He says that in a “volksfees” you can have Afrikaans or English as the case may be, but you cannot use both languages at a function which is to be called a “volksfees”. In other words, when my hon. Leader and the late Prime Minister both spoke at the gathering at the Monument in 1960 …

Will you please read that report, because I have not seen it.

I shall let you have it. At that gathering my hon. Leader and the late Prime Minister both spoke. My hon. Leader spoke in English and the late Prime Minister in Afrikaans. That was then not a “volksfees.” Now Mr. Goosen once more tries to stir up trouble by dividing the English and Afrikaans-speaking people, even at gatherings of that kind, which are to record the part played in our history by the events which are being commemorated. Even in the historical commemoration of historical events we are not to be allowed to have English and Afrikaans spoken at the same commemoration. Then it ceases to be that kind of festival. I must therefore say this as far as the hon. member for Durban (North) is concerned: I am surprised at the attitude that the hon. the Prime Minister has adopted. Why does he not ask himself this one question: How can it be that a responsible member of Parliament can issue statements like that? Am I. as Prime Minister, not missing something? Is something not going on in front of my eyes that I do not see. [Time expired.]

In the first instance, I have only had a chance to glance at this; it is not a report from Die Transvaler. I am very sorry therefore that I cannot accept it. It is from a certain Stoffel Viljoen to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

A very reliable gentleman. He is well known to you.

If it is correct, then I do not agree with it.

That is fair.

Hon. members opposite know that the late Prime Minister and other members of the Cabinet often spoke at “volksfeeste” and that they used both official languages, and members of the Cabinet have since done so. Hon. members also know that when they were in power, their ministers did not even take the trouble to reply in Afrikaans to the questions put to them in Afrikaans in this House.

Most of the debates in those days were conducted in English—about 80%.

Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to the hon. member for South Coast. The hon. member is correct, of course, in saying that the quotations I used last night do not stand in vacuo; they must be seen in the light of this article. What is the hon. member for Durban (North) doing? He, as the member of the United Party, is warning the English-speaking South Africans that the National Party Government and in particular the hon. the Minister of Education are going to take away the language rights of English-speaking South Africans. Sir, that is a scandalous thing to say.

He did not say that.

I will prove that to the hon. member for South Coast. This is how the article starts off—

I want the hon. member to listen to this—

Sir. plotting and planning by the harbingers of Afrikaner nationalism! Then after he had set out various details of the Act, as he interprets it, he went on to say—

Sir, that is perfectly plain. According to the hon. member for Durban (North) this Government and the Minister of Education will take away the language rights of English-speaking South Africans. How else can it be interpreted? What other explanation is there? However, not content with that statement, the hon. member went on to say this—

Of course, it will be done gradually.

According to the hon. member, what is the purpose of this indoctrination? The purpose is to take away the language rights of English-speaking South Africans. Does the hon. member for South Coast agree with that now? He admits that that is also his standpoint.

Yes, I said so in my letter to you.

I say to the hon. member for South Coast that that is nonsense and he knows it.

I said that the Education Bill was designed for that purpose. The Minister designed the Education Bill for that purpose.

I will come back to that—

“the Nationalist leaders”—

You see, Sir, what the suggestion is—

That is right; that is what the Minister says.

What I said? What nonsense!

I say to the hon. member for South Coast that he does not know what he is talking about. Because, Sir, what is the basis of the whole education policy of this side of the House and what is the basis of the Education Act? The basis is that English-speaking children will be educated through the medium of English. Does the hon. member for South Coast deny that? Does he deny that the basis is that English-speaking children will be educated through the medium of English?

What is an English-speaking child when the child can speak neither English nor Afrikaans?

We will come to that point immediately. Leaving aside those who cannot speak either English or Afrikaans, does the hon. member for South Coast deny that the basis of the whole Education Act is that English-speaking children will be educated in English?

What is the child of a bilingual home?

The hon. member knows that the parents have a choice.

Where?

They have the choice to say what their home language is and if they say that their home language is English then the child will be educated through the medium of English.

Home language is not even mentioned.

Moreover, the basis of this Act is that English-speaking children will be educated through the medium of English and Afrikaans-speaking children through the medium of Afrikaans.

And the bilingual child? The PRIME MINISTER? A bilingual child will be educated through the medium of the language that he knows best.

And by whom will that be decided?

That will be decided by the educational authorities. Sir, hon. members on the other side pretend that they believe in parental choice.

It is no pretence.

They certainly never gave the Afrikaans parent in Natal the right to exercise their parental choice.

Nonsense!

Let me tell the hon. member for South Coast that as Deputy Minister of Education I had reason to go into the position in Natal. I found that in many places no facilities had been created for Afrikaans-speaking children to be educated through the medium of Afrikaans, and the hon. member knows that. Numbers of complaints were made to the Administration of Natal and pleas were made to the Administration to provide education through the medium of Afrikaans for Afrikaans-speaking children. I will give the hon. member for South Coast many such instances.

I challenge you to do so.

When Afrikaans speaking parents brought their children to school for the first time, they were told: “It is far better for you to put your children into English classes because we cannot guarantee that they will be educated in Afrikaans up to matriculation.” That was the old ruse. That is what happened at Eshowe, as my hon. friend here says; it happened at Escourt and it happened all over Natal.

And at Port Shepstone to this day.

I challenge the hon. member for South Coast to mention a single community of English-speaking people in the whole country who asked for education for their children through the medium of English and who did not get it from this Nationalist Party Government.

What is happening in the Free State? They cannot get books in English.

The PRIME MINISTER, Sir, when I talk about education through the medium of English the hon. member for Transkei talks about books. There are English and Afrikaans text books all over the country.

But they cannot get English text books there.

I do not know to what the hon. member refers, but perhaps books were just out of print at a certain time. But it is the official policy of the Education Departments of the Free State and the Transvaal to provide books in English and in Afrikaans. I say that the whole basis of the Education Act is for Afrikaans-speaking children to be educated in Afrikaans and for English-speaking children to be educated in English. Then I come to the point of those children who are neither English nor Afrikaans-speaking, whose home language is neither of the official languages. What right has the hon. member for South Coast to claim all those as his? [Interjections.] I did not do it, and the Minister tells me that he did not do it, and I challenge the hon. member to prove it. Some of them will be educated through the medium of Afrikaans and some probably through the medium of English.

But let us see what the hon. member for Durban (North) had to say about this, and I am glad that the hon. member mentioned it. He said—

What utter nonsense! But they do it, and why do they do it? They do it because they are politically bankrupt; they do it because they know that they are losing English-speaking voters every day. They do it because they know that English-speaking South Africans trust this Government. They know that they not only trust this Government but are joining the National Party. I want to tell my old friend the hon. member for South Coast that the young Mitchell is trying to stir up this racial bogey in South Africa for the umpteenth time, but that horse will not run. Our people in South Africa are sick and tired of racialism. They have discarded racialism; they have rejected it completely. They have joined the National Party because they know that the National Party can be trusted not only with the language rights and the culture of Afrikaans-speaking people, but also with the language rights and the culture of the English-speaking people in South Africa. It is because they know that this Government is not only out to serve Afrikaans-speaking people, but it is out to serve white South Africans. This Government is not only a party consisting of Afrikaans-speakers, but it is a party consisting of both Afrikaans and English-speaking members who want to dedicate themselves to serving South Africa as the common father-land.

I must

congratulate the hon. the Prime Minister on the smart sleight of hand which he is trying to take over United Party policy [Laughter.] He talks about national unity, but he forgets that history goes back a long time. For how long has the policy of the United Party not been national unity and the policy of the Nationalist Party that of co-operation on terms? What interests me so much are these nice phrases used by the hon. the Prime Minister, promptly contradicted by certain spokesmen of his party in other spheres. Here is Mr. Geldenhuys speaking in the Transvaal Provincial Council on 23rd August, 1966, according to the Rand Daily Mail of 24th August—

According to the Mail, yes.

Does the Prime Minister deny it?

He did not use the word “indoctrination” at all.

I would be glad if the Prime Minister gave me the correct version, according to him, but this is as the Mail reported it, and I have never seen it denied. It was debated in this House and was not denied then either—

That reminds me of the hon. member for Randfontein, who told us in this House with pride that he had been a history teacher in an Afrikaans-medium school in the Transvaal, and he said that every child who went through his history class finished up a good Nationalist.

The whole of history indicates that.

That is one of the more childish interjections from the hon. the Prime Minister. He knows very well what was happening in the case of that hon. member, and what the hon. member meant. While I welcome his statement, I want to tell him that history is such that he cannot be surprised that there is suspicion which was not allayed by the hon. the Minister of Education. Arts and Science when he introduced the National Education Policy Bill. In fact, it was quite clear that the hon. the Prime Minister was not familiar with the terms of that Bill when he spoke a few minutes ago. It is quite clear that he did not study it very carefully. He made a mistake, or does he agree that the parents can decide? [Interjections.] You see, Sir, the hon. gentleman has rushed in to try to justify a Bill that he did not know very much about and the debates on which he has not followed, to try to make his point. I want to tell him that there is great suspicion over that Bill, and unless the Minister so administers it that he destroys that suspicion he will do a great deal to harm national unity in South Africa. A very great responsibility rests on him and on the Prime Minister. I hope that by the time we discuss it next the Prime Minister will know what is in the Bill and what is happening in that regard.

Now there comes the question of what was said by Mr. Goosen in the Free State.

Who is Goosen?

The Prime Minister can tell the hon. member if he does not know. He is a leader of one of these “kultuurverenigings” which the Minister is so fond of supporting. [Interjections.] What is so amusing about this debate is the number of people coming in to try to protect the Prime Minister. We have had the Minister of Transport and the Chief Whip opposite and others. It is the most clownish exhibition we have ever had in this House. Why else did he come in? I have never heard such a speech in this House. It is absolute nonsense. Here is the report I have from somebody who attended the debate in the Natal Provincial Council when this bill was discussed, and there one of the Nationalist M.P.C.’s admitted that the Bill was revenge against Natal. Their leader in the Provincial Council, Mr. Botha, of the Nationalist Party, according to the report I have here, said that this Act was revenge against Natal. This is from an eye-witness account. [Interjections.] Yes, you can look up the Hansard. If I am wrong, I will apologize to you. Do hon. members think that that promotes national unity? You see, Sir, these are the sort of problems with which we are faced. Then the hon. the Prime Minister is surprised that there is suspicion. He is surprised when one finds that as regards immigrants coming in who are more proficient in English than Afrikaans it is suggested that they should be put into Afrikaans-medium schools, because there they will become, I will not say indoctrinated, but they will be taught the way of life of the South African people according to the hon. member for Randfontein and they will finish up good Nationalists. I must confess that I have no doubts in my mind that if the English language group in South Africa wants to retain its language on a basis of equality, it has to get down and fight for it, and fight for it properly.

We have had an interesting discussion arising out of my suggestion that for a nation to be strong and maintain its security it is necessary that there be good race relations. I said good relations not only between the two European groups but also between European and non-European. I started by instancing the position of the Cape Coloured people. The Prime Minister replied to me last night in a spirited speech in which he claimed that relations with the Coloured people had never been better, he claimed to have met their leaders and he knew what they were feeling. I wonder which leaders he met?

Dr. Van der Ross, inter alia.

Dr. Van der Ross I see has joined the Department of Coloured Affairs. I am very interested in that. They have this Coloured Council, but this council consists very largely of Government nominated people and people elected in an election in which there was so little interest that there was not a single contested seat. The Prime Minister knows very well that that was the election which was boycotted. Who does he think this Coloured Council really represents? People selected by the Government, people nominated very often at the suggestion of Government supporters because they knew that the Opposition were not going to participate. Does the Prime Minister really think that the Coloured people are so happy today? Would he like to go into the question of the Group Areas Act and its application here in the Cape Province and find out how many Coloured families have had to move and how many European families? Will he find out what the feelings of those people are? Will he go into the question of compulsory education for the Coloured people and find out what the position is and where it is applied? Will he have a look at the Estimates and find out how much money was set aside for Coloured high schools in the last year? Will he tell me why it is that so many of the educated Coloured people are trying to emigrate, and why not so long ago when I applied to the Department of the Interior on behalf of a Coloured man who was a teacher they would not give him a passport because “too many teachers were leaving the country”? The hon. the Prime Minister says that they are happy, he says relations have never been better. He is going to give them a council which he is going to give certain rights. Where is their homeland? Where is their particular area? What is the position going to be with this Coloured Council? When the hon. gentleman tells me that relations between White and non-White are better today than they have ever been in South Africa then I am just as horrified as I am to hear from the Prime Minister that he had not known until last night what United Party policy was on the Coloured people.

Then you had better be horrified.

I am horrified. Because on this question of the different qualifications, if I remember rightly, I first stated at a meeting at Villiersdorp in 1958 in the general election meetings …

Should I attend them?

It was in the Press.[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has taken part in the debate again. Once again we have seen an exhibition on his part, how he tried to get away from the point under discussion, which is that that party has probably made the greatest contribution towards keeping the two sections of the population apart; it has certainly done more than any other party in this country.

In the past few hours this United Party has had a great deal to say about national unity and the National Party’s failure to contribute to that. I want to give a practical example of the slight welcome he and his party show people who join the National Party in promoting national unity. I want to refer to the speech made here yesterday by the hon. the Leader. He referred disparagingly to my former association with the Johannesburg newspaper The Star, when under the pseudonym “Jan Burger” I wrote a regular column for that newspaper. To me that is further proof of the fact that the United Party cannot tolerate people from that party going over to the National Party, where national unity is nowadays promoted to an ever-increasing extent. I want to tell the Leader that I in fact took up the appointment with The Star from a National newspaper, Dagbreek, because at that time I wanted to plead for greater understanding and a better relationship between the two sections of the population. But what happened then? When the referendum on the Republic came and became practical politics and I pleaded in my column that we should accept the Republic in order to promote greater national unity in South Africa, all kinds of obstacles—to put it euphemistically— were immediately placed in my way by The Star to prevent me from advocating a Republic in that English-language newspaper, a newspaper which supports the party of the hon. Leader. That newspaper placed obstacles in my way, although we had a carte blanche agreement. The reason was that that newspaper supported the retention of the monarchy and the bitter campaign waged against the Republic by the Leader of the Opposition. Nor was it very long afterwards that I stopped this column in which I had pleaded for better relations between the two sections of the population. That was when our ways started parting, and I gradually associated myself with the National Party because I realized that the National Party was the only one which was prepared to fight for those essential national status symbols under which we could advocate unification and national unity to an ever increasing extent.

