May I ask for the privilege of the second half an hour? In the course of this debate I accused the hon. the Prime Minister of attempting to put across two dangerous propaganda lines in the course of his public addresses and his activities in this House. If one needed evidence of the lengths the hon. gentleman was prepared to go to put those propaganda lines across one only had to look at the reports in the morning newspapers of the speech the hon. gentleman made over the week-end. So determined is he to try to build up the belief that the situation in South Africa is a perfectly normal one that he went to Paarl last Saturday and in dealing with the difficulties which faced South Africa, instead of praising the statesmanship of the countries of the Western world …

The Sunday Times.

No, I am quoting from the Burger. Instead of indicating his approval and appreciation of the fact that the countries of the Western world had made it clear that they were not in favour of boycotts against South Africa he bravely went there and trailed his coat in the most irresponsible way before the countries of the Western world and to an extent to those countries who are attempting to force boycotts on South Africa.

We are more than proud of the fact that South Africa has a strong economy, perhaps one of the strongest economies in the world. But is it necessary, in this irresponsible manner, to flaunt the fact and almost to challenge the world to apply boycotts? One wonders, Sir, when the hon. gentleman makes statements of that kind whether he realizes quite what our situation is when our exports are equivalent to one-quarter of our gross national products and our imports one-fifth, both of which could be affected by any boycotts. One wonders whether, in these circumstances, it is wise for the hon. gentleman to talk about the position in respect of oil and to indicate that certain other steps are being taken to enable us to resist an oil boycott, steps he does not propose to talk about at the present time. What was the hon. gentleman’s objective, Sir? Was it to try to ensure that every one of those countries which is inclined to be hostile towards us will do its level best to try to find out just what he is doing? If it is an important matter that must be kept secret, why must he talk about it on a public platform? If it is not an important matter should he not tell us in this House what he is doing about it? I do not want to ask him; he must judge. Is it not irresponsible to take a line of this kind? You see, Sir, so obsessed is he with this idea of trying to get it across that everything is normal in South Africa, so obsessed is he with the idea that that is the one way of holding his people together and of getting support that he is now using every single one of the weapons at his disposal to try to get this propaganda theme accepted. What are the weapons he has at his disposal? Firstly, of course, there is the Government Press in South Africa, the Government Press which is, as we all know, a Nationalist-controlled Press which is engaged in its usual activity of trying to ride down the Opposition and approving everything that is being done by the Government. It should be noted that in respect of that Press virtually the entire Government Press is controlled by Nationalist politicians on the various boards and directorships. The hon. the Prime Minister himself plays a big role not only in directing them but, I believe, also in advising them as to the sort of propaganda lines they should be taking. While that is happening on the one side you have the hon. gentleman making use of his second weapon, i.e. the continual threat he is making against the independent Opposition Press, what he calls the “English Press” in South Africa. For years they have been sitting with the sword of Damocles in the form of the Press Commission hanging over their heads. Not only are they attacked from time to time by members of this House, not only are tney hearing remarks made as to what that commission’s report will contain, very often by people who, I have reason to believe, have no idea what will be in it, but we have recently had a new development and that is that the South African Broadcasting Corporation, Radio South Africa, is seeing fit to attack individual newspapers and individual newsmen over the radio. It is a very powerful weapon unless it is exposed. It is the duty of the Opposition to tell the public in South Africa what is happening and for what their radio is being used at the present time. That brings me very naturally to the third weapon which is being used at the present time to serve the ends of the hon. the Prime Minister and that is the South African Broadcasting Corporation generally, and especially since the hon. Minister appointed a new director in the place of the former director who disappeared in a remarkable way from his post. What is so interesting, Sir, is that the S.A.B.C. is a purveyor of news. That is its primary object. But under this new director it is becoming more and more a purveyor of comment as well, and in purveying that comment, it is not observing even the code which the Press in South Africa, under Government pressure very largely, has agreed to accept. It regards itself as free to attack individual newspapers, individual Pressmen, individuals who are citizens of the country, and give them no right of reply. How can that possibly be justified in a country where one code is applied to the Press as purveyors of news and comment whilst you find that the same code is not being applied in respect of something which is in fact a State-supported monopoly—a State-supported monopoly which stands very closely under the surveillance or the care of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs? Sir, we have raised this matter with the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs on many occasions, and we find that at first he hid behind the Radio Act and contended that he had no control whatever. Despite the “no control” which he has, he emerges from time to time and attempts to defend the S.A.B.C., often in a most arrogant and insulting manner. We think the time has come that this matter should be drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister because in fact the activities of this organization are a denial of democracy in South Africa. You see, Sir, this is a State-supported monopoly, and it is being used not only to propagate a political point of view and to attack certain newspapers and certain citizens, but I think that when public money is being used for monopolistic propaganda purposes such as this kind, it becomes hypocrisy to talk of the S.A.B.C. operating as a democratic institution in a democratic State. We feel that the time has come for the hon. the Prime Minister to make a full statement on this matter, so as to know exactly where we stand and for the public who has to listen in to know exactly where they stand. I think they must know as to whether the hon. the Prime Minister believes that this must be an impartial organization purveying news, and where it delivers comment observing the same code as the Government feels should be applied to the Press, so that the public gets the opportunity of hearing both sides of the question. Or are we going to be in a position where certain commentators are let loose on the public, putting across a point of view, making very often most unbridled comment which cannot be substantiated, and no attempt to give the other side an opportunity to reply?