It so happens that for four or five months I was in the same party as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, the National Union. I want to say that that was probably the greatest political error in judgement I have ever made, namely to join him in the same party. Now he is in the United Party’s cemetery and I am here in a vital, virile party. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is always ready to refer to the fact that I used to belong to his party. He behaves as though it is a great political revelation. But it is well-known in the country, it is well-known among my own people, and he will not cast suspicion on me by those means.

I do not like speaking about these matters, but I think the time has come for me to give you a glimpse on what that hon. member said some years ago about the patriotism of the same party which he is now supporting so enthusiastically. To those of us who joined him he told with a grand gesture that he actually wanted to establish an effective South African orientated, nationalistic opposition party which was eventually to replace that inefficient, unpatriotic opposition party lead by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. But when the hon. member saw that he could make no headway, he turned in his tracks and with his National Union sought to join the United Party, which he had shortly before called an unpatriotic party. I challenge the hon. member to get up and deny that, because he is always trying to refer to me as though I went along with him all the way. When our ways separated there, he went over to the United Party. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is angry with me because I was not prepared to make a second error in political judgment and join the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in going over to the unpatriotic United Party, and hence the personal attacks he is making on me in this House. I want to tell the hon. the Leader this: I am a novice in this House and I knew him as a courteous man. If that is the pattern he wishes to set in this House, as the alternative Prime Minister of this country, then we shall take notice of that.

I do not want to delve too far in the past to prove to you that this United Party harbours people who may be regarded as amongst the greatest racialists abroad in South Africa. I want to come at once to the hon. member for East London (North). Here in my hand I have a photostatic copy of that infamous letter which he wrote in 1963, under the official letterhead of the Cape Provincial Council, what is more, while he was still United Party M.P.C. for Queenstown, to a prominent English-speaking businessman of Durban, the late Mr. Stanley Murphy, because Mr. Murphy had then joined the National Party. It is interesting to note how this envelope was addressed. It reads: “Mr. Stanley Murphy, Esq., Nationalism’s latest catch.” I just want to read you some paragraphs from this letter.

Read the whole letter.

Does the hon. member still agree with the letter?

I agree with every word.

I think the House should take notice that it harbours an hon. member who can display such venomous racialism. Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes along and points a finger at me because I am supposedly out of touch with the man in the street. What did this hon. member say with regard to English-speaking South Africans who join the National Party? Amongst other things he says the following to Mr. Murphy—

The hon. member then continues, and after he has invited Mr. Murphy to join him in an election tour in the rural areas, he says—

He concludes his letter as follows—

I would appreciate it very much. I would like to see what an Englishman looks like who has turned yellow (I have seen Waring and Trollip).

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am only rising to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I asked somebody to check up on the Geldenhuys report and he did in fact use the word “indoctrination”, but not in the sense that is usually attached to that word. He did however use the word “indoctrination”.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the Prime Minister. It is better that we argue on facts that are known than argue as to what the facts are. Let us argue rather on the conclusions than on what the facts are.

The hon. gentleman who has just sat down has been making some accusations against me. Of course we remember him well as the editor of a book, as well as some articles, namely The Gulf Between. To-day of course he no longer supports the policies he stood for then. He has changed a lot.

Like Japie Basson.

Yes, Japie has changed for the good. I am not so sure about the hon. member for Tuffontein. I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister of Transport changed for the worse. He would have been much better off with his old associations. “Hy het ook ’n oordeelsfout gemaak.” We were discussing the director of the Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns who was a teacher in the Transvaal. Apparently he did not only deliver himself of a speech on the 12th April but he apparently also spoke sometime earlier in the year as reported in the Argus of the 16th March as follows:

Mr. Chairman, when you have this sort of nonsense written by a gentleman occupying a responsible position of that kind, are you surprised that there is reaction from other groups?

If the hon. the Prime Minister can do one thing towards national unity in South Africa, it is to discipline people of this kind.

You had better start disciplining your own members.

I am very good at that. The hon. the Prime Minister will find that I was once a regimental sergeant major. [Interjections.] The Prime Minister was a general but there was no organized army.

Politically of course you have never risen above that.

You do not need to, you know. In fact, that is far further than the leaders of many nations in the world have reached in the past. I want to return to the question of relationships between the races. I want to say that I believe that with the present policy of this Government they will not retain nearly to the extent that the United Party would have done the goodwill between Coloured and European. I go further and say that with the policy of the Nationalist Party as it exists at the present time, they are not going to maintain the best relations possible between the Bantu and the white people in South Africa. You see, Sir, they have accepted defeat already. They have taken the line that it is not possible for different people of different races and different standards of culture and civilization to live together in harmony within the framework of one state. For that reason they are prepared to balkanize South Africa. They are prepared to see different loyalties develop amongst these people to different states and different economies develop amongst them. Above all they are prepared to give up control of the internal security of these areas concerned. On the other hand, we believe that it is possible for different peoples of different races and colours and different standard of civilization to live together within the framework of one state in harmony. When I state that, I sometimes believe that there is a sneaking support for that view amongst members on the Government’s side because for all their talk of separation, there is to be no homeland for the Cape Coloured people. There is to be no homeland for the Indian people. Obviously the Government believes that they can keep them within the framework of one state, living in harmony with the Europeans. We believe that that can be done not only for the Coloureds and the Indians, but for the Bantu as well. The hon. the Prime Minister and others have been at pains to ask me how it can be done, for several days. Despite the fact that pamphlets have been issued and the policies have been enunciated so often in this House, they are trying to bluff the public that they do not know what that policy is. They are trying to explain to them that the United Party has no policy because they are afraid that the United Party policy should be understood by the public, because they realize that they will then abandon the Nationalist Party and its policy. We have outlined our ideas so often. We have said that we believed, in the political field, that first of all in the reserves the Bantu should have a large measure of local self-government and that the elective principle should be introduced. We pointed out that the major problem of the reserves is a problem of poverty. That meant that the system of land tenure would have to be dealt with firstly. Secondly there would have to be major industrial development inside those reserves, which we believed —the Prime Minister disagrees—could best be advanced and most rapidly advanced with the assistance of private white capital and skill under strictly controlled conditions. We have indicated also that for those reserves there should be established what we have called councils, legislative authorities, communal councils, what have you, that would have a large measure of local self-control. That is the territorial element in the policy which we advance.

We are however still faced with the problem of the Bantu permanently settled in and around our urban areas and permanently settled in our rural areas on the farms and areas of that kind, who knows no other home, who have lost their association with the tribe and with the reserve. Please. Sir, I hope that hon. members are not going to come back and tell me that there is no Bantu that has become detribalized.

Ask the hon. member for South Coast. He knows the Bantu better than every one of us.

The hon. member for South Coast agrees with me very fully indeed, because this fiction ceases to hold any water. The point is: What measure of self-government do you give those people? You cannot say that you give them control over a territory because they are scattered all over the place. There is no hope of getting what you call consolidation because they are in various Bantu townships, attached to various industrial areas. They are scattered about the countryside. Therefore we say that we will give them a communal council, probably in each province, which will control matters of intimate concern to them in the area, despite the fact that it is occupied by White and non-White, just as this hon. Prime Minister is going to give the Coloureds a Council. The Coloureds are not in one particular area. They are scattered about all over the province in little villages, in little Coloured mission stations, on farms and in reserves. The hon. the Prime Minister is going to give them a Coloured council with control over certain matters of more intimate concern to them. Why is there this difficulty of understanding that we want to do the same with the Bantu scattered about in the province or the other provinces?

If you go further, you will want to give them representation in this House.

I shall deal with that in a moment. Just let us take it step by step. I believe that if the foundation is sound, the logic follows naturally. I hope that I can get it across to hon. members opposite who want a Coloured council which is not based on a territorial element or a geographical element. It is based on race. In fact, I think they have stolen the race federation idea from us. They certainly never talked in that language until we came out with the race federation idea. I remember the Minister of Transport sitting there, and saying to me, the first time I enunciated this: “You do not need consolidation”. I said: “No, it is unnecessary”. With a tremendous smile he turned to the then Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, and said: “You see?” I thought to myself: “By Jove, they have pinched that too.” [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has again referred to indoctrination, national unity, race federation and various other matters to which I should like to return.

But first I should like to refer to what the hon. member for Wynberg said yesterday in regard to the language struggle, etc. It is of course clear that it is being seized upon to try and rouse some kind of racial feeling or language feeling. She mentioned an example and said that there were ten cases, which she mentioned, and that of the ten cases, nine cases were …

Order! There is a continual muttering going on. Hon. members must please whisper more softly or stay quiet.

She said that of the ten cases, nine were cases of alleged injustice to Afrikaans. Is that not perhaps an indication that in nine cases out of ten it is the Afrikaans language to which an injustice is being done? That would not surprise us at all for since the days of Lord Charles Somerset in the 19th Century—the century of injustice—it has always been the Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaner who had to fight for his language rights. It has always been he who was treated unjustly and not the English-speaking person. That he had to fight for those rights is quite understandable. It was of very great importance to him to maintain his language in his struggle to retain his national identity. Not that language is the test for membership of a nation. However, language is a very important means of making the separate identity of a nation felt when it has to struggle to retain that identity, as happened in the struggle against British imperialism and liberalism.

I just want to say something in regard to the incident in East London which the hon. member for Wynberg mentioned. I know East London very well. I was there for many years and I saw what injustices were being done to the Afrikaans language there. It was there that a mayor of East London told me: “Damn your Afrikaans”.

That is terrible.

It is terrible, yes. I find it a terrible thing to have to repeat, but that is what he said. It will come as no surprise to me therefore if that is the case because something like that is still going on to such an extent that the person whose name the hon. member mentioned there, Mr. de Lange, used that expression. There, too, it is not a case of the English-speaking person finding it necessary to protect his language rights. It is still the Afrikaner who has to protect his language rights.

I should like to return the idea of national unity. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to it. I want to state the basis of the National Party’s concept of national unity, as it was originally stated by General Hertzog in 1905, in regard to the establishment of the Orange Union in the Free State. It was in a speech which we made on 10th November of that year at Wepener. It was the foundation of national unity as advocated and promoted by the National Party. I want to read an account in English of what General Hertzos said as it appeared in The Friend. He said—

That is the foundation, as it was laid down by General Hertzog, upon which the National Party has continued to build and is still standing to-day.

The national concept which is of primary importance for the survival of the white civilization in South Africa, the national concept which the United Party adheres to, amounts to this that in its race federation white, black and all colours from one nation, one demos, in that democracy. In other words, despite the fact that there are deep-rooted differences between White and non-White and that as a result a separate group-consciousness has developed and exists and, again as a result of that, they compete with one another when they are in the same state, in spite of the fact that they will as a result come into conflict with one another and that it could cause a blood bath in South Africa, it is the national concept of the United Party. It is a totally unscientific national concept, because scientists confirm the view of the National Party that a nation does not consist of variegated elements, but that there must be a national sentiment binding a nation together. There must be a national consciousness, a group consciousness, which can only exist in the case of Whites and not in the case of Whites and non-Whites together because there are deep-rooted differences between the two, particularly between white and black, as Prof. McDougall has expressed it in his well-known book The Group Mind—

Those deep-rooted differences are the cause of variations in group consciousness and thus of competitiveness, which makes it unscientific to try and make one nation of them. In addition a nation is, according to the scientific view, not merely a conglomeration; it is bound together by that national sentiment. I am quoting again from what Prof. McDougall said in that same book—

He then goes on to say—

[Time expired.]

I do not want to speak for very long, because I should like to give the Leader of the Opposition the chance to finish stating his policy to us. I want to express my gratitude to him for having come so far; I appreciate it very highly. I want to assure the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that if he states his policy to us, I will in future when I speak on platforms reproduce it exactly as he stated it to us here, because one wins supporters if one does that. Mr. Chairman, you saw what happened at Uitenhage. When my hon. friend the member for Newton Park stated his policy to a United Party candidate, he became a Nationalist. I shall therefore be able to put the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to very good use. [Interjections.] No. after he had heard the hon. member for Newton Park, he came to the conclusion that it was only the National Party that could ensure the safety of the Whites in South Africa.

I am rising to say a few words in regard to the standpoint of cultural organizations, because I want no misunderstanding on that score. The hon. member has by way of repetition again referred to Mr. Goosen, who is a good person and a good Afrikaner. He is Secretary of the Academy.

Secretary or Director?

He is a fulltime official of the Academy. I do not know whether he is the Secretary or the Director. The hon. member knows that it is the Academy’s task and function to protect and further the Afrikaans language. The hon. member also knows why the Academy was established, and why it was necessary in the first instance to establish the Academy. If the Academy had not been established, then I wonder whether Afrikaans would still have existed in South Africa today. However, I do not want to go as far back; the hon. member knows those circumstances as well as I do. But I want to make it very clear that it is not only on the part of Afrikaans-speaking people, on the part of Mr. Goosen, that language interests are being guarded. In the same way there are English organizations which have existed for many years and which look after and protect the interests of the English language, and what is wrong with that? If Mr. Goosen states that the Afrikaner is in danger of losing his identity, what is wrong with that? If English-speaking organizations state that they want to retain their English identity, what is wrong with that? What is wrong, is when members of the House of Assembly incite racial hatred by saying that this or that political party, and more specifically the National Party, wants to deprive English-speaking people of their political rights.

Language and cultural rights?

Yes.

You said “political rights.”

I am sorry, it was a slip of the tongue on my part. I meant language and cultural rights. I have no fault to find if English-speaking people form an organization to further, to protect, and to promote appreciation of, their culture. As a matter of fact, there are such English-language cultural organizations which have invited me to address them, and I shall do so. It will be my pleasant privilege to do so.

May I ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he associates himself with the plea by Mr. Goosen that children of immigrants who are not English-speaking must be educated through the medium of Afrikaans and not be allowed to go to English-medium schools?

Sir, that is his point of view, just as there are English-speaking people whose point of view it is that they should be educated in English. The hon. member for Durban Point’s entire argument centres around that.

But what is your point of view?

My point of view is that it would be a good thing if some of them were educated in Afrikaans. I would be very grateful if that could be done. [Interjections.] That policy has been explained fully by the Minister of Education. The Vote of the Minister of Education will come up for discussion next week, and if the hon. member did not understand this position previously he may as well ask him to explain everything again very carefully because the hon. member did not understand it very well on the previous occasion, and then he will speak very slowly so that the hon. member may understand.

But what is your point of view?

My point of view in respect of this matter is this, and this also applies in respect of the entire immigration policy, that one must be careful not to disturb the balance existing in a country by immigration. One must try to retain the balance as far as possible. That is my general principle and point of view.

They will therefore have no choice.

Oh, please! When did I say that they will not have a choice?

But what are you going to do?

I shall try and influence them to choose either of the two languages as the language in which their children must be educated, and it is obvious that the Afrikaans cultural organizations will ask that they be educated in Afrikaans, and that the English cultural organizations, on the other hand, will ask that they be educated in English, and the educational authorities will decide how the children must be educated, what will be best for the children. [Interjections.] It is not officials who will decide; educationists will decide what is in the best interests of the child. I am not alone in adhering to this policy, but I was Deputy Minister of Education for a very long time, and I never came across one single educationist, Afrikaans or English-speaking, who did not adopt the attitude that that was the correct way of educating a child.

Will you not allow the parents to determine, in the case of these immigrant children who can speak neither English nor Afrikaans, whether they should be educated through the medium of one or other of the official languages?

That depends on many circumstances, and it is not for me as a politician to decide about that. It is for the educationists to decide about that. And on that council there are Afrikaans and English-speaking educationists. The Minister lays down the policy after he has been advised by the educationists in this regard. Surely that is the entire basis of the legislation which we passed. [Interjections.] If the Minister does not accept the advice of the council, the hon. member can quarrel with him in this House for not having done so. Then the hon. member can ask him whether he did it on his own or whether he was advised to do so by the council of educationists. With the best will in the world I simply cannot see what problems there are in this regard, and why one should be inciting racial hatred in regard to it. I repeat that I am not going to take it amiss of any English-speaking organization—and there are quite a number of them in existence— that they fight for English cultural interests, that they come together and promote those interests, just as I do not take it amiss of Afrikaans cultural interests that they take up the cudgels on behalf of Afrikaans and its cultural interests. And it is necessary that this should be done; it is a good thing that this is being done. Doing so cannot harm South Africa, because we have always— and this is the difference between this side and that side of the House—believed that Afrikaans-speaking people must have the full right to their language and their culture, and that English-speaking people must equally have the full right to their language and culture. We do not believe, as hon. members have sometimes created the impression is their policy— and do you remember the late Mr. Wolfie Swart, who sat in this House and was the leader of the United Party in the Free State and who said: “I want my children to be neither Afrikaans nor English”? [Interjections.] If you are neither Afrikaans nor English, then you are nothing. [Interjections.] You are an English-speaking South African or you are an Afrikaans-sneaking South African, but surely you cannot be nothing. Surely you must have a language and a church and a culture.

Or you are a bilingual person.

Yes, and may the day dawn when hon. members on the opposite side are bilingual! But what is the point of view of the hon. member for Durban (North) in regard to bilingualism? He can speak English and I sneak Afrikaans, and now we are bilingual! Let us grasp this once and for all. There are countries which have two languages. Belgium has two languages. French and Flemish, but Belgium is not bilingual.

There are a few people who are bilingual, but the vast majority of the population speak either French or Flemish. Canada has two official languages, English and French, but the vast majority of the people speak either French or English. They are all Canadians, but they are not bilingual. Ours is the only country in the world—and hon. members ought to be proud of the fact—which has not only two languages, but where the vast majority of the population have to be and are bilingual. Is that not something to be glad about, grateful for and proud of? If one is proud of one’s own language, one’s own culture and one’s own history, it does not mean that you are angry at the other man because he is English-speaking and has an English tradition. The hon. member for Pine-lands was at Stellenbosch, the Afrikaans cultural centre. Did he ever find that people looked at him askance because he was an English-speaking person and had an English tradition? He did not find anything of the kind, because a person who loves his own language and culture does not have the time to hate other people.

Both languages are my own.

Yes, and that is what I am pleading for, and if the hon. member for Durban (Point) does not want to do it, then I ask the hon. member for Pine-lands to get up and, on behalf of the United Party, ask the people to be bilingual. I would be glad and grateful if he did that. Then there will be at least two of us who have pleaded for that in this House. I repeat, therefore, that we serve no purpose by bringing cultural organizations or cultural leaders under suspicion if they plead for their own language. If they attack and belittle the other language, if they begrudge the other language its rights, hon. members do have the right to come and complain to me, and then I shall be the first to take action in that regard. But when people praise their own language and their own culture and their own history, then I am not going to quarrel with them and then I have no fault to find with them in that connection.

Mr. Chairman, we are very grateful to the hon. the Prime Minister for his explanation. I think it serves to emphasize one of the major differences between the National Party and the United Party. The Prime Minister is Afrikaans or English-speaking first and a South African second; we on this side are South African first and Afrikaans or English-speaking second. We have been pleading all these years for citizens who make both languages their own and who respect and honour the culture, the history and the background of both the major sections of our South African population. In other words, we are pleading for a new nation in South Africa—a South African nation, not an Afrikaner group and an English group working together in the interests of the country. That is the major difference. It is very simple.

When Wolfie Swart’s children were “neither English nor Afrikaans” they then became Moolmans.

If they became Moolmans they are some of the finest South Africans one could hope to find. The Prime Minister left one question unanswered, i.e. the question of the immigrant child.

I said that the educationists would decide that.

Am I to understand now that if a child is accustomed to a foreign language, the language which he speaks and which is his home language, and cannot speak English or Afrikaans, the educationists are then going to decide, and that the parents are not going to be allowed to decide in which language they would like their child to be educated?

I do not want to say that—they will be able to state their attitude in regard to the matter.

They will be able to state their attitude, but their views will not be the deciding factor?

I do not want to say that either, because I do not know what decision the educationists are going to take in this matter.

That is a very unsatisfactory reply. One of the matters which is causing concern amongst the immigrants is the question of which language their children are going to be educated in. I leave it at that. The Prime Minister has stated his point of view. I am not in agreement with it. I regret that that is his view. I think it would have been much more sensible to have said that if the child cannot speak either of the two official languages the parents should make the choice.

Then I want to express my gratitude for the speech made by the hon. member for Kempton Park who has undoubtedly done some original research into the works of McDougal. May I recommend to him Race and Reason by Putnam—to a certain extent he is a follower of McDougal but he develops the former’s argument even further. I think that research of this nature will yield interesting results and I leave the matter to the hon. member.

Despite the fact that I have done so repeatedly, I come next to my attempts to set out the policy of the United Party and to contrast it to the policy of the National Party.

I like the word “attempt”.

Yes. It is not easy to explain my policy if hon. members on the opposite side, although they were so anxious yesterday to discuss race matters, are to-day talking about everything under the sun but do not have a word to say about race matters. I had reached the stage where I had explained that we wanted to establish communal councils for the Bantu, councils which would have control over geographic areas such as the Transkei or the Ciskei, Tswanaland, Zululand. etc., as well as councils which would have control over members of a race in a certain area, although that area was also occupied by others, councils which would be cast in precisely the same mould as that of the Coloured Council of the hon. Minister. Now the question is this: Over what must they have control? I think it would depend upon the degree of development and the education of the people concerned who are being represented in that council. It seems to me that education is one of the matters which is of importance; also the health of the race group in question; also matters which our jurists define as “status right”—with whom they may marry, what their rights as heirs are, what their duties to their families are, what their duties to their children are, and matters of that nature. Then there are also local authorities, call them small municipalities or boards, in their area which are responsible for local government of members of that race group.

They must also have a say in the Parliament which decides their fate. We have of course considered this matter carefully in the light of previous examples which have occurred in our history here. Previously, in terms of the 1936 legislation, the Natives were represented in this House and in the Senate by Whites. What is so interesting about this legislation is the fact that it made provision not only for four Senators, but also made provision for that number to be increased to six. The representation of Natives was restricted to the Cape. We feel that that representation should also be extended to the other provinces. Therefore we decided that the Natives in all four provinces should be represented by a total of eight representatives in this House, and that those representatives should be Whites. We recommended that they be represented in the Senate not by four but by six Senators, and that those Senators should also be Whites.

Did you decide how long it would remain representation by Whites, or have you not yet decided about that?

As far as I am concerned, it will remain representation by Whites for as far as I can see into the future. The hon. the Prime Minister is asking me this question now, but he knows as well as I do that the entire question of white intervention—improper white intervention in the field of the political rights of non-Whites, Natives or Coloureds—has been referred to the commission. He and I have agreed to it being appointed. The hon. the Minister knows very well that one of the instructions to the commission was that they should also investigate this matter. Therefore I am prepared to say to the Prime Minister that this is my recommendation until such time as that commission has submitted its report.

Yes, I know, I accept that.

That is what the hon. the Prime Minister’s recommendation is. As far as Coloured representatives are concerned, that is his instruction until such time as the commission has reported. After that we can discuss this matter again, we can argue this matter out with one another.

The Bantu to whom you are referring, are they males only, or do they include females?

I do not mind very much whether they are males or females or both. It could be both. It makes no difference. We are limited by the numbers.

Where does the federal idea come in then?

The hon. member is now asking where the federal idea comes from. The federal idea arises out of the fact that certain areas are represented here and that certain races are represented in those communal councils. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

I should like to afford the hon. the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity of continuing. However, there is just one question I should like to put to him. As I understand that policy of his, will it remain the policy until it may be changed by other means, by means of a referendum? And if such a referendum were to take place, would it only be the Whites and the Coloureds who would be able to participate in that referendum, or would the Bantu and the Indians be able to participate in it along with the Whites and the Coloureds?

We are of the opinion that that representation must remain for as far as we can see into the future. However, if attempts are going to be made to change it—as far as numbers are concerned or as far as the representation in this House or in the Senate is concerned—then we have given the nation the guarantee that we will not consider any change until such time as there is a considerable majority in favour of it, and that it is to be done by means of a referendum in which only those Whites and Coloureds on the Common Voters’ Rolls will be able to participate, or by means of a general election. No matter how it is done, we will require a considerable majority. Unless we see that a considerable majority of the Whites desire it. it will not be introduced.

Now there is another question I want to put to you. I take it that the Bantu and the Indians will also get representation. Will they also be able to vote here in Parliament after a general election when such legislation has been passed?

I am glad the hon. the Prime Minister is asking that question. Up to now I have said nothing about Indians. As far as they are concerned, I should like to hear what the Prime Minister’s policy in regard to the Indians is.

We are all going to be liberals by 1980.

Yes. I have been given to understand, according to the Sunday Times, that the hon. the Prime Minister is going to adopt such a liberalistic course. We are saying therefore that there must be a considerable majority of Whites, and non-Whites and other representatives.

What do you mean by “considerable”?

It could be a two-thirds majority. That ought to be sufficient. The hon. member for Heilbron asked a moment ago where the federal idea came from. The federal idea arises when a central government decentralizes certain powers but nevertheless retains certain reserved powers. That is then a federal system.

Not necessarily. It can also be a unitary system, or a provincial.

But normally it is a federal system, particularly when the powers are not equally divided up amongst the constituent parts of the central parliament or federal parliament.

Such as which states for example?

Are the communal councils which are, according to your system, going to be elected in the Bantu areas, also going to receive representation in the central parliament?

All the Bantu in South Africa, i.e. within the reserves, outside the reserves, in the urban areas and in the rural areas, will collectively have eight representatives—not more.

You have not come to the Indians yet.

If you want to make a statement I shall wait.

You may proceed.

I should just like to deal with this matter first. The question is now: What dangers lie hidden in this system? It is a possibility that pressure is going to be applied to afford the Bantu greater representation—just as pressure is to-day being applied to afford the Coloureds greater representation. However, I see no indication that the Government is going to yield to that pressure. If I then have to say where the greatest danger lies, in eight representatives for the Bantu in this Central Parliament, or in eight sovereign independent states, states with separate loyalties and not to the Republic of South Africa, but each one being in itself a sovereign independent state, then I would choose the policy of the United Party every time. If we bear in mind that under our policy the central government will continue to exercise control over the safety both at home and abroad of the entire South Africa, whereas under the policy of the National Party they are prepared to relinquish that control over eight sovereign independent states, then I choose the policy of the United Party every time as the safest policy for white civilization in South Africa. What would the position be if the Republic were ever involved in a war? Under the policy of the National Party 80 per cent of the Republic’s labour force would consist of Bantu who would be citizens of foreign states, whereas under the policy of the United Party the country’s entire manpower would be citizens of the Republic of South Africa with one common loyalty to one state. When I consider this then I say that I choose the policy of the United Party every time as the safest policy for white civilization in South Africa. What is the safest: Sovereign independent states which are free to make treaties with countries within the communist world and who are at liberty to accept financial aid from those communist countries—which will place South Africa in the position that she will have to compete with that financial support if she wishes to retain her influence in the Bantu states—and which are at liberty to trade with those countries and other countries of the East, or the policy of the United Party? I choose the policy of the United Party every time as the safest one for Western civilization and the white race here in South Africa. It is with these things in particular in mind that we are putting forward this policy in the political field.

But it is not only politics which is of importance—economy is also important. The question here is which of the two policies are going to be most beneficial to South Africa economically. On the one hand there is going to be the fact that the Central Government will retain control over the economy of the entire country and plan it carefully. That is the policy of the United Party and there is no doubt in my mind that it is the best one. If I ask myself the question: What labour force is going to be the happiest—those who are working in South Africa as strangers but are nevertheless permanently settled here, to such an extent that a large percentage of them have never yet seen the Reserves—or the labour agreement under the system of the United Party in terms of which we will develop them as a bulwark against Communism, to obtain their co-operation in the maintenance of law and order in their own urban areas …

Only eight representatives for 13 million?