Did you listen this morning to Fanus Rautenbach?

I did not, but I am told there was a disgraceful broadcast which did not mention that hon. gentleman, a disgraceful broadcast as to the prospects of this week in Parliament, and some other remarks concerning what has happened in the previous week, which I do not believe any member on that side of the House—if what I am told is true—could say is an unbiased and fair report. I do not think anybody could get up with his hand on his heart and say it was an unbiased and a fair report. Unfortunately, this is becoming symptomatic of Radio South Africa. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that under his immediate predecessors, these malpractices were not permitted, they did not occur, and I think we are entitled to ask whether it is the Prime Minister’s policy for these practices to continue unchecked and perhaps assuming even more monstrous proportions and very much more serious proportions with the passage of time if they are not checked. You see, Sir, it is difficult to deal with the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, and it is time that his activities were brought to the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister. When complaints are put to him, here is one of his replies—

I can only say that if that is the hon. gentleman’s idea of what is “factual and truthful”, he must be very badly informed indeed.

I want to say what out attitude is and I think there should be an opportunity of dialogue on the subject. I think our attitude is quite simple. We respect the autonomy of the S.A.B.C. and we have no wish to interfere in minor matters of day-to-day administration. But we think that the words of the Pilkington Commission on the B.B.C. in 1960 could apply here too in South Africa. Perhaps I should read the relevant passage—

I would say, Sir, that the handling of this matter is a test of the character of the Government. The temptation is there for all to see. Temptations are there for any Government. The question is whether the Government is going to continue to succumb to this temptation, and in doing so to refute its own claim to be a properly democratic Government attempting to maintain Western standards here in the Republic of South Africa.

And while dealing with the broadcasting services, I must mention as well another matter to which I feel the attention of the Prime Minister must be drawn, because here again we have had no success with the Minister concerned. I feel the hon. the Prime Minister owes the nation an explanation as to why it is continuing to be denied the privilege of sharing in one of the greatest technical discoveries of the century, namely, television. Over 80 countries in the world are enjoying that privilege at the moment, Western countries and other countries. Possibly over 100,000,000 families enjoy the benefits of television. Nobody can deny that while there may be dangers, there are tremendous advantages to which that can be put here in South Africa more particularly. It is interesting that it seems that the corporation is sending people overseas to study television; it seems it is spending a great deal of money in investigating it and buying equipment. I think we are entitled to ask why it is that we are still being denied that privilege. It is no excuse to tell me that it can be abused. Most things can be abused. Parliament can be abused, freedom itself can be abused, a majority Government can abuse its position very easily indeed. There are many things which can be abused. Abuse should not be an excuse. It is something that can be controlled, and I think one has to ask oneself at once what are the real reasons behind the denial of television being made available to the people of South Africa. We have had reasons from the hon. the Minister. We have heard from him that it would corrupt the youth. I believe our youth are no more corruptible than the youth in other parts of the world, and I believe that if they have a proper home influence, they are just as little likely to be corrupted by this as by many other things. We have been told that it would cost too much. One wonders whether the advertising revenue could not substantially reduce that loss. We have been told that insufficient good Afrikaans programmes will be available and that listeners will turn to English programmes. There is an answer to that as well. It lies in the use of modern methods, making our own Afrikaans programmes. Our Department of Information has produced a large number of television films in the last year or two. It does not seem to me to be impossible for us to meet that need. One keeps asking oneself what is the real reason behind it? In that search I was struck by a speech by the hon. Minister as recorded in the Burger on 22 March 1960—