Why is the hon. member so afraid? They do nevertheless have a say to a certain extent. But what say are you going to give the Coloureds? The hon. the Prime Minister made a statement the other day which I still want to discuss with him. Are the Coloureds going to receive no representation?

What will your reaction be if the Bantu asked for ten representatives?

The same as your reaction will be when the Coloureds ask for ten representatives. Precisely the same. Perhaps they have already asked, and did you then yield to the pressure? How many times have the Coloureds not asked to be restored to the Common Voters’ Roll? Did you yield to those requests? If you say that you can keep South Africa white against the pressure of the Coloureds, why cannot I say that I can keep South Africa white against the pressure of the Natives? After all, we succeeded for 300 years in doing so before a National Party arose or existed. There is no doubt about that. If one considers the safety of Western civilization or the progress of our economy, or the safety of the white race, one must choose the policy of the United Party every time and reject the policy of the Nationalist Party.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has given us this exposition. There is one matter which is still hanging in the air a little as far as I am concerned. I am sure that the hon. the Leader would want to say a few more words on that matter. I should like to afford him that opportunity.

State your policy first.

The hon. member is a stranger in Jerusalem. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition told us that as far as he could see those eight representatives would be Whites. But on a previous occasion not only the hon. the Leader of the Opposition but also the hon. member for Yeoville and others adopted the attitude that we would in the long run not be able to hold out, or put in another way, that a time would come when it would no longer be Whites, but that it would be black people representing black people. The hon. Leader of the Opposition remembers making that concession. I should like to know from him whether he still holds the view that they will, in the long run, be black people. Then, too, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, waiting for me, did not reply to the question as to what he would do in respect of the Indians. My point of view is very clear, and I have put it to the Indians in that way, i.e. that it is not my policy that they will be represented in this House directly or indirectly, that is to say, neither by Whites nor by themselves, but that they will be given rights similar to those which are being given to the Coloureds in respect of their own affairs. It is not necessary for me to say anything more about this, because the legislation to make that possible has been passed in this House. The hon. member is aware of that. There are therefore two questions which I want to put to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. What is his policy and point of view in respect of the Indians? What is his view and his opinion in respect of the white representatives? Will those representatives eventually be Bantu? But what is even more important to me is this: In the event of a referendum being held, what will the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s guidance in that connection be to the electorate? How will he advise them? How must they vote? For or against black representation by black people in this House?

Really, Sir, we are going to have to teach this hon. Prime Minister an awful lot. Let us start with the Indians. The last resolution taken in connection with the Indians was taken by the Natal Provincial Congress, in which it was laid down:

Which would mean one or two representatives for the Indians on a separate roll and representation by Whites in Parliament. The hon. the Prime Minister has asked me what my view is as to the future representation of Bantu in this House. I must say that as far as I can see into the future, I believe they will be White. I believe that pressures from the white population will be such that they will remain White. The hon. gentleman asked me what advice I would give if there were a referendum or a General Election on this subject. My answer is that so far as I can see things at the present time and in so far as I believe that I can see them in the future, my advice would be to retain them White because I believe there would be very great difficulties in the event of Bantu sitting in this House.

May I put a question? Since that is the attitude of the hon. the Leader, what caused him to emphasize very strongly, when he discussed this question on a previous occasion, that we would not in the long run be able to keep out black representation?

The answer to that is very simple. Pressures build up. Pressures at that stage were very bad in the country because of the policy of this Government. I believe that we are going to be faced with a very real difficulty. I do not believe that those pressures are insurmountable at the present time. We are faced with something rather interesting. Hon. members opposite are criticizing me because I suggest that Bantu should be represented in this House by Europeans. But they are suggesting that Indians should have no representation, but that they should continue to live in South Africa, that they should have a council which would have no representation in this Parliament.

Certainly not.

If I am to accept the interjection of the hon. the Prime Minister, the Coloureds will also have a council, and if his view is accepted, although it is subject to the findings of the Commission, the Coloureds will have no representation either. Sir, do you think that we will have happy race relations on that basis? Do hon. members really think that we will have happy race relations with these two groups of people with no homeland of their own, living here in South Africa, controlling certain matters, ruled every day by laws passed by this Parliament, in which they will have no say whatever?

[Inaudible.]

I do wish that the hon. member for Heilbron would remain quiet. I have answered his question. Perhaps he will just give me a chance. I know his mind runs away with him sometimes. What will the result be of an arrangement of that kind? How can we justify it? What hope have we of retaining racial harmony? I know the hon. the Prime Minister has to say it for political reasons. He cannot persuade his people that there should be non-Europeans having a say in this Parliament, despite the fact that this Parliament controls their destiny, because he and his party have bred the fear amongst the Europeans that if he gives a little finger they will take the whole hand. He has bred the fear that if there is the thin edge of the wedge here, he will be unable to stop the flood. He and his party have bred the fear amongst his people and exploited it through the years, that if you dare give these people anything they will try to treat you as you have treated them. I believe the answer is that you can get co-operation. You can get co-operation on the basis of limited representation, because that would provide consultation at the highest level. It would provide an opportunity of understanding each other. It would provide an opportunity for learning to work together for one ideal, the future benefit of the Republic of South Africa. I believe that as we get to know each other we will get confidence in each other. With the development of that loyalty the future of the Republic will be secure as it will never be secure under the policy of the Nationalist Party.

I am rising to comment on only one aspect raised here by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because I do not want to misunderstand him on this matter. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now told me in reply to a question that there was in fact a time—and he must please correct me if I am wrong—when he said that his policy was that there should be eight white representatives of the Bantu, but that in the long run one would not be able to keep black representatives out of Parliament. He has said that he said that at the time because of the strong pressure exerted presumably on the part of the Blacks, but that because the pressure has now diminished he is adopting a different attitude. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition realize what he has said? Does he realize that what he has told us here now is that the colour of the representatives will depend only on the strength of the pressure exerted? With the best will in the world I simply cannot understand that, and I am trying to be logical. Let me repeat it: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that at the time he formulated his policy in that way, he did so because there was such a great deal of dissatisfaction under this Government and the pressure was so strong, but he says that the circumstances have now changed somewhat; in other words, the pressure under this Government is less now. and he says that he no longer visualizes that at present. If I have misunderstood him, then I am not the only one to have done so. I think the hon. member owes it to himself to restate his policy so that we may get a different impression.

When I spoke about pressure I did not mean pressure from the Bantu people in South Africa. I know the feeling amongst my own people …

You mean in the United Party?

In the country generally, amongst the South African people, amongst my own fellow South African citizens. [Laughter.] Good heavens, Sir, what are hon. members laughing about? The hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science knows that Mr. Strijdom, a previous Prime Minister, was prepared to vote for seven black men in the Senate if that was the solution to the Bantu problem. What is he smiling at? He knows that Dr. Malan said that we must take what is good from other countries and he referred to Kenya where Blacks represented Blacks and Coloureds represented Coloureds. I believe that there has been such a disenchantment with the failure of the Bantu peoples of South Africa to be able to govern themselves that that pressure has disappeared, and as far as we are concerned I do not envisage their being represented by Bantu in this House as far as I can see into the future.

Sir, we are not soothsayers or magicians or prophets, but as far as I can see that is the position. Is there another question that the hon. the Prime Minister wants to ask me?

No; I am listening to you.

It seems to me that we are now getting down to a measure of detail which we could well discuss later because I am rather anxious to go on to the Police Vote, if possible.

It seems to me that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is in the mood to reply to questions. There is one important point to which he has not replied. He spoke here of a referendum which the Whites and the Coloureds would hold in connection with the political representation of the Bantu in this country. According to his exposition the Bantu would not have any vote in that referendum. What would the position be if the result of that referendum were that the Whites and the Coloureds refused to give the Bantu eight representatives in this House? What political representation would the hon. the Leader of the Opposition give to the Bantu in that case? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that if a war were to break out the Bantu would form 80 per cent of our labour force. Suppose a referendum were to be held and the result were that the Bantu would not be given any political representation here, what political representation would he then give to them?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must please let me have his attention now. Suppose a war were to break out immediately after that referendum, 80 per cent of the labour force, according to his own statement, would have no vote or representation in this House. What representation would give that 80 per cent at that stage? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not explained that to the Committee and he owes the Committee an explanation. Just imagine what dissatisfaction one would have in the country if the Whites were to refuse to give representation to that 80 per cent, and the possibility of the Bantu being refused representation here does after all exist, for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition makes provision for that possibility. I ask him now to tell me what political representation he would give to the Bantu in that case. Our policy is clear. Under our policy the Bantu have full political representation in their own homelands, but what political representation does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition under his dispensation give to that 80 per cent of the labour force of South Africa? Then I want to pose a next question to him. In the course of his introductory speech to the debate on the motion of no-confidence in 1963, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made the following statement—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must now tell us what participation he is going to give to them under this dispensation of his. He must tell us what measure of participation he wants to give to the Bantu. He must tell us how many Bantu judges and magistrates, Bantu public servants and Bantu officers will participate in the day-to-day administrative processes of the State. Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Transkei should not be having a conversation with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now. This afternoon, for the first time in the Parliamentary career of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, we have reached the stage where he is prepared to reply to questions. Will he tell us how far he is prepared to go in giving the Bantu participation in the administrative processes of the State? What measure of representation does he want to give to the Bantu in the military services; what measure of representation does he want to give to them in the public service, the judiciary and the police service? Seeing that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is in the mood for replying to questions to-day he should elaborate on this for if he does not do so he will be leaving a tremendous gap in his entire argument and in that case this entire debate on his policy will be nothing but a waste of time. He owes it to the country and to this Committee to take this thing to its logical consequences. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot reply to this question by merely giving a nice smile. He must explain the logical consequences of his policy to us. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition fails to reply to these questions he will be leaving himself open to the accusation which is always made against him, namely that he himself is not prepared to reason out his policy or to face up to the logical consequences of his policy. Will he now please reply to these questions?

Before coming to what I really want to say, I must reply, for the sake of hon. members who sit in the immediate vicinity of the benches of the Coloured representatives, to a remark made here by the hon. member for Houghton when the hon. Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister which Coloured leaders he had consulted. When the Prime Minister mentioned the name of Dr. Van der Ross the remark was passed here, “every man has his price”.

Disgraceful!

I just want to say that I have known Dr. Van der Ross for many years.

Did the hon. member for Houghton say that?

Yes I did.

For the information of hon. members sitting in this vicinity, I just want to say that I know Dr. Van der Ross. On many occasions in discussions we have agreed to disagree in our political outlook, but I know him as a well-educated, civilized, honourable man. I regret that I have to discuss the personal affairs of Dr. Van der Ross here, but I am indignant about that remark and I may say for the information of hon. members that Dr. Van der Ross has accepted the position offered to him at a lower salary than that which he received in the previous post occupied by him. It seems to me that as soon as a person, whatever his level of education and civilization, refuses to be an ass following a carrot which is dangled in front of him, remarks of that nature are passed at his expense.

In the course of the discussion of the past few days the hon. the Prime Minister referred to a sneering remark which had been made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in regard to the venue for a banquet attended by certain people. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said quite rightly that the hon. the Prime Minister too made sneering remarks from time to time. Sneering remarks are very often made in this House and that is not something out of the ordinary, but everything depends on the subject in regard to which such sneering remarks are made. In the course of the years I have been sitting in this House, hon. members of the Opposition have made repeated appeals and pleas, ones with which I also agreed, for South Africa to establish ties with our black neighbouring states which were on the road to independence at that time and which are independent now. After that spadework has been done and after a breakthrough has in fact been made, I feel that we really ought to be careful as far as making sneering remarks are concerned, such as those made by the hon. member for Karoo in the course of the debate on the Community Development Amendment Bill and by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout subsequent to that. Mr. Chairman, what do we achieve by making that kind of sneering remark about who ate at what hotel? The hon. the Prime Minister has given an explanation to this House—one which satisfied me—that the visit by the Prime Minister of Lesotho and the visit by the Ministers from Malawi took place on an inter-state basis. Is it the intention to give Kuanda and Nyerere ammunition with which to launch attacks on Dr. Banda at the conferences of the Organization for African Unity? I do not believe that that is the intention but that is what it amounts to because remarks of this type are reported in those countries and that has the effect of embarrassing the people with whom we are establishing ties necessitated by various circumstances in Southern Africa. I do not believe that those remarks are intended to assist Kaunda and Nyerere but if that is not the intention, I must say that those remarks are irresponsible and, in a certain sense, stupid.

Mr. Chairman, over the past few days a long debate has been conducted on the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister. My attitude is that the hon. the Prime Minister has only been occupying the office of Prime Minister for seven months. During those seven months many things have happened. I am not going into any details now but a prominent member of the United Party remarked to me in the lobby a few weeks ago, “One thing is certain. John Vorster has not put a foot wrong yet”. In the light of that remark, I shall not go into this matter any further, but I just want to mention that I made an appeal in this House to the former Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition a few years ago to come to an understanding in regard to a matter which I regarded as being of extreme importance to South Africa, namely the South-West Africa case. The manner in which the Press reacted to that indicated very clearly that that was what the people outside wanted. I realize that that case was sub judice at that time because it was serving before the International Court. But I want to make use of this opportunity to express my gratitude to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for the manner in which they recently acted during the recess when the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition met each other and were then able to issue a statement on what South Africa’s standpoint in regard to South-West Africa was and not in regard to what the standpoint of the National Party or the United Party was. I feel that we have to express our appreciation to both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.

Whereas there has been a great deal of talk on the Vote of the Prime Minister, very little has been said. I do not believe that there will be an opportunity to say something about what the position was and what action was taken before the hon. the Prime Minister assumed his present office, because when the Justice Vote comes under discussion another Minister will be in charge of that Vote. Seeing that the Prime Minister is no longer Minister of Justice, I think that we as a House—and because I am not bound to any party I feel at liberty to make this statement—ought to express our appreciation to him for the manner in which he carried out his duties when he was in charge of that portfolio. I was sitting in this House when the General Law Amendment Bill was before it and after I had studied that Bill and after certain information had come into my possession by chance, I decided not to participate in any divisions during the debates on that Bill. The following year the Opposition supported the Further General Law Amendment Bill but there was opposition to the 90-days provision. I did not participate in that either and to me it is clear, and history has proved it, that with the police, and in particular the security police whose standard is of the highest in the world, under the control of the Minister of Justice, who is Prime Minister to-day, we may all breathe more freely at the present time in consequence of what has happened. [Time expired.]