That is what the hon. the Minister has said. I cannot really believe for one moment that we are being denied television for mercenary reasons, mercenary reasons not unconnected with certain newspaper businesses directed by, very often, certain people on the other side of the House and supporting the Nationalist Party. I cannot believe that for one moment. I think we want a statement from the hon. the Prime Minister as to exactly where he stands and where his Government stands in this matter, so that we know and so that the public knows, because we believe that this is a discovery, this is a weapon which could be put to great use in South Africa, which could be a weapon for the national good, for education, for the advancement of a true reflection of the news, of what is happening, and we cannot see that it should be continued to be denied us either through technical difficulties, or because the South African people can be regarded as more immature than other peoples in the world. I believe that is not so, and I think it is time that we got clarity on this issue.

Then I come to the fourth of the Prime Minister’s weapons in putting across the sort of propaganda themes to which he seems committed at the moment, and this is a weapon as to which I sometimes wonder as to whether he controls it himself or whether it controls him, but it is quite clear that it is a weapon which works in a secret manner to obtain in the same or similar objectives to the hon. the Prime Minister. He will know that I am referring to the Broederbond.

The House will recall the no-confidence debate in which I raised this matter, and the House will recall that I laid certain charges at the door of that organization. I made it clear that there was evidence available which seemed to me in the absence of a reply to make out a case that it exercised an undue influence on certain aspects of our South African way of life. I made it clear that there was evidence available which would seem to indicate that it was engaged in something akin to organized nepotism in respect of certain aspects of our life in South Africa. Those charges were substantiated by published documents, the authenticity of which has never been denied. We had a reply from the hon. the Prime Minister which must be regarded as an ex parte statement, which in no way challenged the authenticity of those documents and in no way challenged these activities. The hon. gentleman made me an offer that if I would make certain proposals, he would undertake to consider the appointment of a commission of inquiry; to “consider”, not to grant the appointment of a commission of inquiry. He was good enough to say that there should be agreement as to the commissioner and agreement as to its terms of reference. I suggested that evidence should be on oath and that any hearing should be open to the public. I believe that I did all that was necessary to accept that offer, and if there is any respect in which I did not conform with the ideas of the hon. gentleman in making that proposal, I think I can make it now and conform to the suggestions he may wish to make. But so far we have heard nothing from the hon. gentleman. All we have had was over the week-end a statement from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs. When asked what influence the Broederbond exerted on his party, and if it was the intention of the Government to investigate this secret society, Mr. Haak replied—

Then when asked whether he was a member of the Broederbond, he refused to reply.

Did you not refuse to reply?

I never did. I am not a member of the Broederbond. I am not a Freemason either, nor am I a member of the Sons of England. I am just an ordinary South African, a member of the United Party. I dislike secret societies exercising an influence on the political life of this country.

When I spoke on this issue the last time and pointed out how many key positions were held by members of the Broederbond I was told by certain old members, good Nationalists, that I asked the wrong question—that I should have asked the question: “How many important appointments in recent years went to people who were not Broederbonders?” I was told that I should have asked that question.

I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that feeling is strong on this matter. I think he is aware of it, and I think I am entitled to ask to-day: Is the matter to be left there? Must we assume that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs spoke for the Cabinet when he made that statement that they have no intention of investigating the Broederbond or any other society?

I referred to three.

May I take it from the hon. Deputy Minister that he spoke for the Cabinet?

No. I am not a member of the Cabinet.

Must we assume, then, that the hon. Deputy Minister spoke on his own behalf and that Cabinet responsibility does not apply to him as a Deputy Minister? But, Sir, are Ministers going to refuse to admit or deny their membership of this organization, or otherwise? And how many more organizations in respect of which we are going to see the sort of development we have seen in the S.A.B.C. since the Minister made a new appointment as director of a gentleman, who, I believe, not only was or is chairman of this organization but whom I believe also not to be directing that organization in the manner in which he should?

There have been charges made against the organization. I am afraid my time does not permit me to go into them now. But I feel that the issue cannot be left here, and I want to ask the Prime Minister again to consider now favourably the appointment of a commission on this subject. Let us have agreement as to the personnel and the terms of reference and as to procedure and let us clear it up once and for all. If they have got nothing to hide, I will be the first to congratulate it, but if they have something to hide, then it is high time that the public of South Africa knew what it was.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will surely not think that he has given the House the impression to-day that he really wanted to talk about the radio when he launched this attack. Of all days, he particularly chose to-day to talk about it, for one specific reason, viz. to take the Sunday Times under his wing, because the Sunday Times in its latest issue mentioned that it had again been found guilty by the Press Board of having published an untruth. And in its latest issue the Sunday Times also mentions that the radio during the past week exposed what a distorted report the Sunday Times had published in regard to two Japanese who sought accommodation in Johannesburg. It is really to restore the image of the Sunday Times that the Leader of the Opposition now attacks the radio, in order to distract attention. Because I wonder whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition thinks that we on this side really believe that he is concerned about so-called political propaganda broadcast over the radio? There was a time when the United Party controlled the radio in South Africa.

Misused it.

Yes, and to-day still we have the record of the report by the Acting Director of the Information Bureau of that time, the present Department of Information, to General Smuts, in which he stated that the success achieved by the United Party in the election of 1943 was mainly due to the broadcast talks of the Director of Information. Sir, can a radio service be misused to a greater extent by a political party? Can there be a more damning piece of evidence against a political party? And then the Leader of the Opposition gets up here, and with a few insignificant examples he levels the accusation that the radio is being used for political purposes. But we know what their approach to the radio was at that time. It was so bad that the programmes of Cecil Wightman, who today broadcasts over the radio again, were stopped at the time because, as Mr. Arthur Barlow said in accusing the Corporation, “He was too South African”. They suspended a man’s programme because he was too South African for their liking.

In what year did we stop Cecil Wightman?

I shall be able to supply that evidence. I just have to look it up. It was in 1944 or 1945. The hon. member for Yeoville ought to know it, because he himself was connected with the radio. He was taken from the radio service and appointed to the service of the United Party. He should know.

May I put a question to the hon. member? When was I ever employed in the radio service?

If the hon. member wants to deny it, then I want to say that this information was given in this House by no less a person than the present Senator George Sutter, as reported in Hansard. I shall have an opportunity in a moment to prove it.

I was never connected with the radio service.

I shall accept that. But I shall still produce the evidence that was given in this House by a member of the United Party.

I really want to refer to another matter. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said on Friday, towards the end of the day, that the fact that there are people in South Africa who do not agree with the Government is a shield which protects South Africa. I do not want him to get away with that because the Leader of the Opposition is the person who said outside this House that they want to make it clear to the outside world that the United Party differs from the Government, as I myself said the other day. Now he goes further and says that it is really a very patriotic deed on the part of the Opposition to show the world that they differ from the Government. That is now as he interprets it to us. Sir, that appeal which he made to his supporters, “We must make it clear in the eyes of the world that we disagree with the Government”, is the one thing they say. But then they go further. They say, which is actually logical, that the difference between the United Party and the Government is what makes the policy of the United Party acceptable to the outside world. That, then, is the claim they also make, namely, that the United Party will be able to satisfy the outside world. But when it comes to the outside world, then it is no longer the whole outside world. Then it is just the responsible Western nations. Let us accept that. Now I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition whether I interpret it correctly if I say that at least Britain, as a responsible Western state, will be satisfied with the policy of the United Party? It is surely obvious that at least Britain must be satisfied. And now the Leader of the Opposition incidentally referred last week to the report submitted by that UN committee and to the fact that Sir Hugh Foote, who can be regarded as a representative of Britain, signed that report. The Leader of the Opposition said that it was such a terrible thing that a British representative should put his signature to a report which expressed itself as being in favour of one man, one vote, and he actually levelled this as an accusation against the Government. He suggested it was its policy which was fanning this gesture against South Africa. But has the Leader of the Opposition reconsidered that argument? Has he considered what that statement of his means in terms of the claim he makes that the policy of the United Party is acceptable to Britain? If a British member of the committee signs a document which advocates “one man, one vote”, what does that mean in terms of the claim he makes in regard to the policy of the United Party, namely that it would be acceptable to Britain? It is quite clear from the report which appeared in the Press that this UN committee (the British member included) also had before it the policy of the United Party and considered it. Just listen to that part of the committee’s report. I should like to have the attention of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), because he knows what policy they published recently. This is what the Daily Mail of 21 April reported in regard to the UN committee’s report—