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 5,—“Police, R66,950,000”:

The position this year will be the same as last year, when I said, as hon. members will recall, that I would not take charge of this Vote, but that the Deputy Minister, who is in effective control of the Vote, would deal with the discussion thereon. I take it that hon. members understand that, just as they understood it to be the case last year.

We have received the report of the Commissioner of Police for the period July, 1964, to June, 1965. I want to compliment him on the presentation of the report. It is very well got up, but I want to express my regret again at the lateness of this report. I submit it should be possible for us to get later reports than we do. We are now in 1967 and I am certain that all the facts and figures given in this report should have been available by the end of June, 1966. It is very difficult for us to discuss the Department on a report which is almost two years old.

There are interesting figures in the report before us. I notice that in June, 1965, the Force, as far as Whites are concerned, was 1,276 under strength. That is a big number. Although the Force was so much under strength, a bigger establishment was authorized. I have been able to get from the Department the figures of the strength as at 31st March, 1967, and I notice that in the white force the number has risen over the two years by 1,690. I am very pleased to see that. The figures show that we are still greatly under strength, but there must be something wrong with the figures. In 1965 the Prime Minister, in replying to our request that he employ females on the staff, said that it was being done and that the number had risen to 803 women on 3rd June, 1965, the date when he made the statement. But looking at the report for June, 1965, I see that the civilians—and that is where women appear, under “civilians”, like women typists, women assistants, wardresses, etc.—were indicated as follows: Authorized, 797, and the actual number was 646. Perhaps the Deputy Minister can explain why there is this difference in the figures given by the then Minister of Justice in the House as to the number of women employed and the figure being given now, in the official report. I would like the Minister to tell us, too, what the position is in regard to women in the Force now. Have many more been employed? What is the authorized establishment for women, and what is the actual number employed?

The disturbing feature of this 1965 report is the number of discharges. We cannot criticize the Department for discharging policemen who have misbehaved, for dismissals as the result of convictions by the courts, but I see the number who purchased their discharge among the Whites was 1,435. That was more than in the previous year, and for the non-Whites it was 383, which was less than in the previous year. Could the Minister tell us what the discharges were for the last year, up to 31st March? I would be glad to hear that the number has fallen. I am not certain, and I would like the Minister to give us those figures, because we increased the salary scale and I would like to know whether it has made any difference to the number of discharges in the last two years, whether fewer policemen have in fact taken their discharge.

Sir, the policeman’s lot is not a happy one. He has an uncongenial task to perform and I must say that we are grateful for the continued efficiency shown by the Police Force in tracking down criminals. The quick solution of our major crimes, especially where white criminals are involved, is certainly something which can compare with, if not beat, the performance of any other police force in the world. I want to say, too, that in the Transkei they have been particularly diligent in tracking down serious offenders. We pay tribute to them and we know that they are essential for our protection and our well-being, and we must appreciate that we should do everything within reason to make them a happy force, because unless they are happy with their conditions they will not apply themselves as assiduously to their task as they should. We should not discriminate against the Police Force in favour of any other servant of the State, and yet we find that there is in fact discrimination against the police. I refer especially to the police stationed in the Transkei. Hon. members will know, because I have addressed them in this House on this point on many occasions, that the white public servants who have been seconded to the Transkei Government are paid considerable allowances. They get housing allowances and family allowances which are quite considerable. A married official can obtain up to R40 a month as a family allowance, and a single man can get up to R30 a month. The lowest ranks receive R20 a month, and a single man R15, and in addition they get housing allowances of up to R45 a month. It will be seen, therefore, that it is possible that a senior official can get allowances amounting to R85 a month. It will not be contended by anyone that the task of these officials compares with that of the police. Police work is much more uncongenial. These officials all live in villages and in towns, but the policeman is stationed not only in villages and in towns but also at out-stations and he has no regular hours. He can be called out at any time of the night, as he is on duty 24 hours a day. The relationship between the white man and the black Transkeian will depend to a great extent on the relationship he has with the white policeman. The policeman’s task is not a happy one, but it is less happy in an area like that, especially where the people he has to deal with belong to another group. Everything depends on how he handles them. We are dependent on them for good relations between the races. Now it is known that the white people are gradually leaving the Transkei, and in fact their departure is not so gradual. The majority of the traders have now offered their trading stations for sale, and people in the villages are offering their properties for sale to the Government, and as soon as the Government buys them they will get out. What is the position of the policeman in the village? In a place like Umtata his conditions are not too bad, because there is a big white staff and he has the amenities he would have in any other fair-sized town. But in the villages, with the white people gradually leaving, and the traders leaving the surrounding areas, he finds himself being isolated and without the amenities he would enjoy elsewhere. It may be said that if a policeman is stationed in a rural area he is also isolated but there are still farmers in the district with whom he can find company but in the Transkei he find himself with the white traders all leaving. He likes to take part in sport. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Transkei mentioned the late publication of the Police Report. I think we all find it a pity that it cannot be made available immediately, but I think that that is due to circumstances beyond the control of the police. I am also concerned with the publication of reports and I may tell the hon. member that as far as the Department of Bantu Administration is concerned we are faced with the same problem, because reports first have to be translated and then printed and a great deal of delay occurs. In the case of the police, however, there is an additional drawback apart from that and that is that they want to include certain particulars in that report for which they are dependent on the Department of Census and Statistics. There are, for example, court verdicts and convictions. Those particulars first have to be channelized to the Department of Census and Statistics and then back to the police to enable them to draw up this report. Hence this delay. I do not have any doubt that the Deputy Minister will give a full reply to this matter.

The real reason why I am on my feet, is so that I may also express my gratitude for and appreciation of police action in South Africa. I think we in South Africa owe the police a particularly great debt of gratitude for the unenviable task they are performing. They are doing so in an outstanding way. In spite of a shortage of staff which they are experiencing, the police have taken burdens on them and have performed their duties in such an outstanding way ever the past years that that not only redounds to their honour but to that of South Africa. We owe them a debt of gratitude for the degree of law and order we are enjoying in South Africa. I do not believe that there is another country in the world where such a large degree of law and order prevails as does in fact prevail in South Africa. For that we have the police alone to thank. They have an unenviable task and I cannot agree more fully with the statement made by the hon. member for Transkei that we must make them a happy force. I really think that the police ought to be given some preferential treatment over other public servants for the very reason that their work is so unenviable. In this regard I am in absolute agreement with the hon. member for Transkei. It is true that he has confined his remarks to the position in the Transkei where officials of the Department of Banu Administration, for example, who have been seconded to the Transkeian Government receive allowances which other public servants in the Transkei do not receive. I think this kind of concession really ought to be made to the police because as the hon. member pointed out, the police are sometimes stationed at remote posts. They do not always have shopping facilities, for example, nor social facilities. They are only men stationed at remote posts. This applies not only to the Transkei but also to other places in South Africa. I have visited the remote Northern Transvaal and the remote Western Transvaal where police are stationed at very lonely posts and where they have to work. I have just remembered that the police are charged with border control in all South Africa. Those border control posts are very lonely ones. I have in mind the border post at Matatiele, for example, which is situated in the mountains far from the nearest white village. All these things ought to be taken into consideration. The police are making many sacrifices for the security and the law and order of the people in South Africa. Consequently they really ought to be treated differently to the ordinary public servant. Better concessions ought to be made to them. In this regard I should like consideration to be given to the question of housing. I am just mentioning this in passing because other speakers are likely to go into that matter in more detail. I think there ought to be better housing for our Police Force throughout South Africa. I do not want to go into that in any more dead.

I want to convey my thanks and express my gratitude to that particular section of the Police Force who took such quick and effective action for preventing the infiltration of saboteurs and terrorists into South Africa. They acted in an outstanding way, so much so that those people could not achieve any success at all in South Africa. As a matter of fact, as a result of that fine and effective action the infiltration was nipped in the bud. We are likely to have further discussions on that in another debate, but I want to thank the police now for their fine action.

I also want to make a few remarks in regard to dismissals from the Police Force. It is so that dismissals from the Police Force is a matter of necessity because it has to maintain very strict discipline. If there is no discipline in a force like the police, it cannot operate effectively. Hence the large number of dismissals from the force on account of certain offences committed by its officials. Consequently it pleases me to say that so many policemen have presented themselves for service again and that many of our young men have presented themselves for service in the force. The hon. the Deputy Minister has informed me that there has never before been such a large number of recruits as this year—a record number of recruits has been enlisted this year. I am pleased that our young men are presenting themselves for this service, one which is rendered with honour, a service for the people and for the fatherland. I am only sorry to say that it has been my experience that very few English-speaking people present themselves for service in the Police Force. Consequently I now want to make an appeal similar to the one made in the past that English-speaking persons should present themselves for the teaching profession, and that is that more English-speaking people should present themselves for police service. I do so because ours is a country which has two population groups and each has to contribute its share to the performance of this unenviable task.

Mr. Chairman, I am very glad that the hon. member for Heilbron has supported me in my plea for the police to receive extra allowances. The hon. member can contradict me if I am wrong, but I think that this is the first time the hon. member and I have ever agreed in this House—I cannot remember any other occasion. Therefore I hope that the hon. the Minister will not think there is something wrong with the plea. I hope that the Minister will give consideration to my plea, more consideration, I trust, than the Minister of Transport has done. I made a similar appeal to the Minister of Transport to treat his officials in the Transkei as other officials who have been seconded to the Transkeian Government, but he has refused to do so. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will convey my remarks and my plea to the Prime Minister and that he will over-rule the Minister of Transport and see in fact that all these other officials do get better treatment.

Do you think that that is possible?

Yes, Sir, I think it is —after all, how powerful is the Minister? Of course, we do not know what happens in his caucus!

When we discussed this Vote last year I asked certain questions about the threatened invasion of terrorists into South-West Africa, and the Deputy Minister then gave us a full report as to what was happening. They were in the process then of cleaning them up. I would be glad to hear from him whether he has had any further report to make on the position in regard to these terrorists in South-West Africa. We also raised on the previous occasion the question of stock thefts on the borders of South Africa and Basutoland. The Prime Minister—I think he was still Minister of Justice then—met a deputation from the farmers in that area last year or the year before because the situation had become so serious.

I have a report here, dated the 13th March, wherein a farmer from Underberg complains about the difficulties in tracking stock thieves in Lesotho. He asks that the police be allowed to use helicopters. He points out that the terrain over which they have to operate is too difficult for vehicles or for horses. He points out that the thieves haul the stolen animals up the passes into Lesotho by methods of the cruellest nature. He says—

In places there are steps of rock between three and four feet high and the only way animals can be forced up these is by dragging them up with ropes, tied round their necks, and with prodding from the rear.

Then he goes on to speak of the value of the stock he has lost. We know that this has been a troublesome area now for a considerable time. There was at one time a proposal to put up a fence and to patrol that fence, but nothing really effective has emerged. When last we discussed it with the Prime Minister, when he was still Minister of Justice, he indicated that he was waiting for an opportunity to negotiate with the government of Lesotho upon effective measures to be taken by the two police forces co-operating with each other to deal with the matter. He said that the British were about to leave the territory and that he could not negotiate until such time as the new government had been established. Well, a new government has since been established. The Prime Minister has met the Prime Minister of Lesotho and I should now like to know whether there has been some agreement in connection with the tracking down of stock thieves and if so, what the agreement is. Will the Lesotho police assist us? The Lesotho police are, obviously, the best people to do it. They know the terrain and they know the people. I have had a report, admittedly second-hand, of a farmer who followed stolen stock into Lesotho territory and when he caught up with the thieves they threatened him with force. He then had to produce his revolver in order to protect himself. Fortunately it was not necessary for him to use the firearm but one can just imagine what would have been the position, what implications it would have had, was it necessary for him to use his firearm. Therefore, I say it is essential that we come to some definite arrangement now with the Lesotho government in this regard. Perhaps there has been such an agreement and., consequently, I won’t address the hon. the Deputy Minister further on this subject until he has been able to tell us exactly what the position is.

Another thing that worries us is the attitude on the part of members of the public, on occasions, towards crime in general. Frequently we read of the public standing by watching a crime being committed, acts of violence against other people, without interfering. I do not have the latest figures—because the latest report is not available—of the extent of acts of violence being perpetrated in this country. However, when one reads the papers one is shocked to see all the stabbing cases, for instance. Just the other day we had a stabbing here in a public street in Cape Town. Our information is that in the Coloured and Bantu townships the position is far, far worse—so much so that law-abiding people are afraid almost to move, especially when they have their pay packets. They are afraid to draw their money and board a bus with it. Last year the Deputy Minister told us that he was closing down a number of police stations because, so he said, he could use those policemen to better effect on the beat. I quite agree with him that the best way of combating crime is to have more policemen on the beat. There is no doubt about that. I am not at this stage going to talk about the closing down of police stations—some other members will have something to say about that. But I should like to know from the Minister whether it has worked out, that is putting the extra policemen on the beat. Has he found that it has reduced crime? We should, of course, have many more policemen on the beat. It is all right saying we are having patrol vans going round but the fact is that these can be seen from a distance while a criminal is never quite certain when a policeman will walk round the corner. Consequently, he has got to be more careful before committing an offence. We have made this appeal before. I know there are troubles because of the manpower shortage but I still contend that the best way of dealing with this threat of crime is to put more men on the beat, especially in the Bantu and Coloured townships. I noticed that the number of non-white policemen has been increased during 1965. I should like to know from the Deputy Minister whether recruitment amongst the Natives is effective—are they joining the Police Force as readily as they used to? We know that rates of pay in industry and other spheres of employment have been improved in recent years and I was wondering whether the pay in the Police Force is still attractive enough to offer competition with private enterprise. It is essential that we have as many non-white policemen as we can have because they should deal with their own people. It is much better for them to handle their own people. Of course it is imperative, we cannot avoid it, that white policemen should be the people who in the main come into contact with the other groups.