They considered a federal system but rejected a federation on a racial basis. The hon. member for Yeoville has repeatedly stated that their race federation will not have a geographical basis but a racial basis, and this UN committee, on which a British member sat, totally rejected this system advocated by the United Party. And they go further and say—

That is what was approved by the British representative in that committee, while the United Party says that its race federation plan is acceptable to Britain. But I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that the committee goes further and says this—

Those are precisely the terms in which the Progressive Party describes its party—“a restricted franchise and racial representation in an Upper House”. That is also rejected by this UN committee, of which the British representative was a member, and also Mrs. Myrdal who, although she is a Swede, has actually been living in America for a long time where her husband plays an important role. Now I ask the Leader of the Opposition this: He depicts it as a great patriotic deed that they differ from the Government, and that it is a shield which will protect South Africa. He actually boasts of it. But I now ask him what that so-called shield has warded off from South Africa. Let him tell us that. Has it resulted in Britain taking notice of the Opposition and of the leader of the Progressive Party, or has Sir Hugh Foote supported what Luthuli and Alan Paton stand for? [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Innesdale (Mr. J. A. Marais) has simply been following the line laid down by the hon. the Prime Minister when he told us last week that although the policy of the Government was not being accepted by the rest of the world, the United Party policy of a race federation would have the same effect on the outside world. We on this side deny that completely. Let me point to one small but significant example. The Government is spending tens of millions of rand every year in an attempt to get the rest of the world to see some sense in the policy of the Nationalist Government. On this side of the House, by contrast, we have one single member of Parliament, the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl), who spent 10c on a letter to Aberdeen, Scotland, and achieved more than the Government did after spending all that money.

But that is not the subject I wish to raise here. I wish to come back to the point raised by my hon. Leader, namely the news services of the S.A.B.C. These news services are not only criticized by us on this side of the House, but also by important newspapers supporting that side as well as by independent bodies. This news service has entirely gone off the rails since the appointment of the new Chairman of the S.A.B.C., whom we all know is also the Chairman of the Broederbond. The new Chairman’s qualifications were laid on the Table of this House by the hon. the Minister, and one of them was that he was also Chairman of the F.A.K.’s Radio Committee. Now we know from documents which have been published, and have not been denied, that the F.A.K. is to-day the front of the Broederbond, and we also know that the predecessor of the chairman of the F.A.K. Radio Committee was actually interned during the war for subversive activities. I maintain that a lot of the head office work of the Broederbond has now been transferred to the S.A.B.C. in Broadcast House, Johannesburg. Since we have had this change the news services have been completely taken over. The news code which in the past applied to the S.A.B.C. was torn up, a code which in many respects agreed with the present-day code of conduct of the Press. Many journalists have left the S.A.B.C. on account of this and the result has been disorganization in the news services and the slanting of news and selectivity. It is rarely indeed that one can listen to a news broadcast without hearing even world news opened with a statement by some obscure Deputy Minister on that side of the House.