One of the reasons for the unpopularity of the Police Force—it is, in fact, unpopular with the non-white groups—is not on account of their true police duties but because of the other duties which have been placed upon them. I am referring here to duties such as assisting in influx control, calling for passes, and that type of thing. These are the non-criminal duties they have to perform. I say that if the non-Whites in the townships seeing a policemen walking about, realize that he is there to protect their property and their person they will be more prepared to co-operate than they are at present. Therefore, I appeal to the Deputy Minister to use his influence to see that the police do less and less of this type of work—let other officials carry out those less popular tasks instead of forcing them onto the police. [Time expired.]

I think it will be a good thing if, at this early stage, I replied to the questions put to me so far, particularly the questions put to me by the hon. member for Transkei. The first point he touched upon, was the fact that in his opinion this report appeared very late. It is true that there was a long interval between the end of the year under review and the publication of the report. This report was only tabled last week. I want to say that in spite of difficult circumstances every effort was made to make this report available as soon as possible, if possible before the discussion of the Police Vote in this House. It was therefore gladdening to me that we were able to do so. To the hon. member for Transkei I want to say that there are certain problems which delay the publication of these annual reports. The hon. member will understand—as a matter of fact, this is the way the hon. member for Heilbron put it—that a great deal of statistics have to be incorporated in this report. This statistical data has to be obtained from the Bureau of Statistics.

There is another problem I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. member at this early stage. Although this report appears to be old because it deals with matters which were brought to the notice of the police during that particular year, it also contains a great deal of statistics in connection with convictions in those cases. If you look at the various pages, particularly at pages 6 to 9, you will see that in every case where these columns appear, there are also columns on the right-hand side in which the convictions in those particular cases are furnished. The hon. member will agree with me—he himself has practical experience—that in many of these instances the case is only tried months, and often many months, after it has been reported to the police. That is why it is not possible to get the full report of a case back from the Bureau of Statistics within such a short time. In every case which is being opened, they start with a form such as the one I am holding in my hand. From time to time, as and when progress is made with the case, this form is filled in and completed, and eventually, when it is returned after the conviction, it is sent to the Bureau of Statistics by the Police Department. That is where our difficulty lies, namely that it is not possible to obtain this information from the Bureau of Statistics early enough. The hon. member should not think that we are blaming the Bureau and that there is delay on their part, because I realize what the difficulties are in these particular circumstances, the difficulties which cause these problems. Some time ago this report was changed and at present it deals with the period of one year starting in July and ending in June the next year. This was done at that time in an attempt to publish this report earlier. I think that this step has really effected an improvement. As a matter of fact, last year this report was published much later than this year. In other words, this change effected in the date of commencement of the financial year, is an improvement. But the hon. member will realize that to obtain, process and finalize all these statistics properly, is a tremendously time-consuming task. We have been told that a computer will be introduced at the Bureau of Statistics, and we trust that this will possibly bring about an improvement.

Hon. members may perhaps express their opinions on the value of these convictions, because you will know that we have all this information at our disposal. It is actually the Department of Police which furnishes the Bureau of Statistics with this information. The latter collects and processes this information and at a later stage they give it back to the police for inclusion in the report. Hon. members may perhaps express their opinions on the value of these convictions, which, as I said a moment ago. to my mind form a very important factor or reason for the delay. On the other hand, the police did at one stage consider collecting this information itself to see whether in that way it could not be incorporated into the report at an earlier stage so that the report might be published earlier. But hon. members will realize that this will entail a tremendous amount of extra work for the Department of Police. Indeed, it will also mean duplication of staff. That is why this idea was abandoned at this stage, and I do not think that I can carry the question of the late publication of this report any further than I have done now.

The second matter which was raised by the hon. member, was the question of the numbers of the police. In passing I may perhaps refer to its establishment. I think that these figures—as at 31st March, 1967—were placed at his disposal, but I shall furnish them for record purposes. The total authorized establishment of the police is 16,612. The actual establishment as at 31st March, 1967, numbered 16,308. Merely by looking at those figures, hon. members will realize that we do not have a particularly great shortage. In fact, we do not have any shortage at the moment.

Is that in respect of Whites only?

Yes, I am referring to Whites. But we do in fact have no shortage as far as the Whites are concerned, because police officials who retired on pension and were subsequently re-employed on a temporary basis, were not included in the number of 16,308 I have given you now in respect of the permanent establishment. We are in fact fully staffed, and there are just as many and more in the service as the authorized establishment actually is. That is the present position as at 31st March.

The next matter the hon. member for Transkei raised here, was the number of women in the service. If the hon. member would perhaps look at page 19 of the Estimate of the Expenditure to be defrayed from the Revenue Account, he will find there a full explanation of the establishment. As far as these women are concerned. I may just say that at the moment there are 1,319 women in the Department of Police. I think the hon. member was concerned about the fact that, when on a previous occasion a reply was given to a question in respect of the number of women employed by the police, the number appeared to be so small. If you look at that establishment on page 19, you will see a heading marked “Burgerlik—Civil” on the left. The various columns are printed under that heading. There are four columns. If we look at the first one, we shall see that there are three chief typists, 26 senior typists and senior female assistants, 849 typists and female assistants and 441 unqualified female employees. These particulars I have now given to you in regard to the description of these posts, do not appear in that statement; that is why I am giving them to hon. members. In other words, those figures I have just mentioned to you, are in respect of women who are being employed by the Department of Police.

The next matter which was raised by the hon. member for Transkei, was that of police officials purchasing their discharge. In that regard he made special reference to the particulars which are being furnished on page 2 of this report. Those who were discharged honourably owing to termination of engagement, were ten in number, while there were 1,435 cases of police officials purchasing their discharge. I think the hon. member was concerned about that large number. As a matter of fact, it also caused me concern, and I asked for more particulars in that regard. It has now become apparent that in that particular year, the year under review, there were 1,435 cases of discharges being purchased. The other resignations amounted to 305. That gives one the total of 1,740. But during the same year, there were 243 cases of re-employment. If one were to subtract the 243 from the 1,435, one would arrive at a final figure of 1,129 in respect of discharges purchased. It does not only happen often, but also very often that police officials decide to retire from the service and subsequently decide to return to it. As a result of the cases where they returned to the service, the figure in respect of re-employment was 243. In the following year—that is to say, July, 1965, to June, 1966—there were 1,066 cases of discharges being purchased. Therefore there was a decrease from 1,435 to 1,066. The other resignations amounted to 364; that is to say, a total of 1,430. In that same year there were 451 cases of re-employment—I make bold to say that this very large reemployment figure was in fact a result of the large number of discharges which had been purchased the previous year. If one were to subtract the 451 from the 1,066, one would find a net figure of 615 in respect of discharges purchased in that year.

It is not the same as the number that returned.

That is true, but it does at any rate give you an idea of what happened during that year. In that year the net figure in respect of discharges purchased was actually 615, whereas there were 1,192 during the previous year. From the nature of the case I do not as yet have the full statistics for the year after that, because that particular year has not yet ended. It only ends at the end of June, but from June, 1966, to March, 1967, that is to say, for the period of nine months up to the end of last month, 732 discharges were purchased; the others amounted to 207 and the total was 939. The figure in respect of re-employment during this period was 234. That is to say, 732 minus 234 gives us a net total of 498 discharges purchased during this period of nine months. You will see, therefore, that there has been a considerable improvement in the pattern during that period. We want to attribute that to the fact that during the year 1964-’65, there was exceptional economic growth in South Africa accompanied by an exceptionally rapid rise in the salaries offered in the private sector, and that this may perhaps have served as a factor which may have been the cause of so many more discharges being purchased from the police during that year than was the case during other years. Since then the salary scales of the Department of Police have improved considerably, and I think that we may feel satisfied about the fact that this pattern which we had in the year under review, namely 1964-’65, is not continuing, but that it has improved a great deal since that time.

The other matter which was raised by the hon. member for Transkei, was the question of discrimination against the Police. In particular he referred to the Transkeian Territory where the police were not getting the allowances which are being paid out to other officials employed there. The major difference is, of course, the fact that allowances are only being paid in cases where officials are seconded to the Transkeian Government. Two white officers were seconded to the Transkeian authorities and they receive those particular allowances, but the other police officials were not seconded and they do not receive those allowances. That is the difference. I have no objection to the fact that the hon. member expressed that thought here. As a matter of fact, I welcome it because it is something to be considered. The Public Service Commission has informed us that the Government is not prepared to pay those allowances to officials who were not seconded to the Transkeian authorities. That is the reason for the difference. It is not only applicable to members of the police force, but also to all officials, as the hon. member knows, who are working in the Transkei and who were not seconded to the Transkeian Government.

The police in South-West Africa, do they not receive those allowances?

They do not receive those allowances in South-West Africa.

That is disgraceful, because Railway officials do receive them.

Later in his speech the hon. member referred to stock thefts and also to attacks made on persons in urban areas. He did not really ask for particulars in regard to these matters, but expressed certain thoughts on them. He also put questions about Bantu persons joining the Service. If the hon. member does not mind, I shall deal with those matters at a later stage. It is not the case that I cannot deal with these matters, especially with the case of stock theft on our borders, but I know that other hon. members would also like to express their opinions in regard to these matters. Mr. Chairman, the hon. member asked me whether the Department of Police could not furnish particulars concerning the terrorists in South-West Africa. My personal opinion is that this House is entitled to obtain every piece of information in regard to the combating of this evil which we can possibly furnish. For that reason I would gladly furnish this House with the information which I have at my disposal and which I think I may, with due regard to the security of the State, make available to this House, and through this House, of course, also to the public. I have prepared a statement in which I have, unfortunately, not furnished all the particular figures hon. members would perhaps like to know, but I do not consider it to be in the interests of the public that all particulars in this regard should be furnished. In addition I should just like to say beforehand that I drafted this statement, which I now want to make in regard to this matter, in English, and that I shall therefore submit it to this House in English.

†The South-West People’s Organization (S.W.A.P.O.) was founded in 1957 by a group of Ovambo labourers in Cape Town on advice of well-known communists. Originally the name of this organization was “Ovamboland People’s Organization” (O.P.O.) The name was changed during the period in which Kerina Getzen testified before U.N.O. in New York. This step was taken to leave the impression that he represents the whole of South-West Africa. For that reason it was changed to S.W.A.P.O., the South-West African People’s Organization. The Leader of this organization in Cape Town was Herman Ja-Toivo. Herman Ja-Toivo who was recently arrested in Ovamboland for terrorist activities, confessed in a statement obtained from him that, in addition to Professor Simons and Brian Bunting, he also made acquaintance with well-known South African communists such as Denis Goldberg, Ben Turok, Fred Carneson, George Peake and others. These last-mentioned persons are all self-confessed communists, and have served or are serving terms of imprisonment in the Republic of South Africa. Most of the executive members of S.W.A.P.O. were actually trained and inspired by these mentioned communists and all of them have in fact accepted the principles of communist ideology.

During 1961 a prominent member and present president of S.W.A.P.O., Sam Nujoma, fled South-West Africa after instigating a riot in Windhoek. He was subsequently followed by other prominent leaders of S.W.A.P.O. In December 1962 a meeting of self-exiled S.W.A.P.O. leaders was held in Dar es Salaam. Here it was decided that Ovambo tribesmen, all of whom had to be under the age of 30 years, were to be sent from South-West Africa to Dar es Salaam to receive training in guerilla warfare, terrorism and sabotage, with the sole object of undermining and eventually taking over the administration of South-West Africa by means of the methods and active assistance, financially and otherwise, of Russia, Red China and other communist countries such as Ghana, Algeria, Egypt, North Korea, Tanzania and Cuba.

Furthermore it was decided that such recruits would be told that they could obtain scholarships in Britain and the U.S.A. and that apart from the offered scholarships a salary would be paid to them during their course of training. Instructions were then sent to remaining S.W.A.P.O. leaders in South-West Africa to recruit men for this purpose. All these recruits were brought under the impression and believed that they were in fact leaving South-West Africa to further their academic studies. It is significant that S.W.A.P.O. concentrated on recruits of very low educational standard. Only a handful of Ovambos who could possibly qualify for advanced academic studies were amongst these recruits. An estimated 900 trainee terrorists left South-West Africa illegally under the auspices of the promised scholarships, and only approximately 20 actually held qualifications justifying admission for advanced study. These trainee terrorists left South-West Africa in small groups varying from two to five persons. They were instructed to report to the S.W.A.P.O. foreign office established for this purpose in Francistown.

Here they were accommodated for periods up to six months before being despatched in groups of ten to 30 for Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. On arrival at Dar es Salaam these so-called prospective academic students were rudely informed by their leaders that the actual reason for their being sent to Dar es Salaam was to receive military training and not for the purpose of furthering their educational qualifications. Most of these so-called students severely objected to this deliberate deception by their leaders. They were threatened by arrest if they should leave the camp and a number of them were in fact so arrested and detained until they had cooled down. A large number wished to return to South-West Africa immediately but owing to lack of financial means and valid travelling documents were compelled to stay and obey orders. It must be pointed out here that these trainee terrorists were permitted to travel through the African countries en route to Tanzania without documents, as long as they travelled under the auspices and membership of the so-called Freedom Organizations, such as S.W.A.P.O., P.A.C., A.N.C., and the banned communist party of South Africa. In Dar es Salaam all such trainee terrorists as well as trained terrorists were and still are accommodated in Kongwa camp, maintained by S.W.A.P.O.

From Dar es Salaam trainees were despatched in groups varying from 10 to 30 in number to Russia, Red China, Egypt, Ghana, Algeria and North Korea.