Let us look at some of the examples of what is happening in the S.A.B.C. news service. The hon. member for Innesdale had the temerity to mention the Press Board to-day. Let me tell him a bit of history in regard to the Press Board and what is being done by the S.A.B.C. Last year I took the Transvaler to the Press Board and it was found guilty on account of a certain article. That article was written over the by-line of a certain reporter of the Transvaler who is to-day one of the main reporters of the S.A.B.C. news service. This is what the Press Board said about this particular report. I admit that the report might not have come from him 100 per cent and that it may have been altered somewhat by the sub-editors of the Transvaler, but basically the responsibility is his. This is what the Press Board said of it—

These are serious words. This reporter was accused of deviating from the accepted standards of newspaper practice. He was accused of not giving objective reports and of giving an unreasonable mixture of commentary and news in his report. Yet to-day this is the gentleman who every Monday morning gives a review of the week in Parliament. I can mention dozens of examples from his reports, but will mention only one or two of them. On 20 April he wrote this—

This is an absolute untruth, Sir. He said further—

This, too, is a deliberate slanted report of what happened in Parliament, an untrue report. I can mention many further examples. The same gentleman said in regard to the Representation of Coloured Persons Bill “that a complex measure was handled thoroughly by Mr. Botha”. Sir, we saw what happened, and how one can describe the actions of a cocksure little political bantam, displaying his tantrums in this House, as handling a law thoroughly, I cannot for a moment understand.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words “cocksure little political bantam”.

I withdraw the words “cocksure little political bantam”. There are examples which are even worse than this. I refer to a regular series of talks which are being delivered by a certain Mr. Ivor Benson. I should like to pause to deal with this gentleman and some of the things he has written, and I challenge the hon. the Minister, who has now arrived, to do something about it. There is no doubt that Mr. Benson has gone out of his way to give slanted reports and news comments. He has gone so far as to attack the whole of the Press in South Africa. In one of his latest broadcasts he said this—

That is the whole Press—

Now, is that the sort of thing one expects over the radio, which is supposed to be an independent body and to give unbiased comment on matters of public importance? But let me read some of the other broadcasts by this gentleman. We find him making this admission last year—

Obviously a slanted statement. [Time limit.]

I am glad that the non. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) is now entering the Chamber. I have ascertained that last week he took very strong exception when I alleged that if it had been Black constables who had attacked or murdered White people, the Opposition would not have made such a fuss. I then mentioned the example of the hon. member who visited a Bantu township after three White constables had been stoned, and the hon. member was so angry at what I said that he wanted to show his contempt by leaving the Chamber and saying that he was not prepared to breathe the same air that I did. I just want to say that if the hon. member smelt something suspicious, that smell must have come from his immediate vicinity, because I was not in the Chamber then. I was busy with a trunk call. But what actually happened? It is so obvious that I could not refer to the Rand newspapers of that time, but I did manage to get the Burger’s report of 5 September 1947, which reads as follows—

I just want to draw attention to the fact that the hon. member for Green Point said that he went there alone with his private secretary—

Therefore, apart from his private secretary, these people were also present, and consequently what was said here was not correct—

But in this debate he stated that thousands of Natives surrounded his motor-car. If it was done in secret, how was it possible that thousands of Natives could suddenly surround the car?—

Now, just imagine, the previous Saturday three White constables were stoned to death in that township, but here the Minister comes and visits their houses!—

Now, the hon. member intimated here last week that he had told the Bantu: “I have always assisted you, but now I can do nothing more for you as the result of the horrible crime you have committed.” According to this Sapa report—and I assume that it was written by the reporter whom he took with him—he now visited these Bantu, praised them, and just paid a friendly visit.

And he spoke nonsense (trap klei).

He gives them advice, but according to this report he did not reprimand them for this horrible murder they had committed. What can one infer from that? I am sorry I could not get hold of the Rand newspapers. The hon. member then accused me of having told a deliberate lie. Now I want to tell the hon. member that if one lives in a glasshouse one should not throw stones. Does the hon. member remember what he did at Eshowe in the ’forties during the by-election there? He addressed a meeting, and I was present and put questions to him. He told the public—

After the meeting I asked the hon. member whether he, as a Minister of the Crown, expected the public to believe every word he told them, and his answer was yes. Then I asked: Is it correct that you said that Dr. Malan has gone to Pretoria for three months with the sole object of handing over South Africa to Hitler on a tray? He said: Yes, and I repeat it. And does the hon. member remember how he jumped around here when one of the hon. members pulled his leg because this report had been conveyed to Dr. Malan? Now I tell the hon. member this: If a Minister of the United Party could do a thing like that in order to win an election, and tell that untruth and repeat it and say that it was the truth that the then Leader of the Opposition had deliberately gone to Pretoria for three months to hand South Africa over to Hitler on a tray, in other words, to commit an act of treason, then he should be very careful not to accuse other hon. members of telling deliberate lies.

The hon. member has merely made his case worse by repeating what he has said three times before, that I told the Natives in Moroka that I did not come as a policeman but as their friend, after the murders had been committed. What I said on Friday was absolutely correct. Nobody knew I was going there. I went there on my own, and the only people with me were my private secretary—and you can ask him about it—and my chauffeur; however, it is possible that I had another member of my Department in my car; and nobody else knew about it. When I arrived there, with my flag flying on my car as a Minister, naturally a whole lot of Natives collected. They did not know I was coming. Not even the police knew. There was not a policeman anywhere near. After I had been there an hour or so it got out that I was there, and I think one or two correspondents might have arrived, but the first thing that happened, after I had been there ten to 15 minutes, was that the Bantus collected around my car and then I got out and spoke to them, as far as I can remember, in the words I mentioned on Friday or words to that effect. There was no other outside people there, and I give you my word of honour for that. [Interjections.] All that stuff written there was probably heard from the Natives afterwards by a newspaperman who arrived probably an hour later. But not a single Pressman knew that I was going there; nobody knew. The thing I take exception to is the suggestion that I went there and said: I am not a policeman; I have come here as your friend, after three men had been murdered. I might be a fool, but I am not a darned fool, and even if I had thought anything like that, do you think I would have been foolish enough to say it? Do you think I would have gone there on the same day that these policemen were being buried and that I would have said a thing like that? That hon. member or others have raised the same thing three times in the House, and each time I have denied it. I thought we took each other’s word in this House, but again he raised the same thing, and this time he got a different quotation from somewhere. I did not know of that report till to-day. Before the quotation was a short one from the Rand Daily Mail, and I denied it at the time because it was untrue. I then told the Natives that I had been their spokesmen up to now and had pleaded their cause with the Government, but now they had done something which was absolutely unforgivable; that they not only murdered these three policemen and did it in a cowardly manner, because there were three of them doing their duty and thousands of Natives or words to that effect. That is the truth. What was gathered afterwards by correspondents walking through there and picking it up from some source, I do not know. But when I went in there I took nobody with me but my private secretary and my chauffeur, as far as I remember, in my car, and I was there for about an hour before I saw anybody about, when I think some correspondents might have come along, but it is a long time ago and I cannot remember now. That is the position.

Was Sapa there?

When I arrived there, there was no Press representative. My visit had been kept secret. Those are the basic facts. Then the hon. member referred to Dr. Malan. I do not remember the incident he refers to, but I certainly never said three months. What I possibly said, and believed at the time, was that there was a report that they were asking for their freedom if Hitler won the war and he was then to take over the Government when that happened. I believed it at the time, and I still believe it. The fact was that a message was sent out on those lines, that Hitler would give South Africa her freedom if he won the war. I hate to say so now, because the hon. gentleman is dead, but that is what I said, and it was true, I think, that he sent that message out that South Africa would get her freedom from Hitler. But I never said anything about three months, as far as I remember. I can remember that much of it. But the point is this, coming back to the original theme, that I never said that to those Natives. If the Department of Native Affairs heard something about it and sent a man in afterwards, I knew nothing about it. But you can ask my then private secretary. For this hon. member to come and accuse me again, I having denied it three times already, is shameful, and I think less of him now than I ever did before.

Will the hon. member deny that he used these words at Eshowe? “Dr. Malan het vir drie maande na Pretoria gegaan met die doel om Suid-Afrika op ’n skinkbord aan Hitler te oorhandig?”

After all this time nobody can say exactly what words he might have used, but what I can remember is what my opinion was at the time, and if that hon. member says he remembers everything after 20 years I frankly do not believe him. But I believed, and, believe to this day, that the Nationalist Party at that time were hoping Hitler would win the war and were prepared to accept their Republic from Hitler. But I do not remember the hon. member asking me that question at the meeting. It shows how insignificant he must have been at the time. But I certainly did say that a message had been sent to Hitler and that they were waiting for a reply. My hon. friend behind me says that Dr. Malan was in Pretoria for three months; whether that is so I do not know.