During September, 1965, the first group of six Swapo terrorists returned and infiltrated into Ovamboland in South-West Africa. They were armed with Russian-manufactured submachine guns, Russian-manufactured automatic pistols and thousands of rounds of ammunition for these fire-arms. The terrorists established an underground hideout in an isolated dense forest on Ovamboland in S.W.A. Here, with the assistance of local Swapo politicians, they recruited and trained local Ovambos in terrorism and guerrilla warfare. On 26th August, 1966 this terrorist camp was discovered and attacked by the South African Police to effect the arrest of the terrorists. In the ensuing skirmish two terrorists were killed, one wounded and seven arrested. A few terrorists managed to escape. Since then we have arrested a number of locally trained terrorists, most of them having completed initial training prior to the police raid on the camp, and having returned to their abodes awaiting instructions from their leaders. With the further arrest of members of the original group trained in Russia, five sub-machine guns and three automatic pistols were recovered by the police. Ten local Swapo politicians accused of having actively assisted and of conspiring with the terrorists to commit acts of terrorism among the Ovambo people and white Government officials have so far been arrested. Among these politicians is one of the founders of Swapo. He confessed being a communist and admits accepting the communist ideology, and he became a communist as the result of association with and the training he received at the hands of the aforementioned white communists in Cape Town. He further confesses that Swapo is completely under communist domination and that it is Swapo’s intention to form a communist-based government system once Swapo will have succeeded in taking over the control of South-West Africa. He is very outspoken in his opposing criticism of the American war effort in Vietnam to stem the communist tide.

The aforementioned group was thus far responsible for the following acts of terrorism:

1. (a) During February, 1966, they attacked two Portuguese trading stores in Angola near the Angolan-S.W.A. border. They murdered the Portuguese and the Ovambo shop-owners and robbed them of approximately R600 in cash money and an assortment of other articles. This loot was subsequently used to equip the terrorist camp mentioned previously;
2. (b) During September, 1966, they attacked the Bantu Administration offices and residences at Oshikango, burning down three buildings and one Government vehicle and seriously wounding an Ovambo night-watchman;
3. (c) During November. 1966, they attacked, assaulted, and robbed two Ovambo headmen of their legally possessed fire-arms, fortunately without loss of life to the headmen;
4. (d) During December, 1966, they attacked the tribal offices of a senior Ovambo headman, murdering by shooting one of his tribal messengers and seriously wounding a further two tribal messengers.

During December, 1966, a group consisting of seven overseas trained terrorists infiltrated into the northern parts of South-West Africa near Marulaboom, Grootfontein, South-West Africa. They attacked the farmhouse of Mr. Breedt, a white farmer, and seriously wounded him. The farmer’s wife and small children were present during the attack but fortunately escaped injury. This group was armed with Russian-manufactured sub-machine guns and Russian automatic pistols. After being persistently pursued by the police for a couple of days through dense forest land, five of the gang of terrorists were captured and one submachine gun and one automatic pistol with approximately 800 rounds of ammunition were recovered.

During March, 1967, a group of trained terrorists infiltrated the Western Caprivi en route to South-West Africa. Armed with Russian semi-automatic rifles they endeavoured to ambush a police patrol. The terrorists opened fire on the police. As a result of the skirmish which resulted two semiautomatic rifles were recovered and since then very nearly the whole group has been arrested.

*These are the particulars I wished to make available to the Committee in connection with the actions of the police as regards the terrorists in South-West Africa and, more specifically, in Ovamboland. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to assure this Committee as well as those people outside who may perhaps be involved in this matter, that the Government will, through the police force, do everything in its power to ensure that this evil which is infiltrating into South Africa, is being combated properly. In our opinion we have police in sufficient numbers. They have been provided properly with all the means they require as far as ammunition, vehicles, etc., are concerned, and we should just like to give this Committee and the country the assurance that everything which is humanly possible, will be done in order to combat this problem.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has read out a long and interesting report about the activities of the police in Ovamboland, to which I am sure we all listened with great attention. I have to deal with another matter in the short time at my disposal and I must say that I have difficulty here because of the nature of the Vote. The hon. the Deputy Minister is handling police matters and I wish to raise a matter in regard to section 215bis, the 180-day detention law, which should fall under Justice ordinarily but in fact concerns the operations of the Security Police and therefore I am raising it under the Police Vote. What worries me is the manner in which this particular section is being implemented. The Committee will remember that when the original Act was passed the Minister in charge of the Act was very specific about the reasons for which 180 days’ detention could be ordered. There were three main reasons. There was the danger of tampering with witnesses, and the second was that witnesses may abscond, and the third was that it was in the interests of the witnesses or of the administration of Justice that they should be so detained. Now the Minister of Police, when he was Minister of Justice, was most emphatic that the 180-days’ detention was in fact a form of protective custody.

Order! I think that this matter should be discussed under the Vote of the Minister of Justice.

Unfortunately I am in a difficult position. Although the actual subject falls under Justice, the administration of this section is in the hands of the Security Police and therefore that part of it is administered by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Police.

I am afraid I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss the matter now.

Will I then be allowed to raise this under the Justice Vote?

Yes.

And which Minister will answer? Will it be the Deputy Minister of Justice, or the Minister of Justice? I am in great difficulty here. I do not even know to whom to address correspondence, because the Ministers have not yet decided, apparently, under whose particular authority these maters fall. But with your assurance, Sir, that I can raise these matters under Justice. I will leave that.

I have decided that the hon. member may raise it under the Vote of the Minister of Justice.

Very well, Sir. Then I want to raise the whole question of these police raids which have been taking place over the past few months, from 1966 onwards. There were something like 33 mass operations in Johannesburg alone during 1966, and from the information I could obtain by questions an average of about 400 police were employed, and in one raid alone 1,000 police were engaged, and on three occasions over 900. One would not object to these raids taking place if they had the effect of combating serious crime, but as far as one can see from the statistics there has been a sharp rise in the number of murders and stabbings and brutal crime in the Republic in the last year or two and these raids have not served the purpose for which they were intended. In fact. I was interested to read that, commenting on this particular raid where more than 1,000 persons were arrested, a police spokesman was reported to have said there were five or six housebreakers among the petty offenders arrested. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is worthwhile engaging all these people in these massive raids, when apparently most of the effort seems to be directed against petty offenders. Largely, they seem to be pass offenders, people who are in the urban areas without permits, and Africans who have not paid their taxes, etc. But as far as combating serious crime is concerned, these raids do not appear to have had any effect at all. I have been reading with interest articles that have been appearing in the daily Press, and I am sure the Deputy Minister must have read them. too. about the tremendously high crime rate in Soweto and the other African townships near Johannesburg. As the hon. member for Transkei has pointed out, law-abiding citizens are frightened to walk out after nightfall, and certainly the number of criminal assaults that take place are out of all proportion to the population that lives there. Numbers of people are stabbed and the hospital wards are full after the week-end assault cases, and many people lose their pay packets on pay-day. The numbers of these cases are really phenomenal and something has really got to be done about the proper policing of those areas. There are, I know, municipal police as well, but they are unable to cope with this tremendous increase in crime in the Bantu townships of Johannesburg. If one looks at the police records and the annual report, one finds that there is a great increase in the number of people who have been charged with what I call statutory offences, largely under the Urban Areas Act, people who have been charged with pass law offences and with trespass, and I must say that the police really go to the nth degree in exercising their powers under the trespass law. I have had the experience in my own home that there has been a police raid and Africans, quite peacefully engaged in conversation with my own servant in the servant’s quarters, have been arrested for trespass. This sort of crime appears to be engaging the attention of the police out of all proportion to its gravity. If you look at the figures in the Police Report, you see that hundreds of thousands of cases of pass law arrests and other statutory crimes are engaging the attention of the police. I think we ought to adopt the sensible attitude of instructing the police, which was adopted a few years ago when the Minister gave instructions in a circular to the police telling them that they should not devote themselves so much to arrests and prosecutions for contraventions of a purely technical nature. Let me remind the Deputy Minister that in 1954, following on consultations between the Department of Justice, the S.A. Police and the Department of Bantu Administration. a circular, No. 23 of 1954, was issued stating, firstly, that it was common knowledge that large numbers of Natives were daily being arrested and prosecuted for contraventions of a purely technical nature and that, secondly, these arrests cost the State large sums of money and serve no useful purpose. I believe it is time that the hon. the Deputy Minister issued a similar circular to the police to try and get them to devote their attention more to serious crime and not so much to these petty offences and pass law arrests, which take up so much of the manpower of the Police Force and which result in hundreds of thousands of man hours in labour being lost.

Can’t you ever say anything nice about the police?

Oh yes, they often do an extremely good job, but my job here is not to praise the Department. [Interjection.] I am against terrorism of all kinds, but that does not mean that I am necessarily in favour of all the methods used by the Government to combat it. I am against Communism, but I am not in favour of the laws used in this country to combat it. I am not in favour of the 90 or 180 days’ detention law, and I have made that very clear. My job in this House is to voice my grievances against the Minister, and nothing else. [Interjection.] I am not interested in discussing this with hon. members. I am talking to the Minister and not to backbenchers.

The other point I wish to raise is that I asked a question this year as to whether or not the police were authorized to accept payment on admission of guilt from arrested persons, people who are arrested particularly under the pass laws and for statutory contraventions, and if so, how many such payments were made, etc. A very small amount was mentioned in the reply the Minister gave me. He told me about the particular section under which the police apparently are entitled—it is section 351 of Act 56 of 1955—to levy spot fines on Africans whom they arrest for these statutory offences. I want to put it to the Minister that this lays itself open to a great deal of abuse. [Time expired.]

I do not wish to follow the hon. member for Houghton in what she said in respect of our Police Force. I should like to associate myself with previous speakers, who at least had the common decency to thank the Police Force for what they are doing, for maintaining law and order in South Africa, and particularly in South-West Africa. I do not think the public realizes what it means to have a police force such as the one South Africa has to maintain law and order in this country. This is one of the most peaceful countries in the world, and I really do not think it is fitting that hon. members should get up here and not express such gratitude to our Police and to the Minister in charge of that Vote.

It is a pleasure to associate myself with the previous speakers, both on this side and on the Opposition side, who expressed their gratitude and appreciation in respect of what the Police are doing for us. Here I want to refer in particular to what the Police are doing in South-West Africa. We take the work of the Police for granted. The Police are there to wage war on crime, to prevent crime and to see to the maintenance of law and consequently the creation of order. They have succeeded in doing so because in South-West Africa and in South Africa we are living in peace and there is not much crime compared with world figures; on the contrary, there is very little. I want to point out to you that South-West Africa is still a country where one can go to bed at night without locking doors and windows, but this Police Force also has another function. They have to see to our local security, and they have done so successfully. If one considers the elimination of saboteurs in this country who wanted to undermine South Africa, then I think they have performed that task successfully. That brings me to the point I should like to deal with reference to what the hon. the Deputy Minister furnished to us, namely the information in respect of terrorists. You will recall how shocked we were last year when the first terrorists crossed the northern border of South-West Africa. That made us realize that we were dealing with an assault from abroad. As a South-West African I want to express my gratitude to-day for what the police did in combating the infiltration of terrorists. Just to illustrate to you how difficult a task these people actually face in that tremendously extensive country, with its very sparse population to maintain law and order and also to combat the infiltration of terrorists: To our east there is an approximately 700-mile long border between us and Botswana. On the northern side we have an approximately 650-mile long border between us and Angola, and on the western side there is an approximately 800-mile long coastline. This is actually very difficult ground. Two parts of that border consist of forest area which is very difficult to penetrate with the vehicles at our disposal, and on the other side we have to deal with desert land. Despite these problems the Police have succeeded in maintaining order and in allaying panic in South-West Africa, and I want to say also in the Republic of South Africa. But with reference to this information furnished to us by the hon. the Deputy Minister, and with special reference to the object and aim of these terrorists who infiltrate our country, I want to say that it is South-West Africa to-day, and to-morrow it may be the Republic. But the object of these people is exactly the same, namely to bring down the governments of countries and as their names indicate, to create terror and to maintain a reign of terror, and to sow death, destruction and fear by means of deadly automatic weapons. I want to remind you of the words of the hon. the Prime Minister, when he was still Minister of Police and of Justice. I want to quote his words. I read from Hansard, col. 1523, of 26th August, 1966—

I want to refer to a second occasion on which the hon. the Prime Minister also commented in respect of terrorists. It was no less than a week before these seven terrorists crossed the South-West African border to wound a certain Mr. Breed. I read from a report in Die Transvaler of 10th November, 1966 (translation)—

With reference to this I want to say what effect such an infiltration of terrorists actually has on the community. I was in the vicinity immediately after these seven terrorists had crossed that line. I may assure you that their pursuit by the Police creates panic among the people, not only among the Whites but also among the non-Whites. Those people are armed with deadly weapons, and in the process they will not spare lives. They will kill, because they are on the run. In the process of infiltration it is their principal object, as it was set out there, to undermine the administration, not only the Whites but also the Ovambo chiefs, and thus to create a medium through which they may act and create unrest. I should therefore like to make the request that in accordance with the approach adopted by the Prime Minister—and which I presume is also that of the present Deputy Minister—this warning should be reiterated, and that action should be taken accordingly against these terrorists, and that they should be shown no mercy, because these people will show no mercy when they infiltrate this country. We cannot risk exposing our people to panic. Our people must feel secure. I want to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for what he has already said, but I should like to hear this grave warning once again, which should be made to the outside to warn the terrorists that they will simply be coming to meet their death if they cross the borders of this country with the objectives they have set themselves.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Transkei asked a question in connection with terrorist activity in South-West Africa. I think that we are all grateful to the Deputy Minister for the explanation he has given and the report he has read to us. I think we can express our satisfaction at the steps that have been taken there, leading right up to dealing with events which took place only last month. Those who have any knowledge of the territory at all will realize that the northern border of South-West Africa, where it joins the Caprivi Zipfel, is a very dangerous border, as far as we are concerned. It is a point which is liable to attack by terrorists. It is a point where they are likely to enter into South Africa. When one thinks of the Ovambos and the other folk who are up there, living their tribal lives, if they had to deal with groups of highly armed terrorists, armed with automatic weapons and that sort of thing, I do not know how they could possibly get on if it was not for the help of the South African Police. I tremble to think of what would happen to the ordinary tribal Natives if they were to meet one of these highly armed gangs, armed with automatic weapons, under circumstances where they did not have a well-armed and disciplined force like the South African Police to fall back on. I think we can express our approval of what has taken place there and hope that the warning which has been issued will be noted by people who may come across that border with evil intent.

Do you suggest that we strengthen the Police Force there?

Yes. rather than otherwise. In regard to the question of the hon. the Deputy Minister, I would say that if events of this nature took place up to last month— in March of this year—then the indications would be rather that we should strengthen, than that there should be any possible diminution of the forces there, although it is north of the Red Line and all the rest of it. That is a particularly vulnerable point so far as entry into South-West Africa is concerned, in my opinion. It lends itself. Those who know the terrain will know that that is the point at which entry can most likely be effected.

I should like briefly to deal with two or three matters. My first is to make an appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister on behalf of those policemen at outlying stations cut off to a very great extent from association with their white folk and who are living in some of the most unsuitable premises that we can ask any of our public servants to live in. I know the police look at the P.W.D. to help them with their buildings but I should like to ask the Deputy Minister to use his influence. I do not want him to come to Natal to see what we have got there because he can see it everywhere. I think the police are starved in this respect. This is particularly noticeable now that there is a credit squeeze on. But they are starved in so far as the provision is concerned of adequate accommodation for the ordinary policeman to carry out his ordinary duties. I speak with the greatest sincerity in this matter. Stations are erected here and there while some stations are only being kept standing up almost by the willpower of the inmates. If this is not so I wonder sometimes what else can keep those buildings standing up. In any event, such is the state in which they are. I think something is lacking in the pressure which the police authorities can exert with a view to having such buildings replaced. It is not fair that young fellows should be expected to work under such conditions. I have had an endless number of cases where such young fellows have come down from up country provinces and stationed away there, away from their fellows. Very often they cannot speak the language of the Bantu in whose area they have to work. For that they have interpreters, an aspect of the matter to which I should like to return. There are no social opportunities for them there. I say it is highly regrettable that they should be expected to live and work under such conditions. Therefore I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to give his attention to this as a specific matter and to discuss it with the Commissioner of Police. I am not pleading here for my own constituency only because I know what is happening elsewhere as well. The hon. the Deputy Minister should get a picture of the conditions under which these particular policemen are living at the present time, policemen who are required day and night to attend to their important duties.

My next point is in connection with the closing down of police stations. Here also I should like to make an appeal particularly in connection with police stations situated near to non-White areas, where there is a concentration of non-Whites. Here the closing down of a police station can have the most deleterious consequences. Magistrates’ courts are few and far between but the real symbol of authority is the police station and not the magistrate’s court. A post office is not a symbol of Government authority—it is the police station with a flag flying and men in uniform walking around there from time to time. Here I can speak from my own personal experience from a police station where there are two white policemen and a number of Bantu policemen. The experience is that these two white policemen are continually being called out. They do not spend their time there as clerks. I have been at that particular police station from time to time and on no occasion did I find the white policemen there. What you will find is one of the Bantu policemen in charge to deal with the inquiries while the white policemen are out on specific duties. As our population increases and the Bantu population increases the police stations alongside these huge scheduled native areas with their growing populations are the only sign and symbol of might and power to the law abiding citizens that the Government is enforcing law and order. Close that station and remove it and the Bantu would read into that immediately “Hulle is nou weg—they are going”. That is the way they reason, Sir. Therefore I should like to make an appeal that such police stations should not be closed down—on the contrary. Rather give these policemen new buildings, and show that we are establishing ourselves there. That is the symbol of power of the Government and the law abiding citizen, a symbol represented by the policemen who are there.

The third matter I should like to raise is the question of allowances to policemen proficient in one or other Bantu language. I believe at present a small allowance is paid to certain policemen who are proficient in one or other Bantu language. I should like to plead, particularly where Natal is concerned with its huge population of Zulu people, for a really substantial and generous allowance to be paid to members of the force who speak Zulu. The native constable who acts as an interpreter for them is not the right means of dealing with the intricacies of the law especially where the raw red blanket Natives are concerned. Of these there are tens of thousands. I am, of course, not blaming the interpreter. His trouble is that he does not know the English language; he does not properly comprehend the English-language. Consequently, he cannot translate it properly. Although he does his best many things can go wry. So the position is that the white policemen have to deal with the Natives with the help of a Bantu policeman acting as interpreter. This is not the way to do it even with the best will in the world. Therefore I suggest the payment of a truly liberal allowance being paid to those members of the force who are proficient in the Zulu language. I leave it to other hon. members to deal with other aspects of this matter—I am at the present moment concerned only with Natal particularly Zululand and the area on the South Coast and right up to the Free State border. This will ensure that policemen can deal with these Natives at first hand. This was the old method in the past and it worked admirably. So, I say that if this arrangement can be given effect to here we shall find that in many of these districts difficulties which have been experienced in the past will fade away because of the fact that police will be able to deal at first hand and face to face with the Bantu people living there in their hundreds of thousands, people with whom the white policemen have to establish a rapprochement so that the Bantu can look upon them as their protector and not as people being there to prosecute them but to help them. We will never establish this state of affairs through the means of interpreters.

I should like to associate myself with previous speakers who have paid tribute to the South African Police. Our police are indeed performing a task which is at present not fully appreciated. Its full importance will only be appreciated in years to come. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition paid the S.A. Police an indirect and well-deserved compliment earlier to-day when he said that pressure against South Africa was decreasing. We have only our Police Force at our disposal, and it is as a result of their capable action and intervention that pressure against South Africa has decreased.

On this occasion I want to confine myself largely to the interests of my constituency. I regret having to do so, but the fact of the matter is that my constituency is situated so strategically that I actually have many problems. A large part of my constituency adjoins Lesotho—in actual fact over a distance of 259 miles. What about the police officers who serve on that border? There are only 13 white policemen and 20 Bantu. This small group has five motor vehicles at their disposal. During the past year provision was made for white border posts high in the Drakensberg. These posts can only be controlled with the greatest difficulty. They are situated in the mountains and we can only pay tribute to the men who have to fulfil their task there. I also therefore want to pay tribute to the work those few men have to do there under those most difficult circumstances. I must add that those men also have at their disposal the stock theft unit which was established at Umtata, a unit which is also doing very efficient work. Nevertheless, despite all this, stock thefts have increased to some extent in recent years. I think I should just outline the background for the sake of interest. Some years ago, in the Tsolo district, the policy of the so-called “Cheesa-Cheesa” was applied, namely to burn out stock thieves in a certain location. Some of those stock thieves fled to the Qumbu district, while others fled to the Mount Fletcher district. The stock thieves who fled to Mount Fletcher did not last very long there, because the “Cheesa-Cheesa” was applied there as well. In my humble opinion this had the result that some of them fled to Lesotho, and it is since that time that stock theft has actually increased to such a large extent. Stock theft has even developed into a flourishing industry in those areas.

A border industry.

I say it is a flourishing industry. One should not always be obsessed with border industries and then bring it up here. I am therefore particularly grateful that the hon. the Prime Minister, during the discussion on his Budget Vo-e the past two or three days, made the important announcement that an extradition treaty was to be entered into with Lesotho. It will combat these stock thefts, it will curb these stock thefts, and it will relieve our problems—and particularly those of the police—-in those areas. I should like to plead with the Deputy Minister for a permanent helicopter service to be available to the police officers for use in those mountainous regions. We know that helicopters are put at the disposal of the police, but I am pleading for a permanent helicopter service at the disposal of the police officers. I also want to plead for more patrol dogs in those mountainous regions. I think there are at the moment five patrol dogs in the Border division and in the Transkei. I think there are too few of them. If the number of dogs in that region can be increased, it will also help to combat stock thefts. As we know the Bantu, they are very much afraid of does. Because the police dogs function so effectively, they will also help to curb those stock thefts to a certain extent.

Last but not least, I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister for the provision of better housing conditions for our Police Force. I think the hon. members for Transkei and South Coast have also referred to the housing problems of the Police Force. At Aliwal North, in particular, the position is unsatisfactory. There is one stone-built house for the Police Force. There are 11 vehicles, for example, but only three garages are available for them. I feel that the position can really be improved to some extent, and I will appreciate it very much if the Deputy Minister will oblige us in that respect. I know that since he took over the portfolio he has contributed a great deal towards the solution of our problems, and we appreciate that very much.

Mr. Chairman, the Police Force in South Africa has been both praised and thanked during this Vote by both sides of the House for the work that they are doing under very difficult conditions. All hon. members on this side of the House share this view, and I wish to emphasize this because I do not wish to be misunderstood in what I am about to say. We appreciate the difficult conditions under which the police work and they have undoubtedly done a good job in maintaining law and order. I believe that there are certain matters which must be drawn to the attention of the Deputy Minister because I do believe, without exaggerating circumstances in any way that in certain respects— and I emphasize “in certain respects”—members of the public, both white and non-white, are not getting the police protection to which they are entitled. I should like to explain in what respect.

Firstly. I believe that there is a serious increase in crimes of assault and brutal crimes, namely serious assaults and robberies, particularly in the major white cities in South Africa. I refer to Johannesburg, Durban, Cape Town and some of the others. Also, there has been a serious increase in these crimes, as has been pointed out earlier in the debate, in the non-white, the Bantu townships.

The non-white Bantu townships?

Well, if the Deputy Minister prefers it—the Bantu townships. The same thing applies also to the Coloured townships. I also believe that the figures which appear in police reports are not necessarily an accurate reflection of the number of these crimes which are occurring because many of these crimes are unfortunately not being reported to the police because the victims are too afraid of victimization by those people who have committed the crime. This is happening and I think that the police would be the first to admit that this is the case. This is a serious situation when the victims are too afraid to report to the police serious crimes of assault, robbery and so on, because of future victimization by the people who are committing these crimes. Frankly, I cannot suggest what the solution is, how one can overcome this situation, but it is a matter which is becoming serious, it is reaching serious proportions, and it is a matter to which the Deputy Minister and the force generally must give very careful consideration.

To give the Committee an example of the fact that the situation is reaching serious proportions I would refer to a recent statement which appeared in The Natal Mercury of 30th March, 1967 by the industrial reporter quoting an approach made by the Natal Chamber of Industries. This Chamber were pressing for a full investigation of what they described as, “Widespread robbery and violence in Pinetown and New Germany by armed gangs operating from nearby Clairmont township.” This is a recent matter. Similar statements can be made in respect of other areas. The same sort of thing has from time to time been raised in connection with other parts of Durban. I would ask what the hon. the Deputy Minister has in mind in regard to this particular situation.

Another matter to which I wish to draw the Deputy Minister’s attention is the aspect of undeleted crime. I have already referred to the fact that many of these crimes are not being reported through fear. The other aspect is the number of undetected cases of crime. I would draw, first of all, the attention of the Deputy Minister to the number of undetected murders. In the 1964 report there were 762 cases of undetected murders. In the 1965 report 955 cases of murder are reported as undetected. This is in regard to murder only. I do not see in these reports the figures in regard to undetected crime other than murder, but if this is the number in the case of murder then I believe that undetected robberies and assaults are probably even greater. Once again I appreciate the Police Force’s difficulty in detecting these various crimes, but the number of crimes which are undetected to-day I believe are on the increase. I suggest that this is another matter to which the Deputy Minister and the Police Force must give very careful and very serious consideration.

Attention has already been drawn to the fact that there is a shortage in the Police Force, and this is something which worries me. Because the force does not seem to be able to attract a sufficient number of recruits of a permanent nature. I would point out that in 1964 the complement of Whites, the actual number, was 14.528 and in 1965 it was 15,900. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure to be able to take part in a debate in which the Opposition side has also adopted an attitude towards the police which we must appreciate very highly. What was said here by the hon. member for South Coast was also objective and constructive, though critical. Although I do not agree with everything the hon. member for Musgrave has just said, he has nevertheless tried to adopt a constructive and objective attitude to the police of our country. I shall now give you my views on the question of unsolved crimes, to which the hon. member for Musgrave referred. Before I come to that, however, I just want to say the following. The attitude of hon. members on both sides of the House is in sharp contrast to the attitude of the hon. member for Houghton. This hon. member told us what her function in this House was. She told us that her function in this House was “to have grievances”. That is what she said. Her function was to have grievances. She has adopted such a dog-in-the-manger attitude that she would not even pay the police dogs a compliment. One sometimes wonders whether this “grievance” she has against the police is not based on the fact that they will not give her propaganda to exploit. It sometimes appears as though the success of the police is in fact one of her grievances. How anomalous the hon. member was in her arguments. One moment she complained about the raids in the urban areas of Johannesburg, and the next moment she complained that not enough police work was being done. One moment she complained because so much attention was being given to the so-called “petty offences”. But what were those people supposed to do to pick up the potential criminals? Can the hon. member not understand that? [Interjection.] The hon. member has had her turn to speak, and I have dealt exceptionally courteously with her. She should take care that I do not perhaps stop doing so.

This potential source of crime, which has been cleared up by these actions, is referred to as “petty offences” by the hon. member. But they were criminals who disturbed the peace. Is she aware of the fact that after the police had taken action they received numerous letters from both Whites and non-Whites in that vicinity to thank them for their action? But did the hon. member also note that according to the statistics furnished in reply to her question in this House, of the 8,000—in round figures—people who appeared before the courts, only 50 were discharged? That shows how thorough the police action against guilty people was. I think the hon. member owes an explanation to the country and to the House. She asked the same question three times—here is the Hansard. The first question she put in this House was the following: Did the police undertake mass raids on the Bantu in the area? The Minister replied that the police did not act against this or that population group. Then the hon. member asked the second question, the details of which I shall give in a moment … [Interjection.] Yes, the hon. member is always interested in only one thing, namely how many disputes she can create between the population groups in this country. That is the only function she has with her grievance complex. Eventually, when she asked the third question, the hon. the Minister told her that we were engaged in police action against crime—irrespective of the colour of a man’s skin. We then heard these significant figures. And what did the hon. member do with them? She left them right there, because then they no longer served her grievance complex. I am entitled to ask the hon. member: What was her motive with questions of this nature? What image of the South African Police did she want to propagate?

A sinister one.

“A sinister one”—the hon. member admits that. She wanted to propagate a sinister image because she has a grievance complex. The hon. member has only one motive in South Africa—to play a sinister role in this country.