He lived there.

The point is that that was a fact at the time. I think the hon. gentleman over there has done a disservice to himself in attacking my character because I have been in this House for 35 years and nobody has yet been able to say that I ever spoke an untruth. What I feel so disgusted about is that he raises this matter again after I have denied this on no less than three occasions. I repeat that never once did I give those Natives the idea that I was coming there as their friend. After I had spoken to them they stood about rather shamefaced and I did walk through the town then. I possibly did go and see, although I cannot remember whether I did or not, what the conditions there were like, and it took a good deal more courage to do that than the courage that was shown by some hon. gentlemen opposite when 20,000 Bantu marched down De Waal Drive; they refused to show their faces in the street. I went into Moroka entirely alone except for those officials in my car. I had no escort whatsoever and I give you my word of honour, Sir, that that is the truth.

I do not intend participating further in the debate in regard to the actions of the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) during the war. It is quite clear to me that corns are being stepped on here, and I do not want to tread on them further. But where the hon. member says that the National Party was prepared to accept its freedom from Hitler, I just want to remind him that the National Party has never yet sought its freedom from a foreign power; it achieved freedom itself under the leadership of a very dynamic leader.

That brings me to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who referred here this afternoon to what was said by the hon. the Prime Minister at Paarl on Saturday afternoon. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says it seems as if the hon. the Prime Minister said dangerous things there in order to keep his supporters together. Sir, let me tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this: Never before in the history of South Africa’s politics has a Prime Minister enjoyed so much the wholehearted, undivided support of all his supporters as the present Prime Minister. It is not necessary for him to say dangerous things to keep his supporters together. But the actions of the Leader of the Opposition and his followers in this House to-day remind me of the old adage that if one has stood in the corner oneself, one seeks others there. The behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition today gives me the impression that during the week-end, he has had another storm in his own ranks. I do not know whether he is thinking of the 22 United Party members who have already left his party since 1950, or whether he is thinking of the 23rd one who is on the point of leaving the United Party, and whether it is that fact that now makes him so nervous. I seems very much as if there is a 23rd member who is on the point of leaving the United Party, because otherwise I cannot see why the Leader of the Opposition and his lieutenants are so nervous about the matter. But as I have said, one thing is very certain, and that is that the hon. the Prime Minister has more unanimity behind him than any other leader has ever had previously, and perhaps that is what makes the Leader of the Opposition so envious. Perhaps that is the reason why he referred here to dangerous statements which he alleges were made by the Prime Minister to keep his supporters together. It is quite clear to me that the reason why the National Party stands so solidly behind its Leader is because that Leader has that particular quality of a leader of instilling confidence in all his followers. There is no sign of division or breaking up. I am afraid that it is really just a case of envy. I want to pay tribute here to the way the hon. the Prime Minister behaved in Paarl, and I want to thank him for his particularly statesmanlike action in these times in which we live—obviously dangerous times, it is true—it is necessary for a leader from time to time to reassure his people and to point to the safety they can expect to have under his leadership, and that is precisely what the hon. the Prime Minister did, and we are very grateful to him. We shall certainly not leave him in the lurch.

We have listened to the paean of praise of the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) for the Prime Minister. I would like to ask him why, when the Nationalist Party chose its Leader some time ago, he voted against the present Prime Minister and in favour of the hon. the Minister of Finance. The hon. member for Paarl says that my Leader is jealous of this so-called great meeting which the hon. the Prime Minister held at Paarl over the week-end. Sir, on Saturday my Leader held a meeting at Citrusdal, in a Nationalist constituency, where there were more people than there were at the Prime Minister’s meeting in Paarl.

There is one feature of that meeting at Paarl which I think should be brought to the attention of this House. Some time ago I put a question to the hon. the Minister of Defence in regard to the regulation concerning soldiers and trainees in uniform appearing at political meetings, and he said that the regulations were definite: that no trainee in uniform, no soldier in uniform, was allowed to go to a political meeting. At the Paarl meeting not soldiers, but school children, in school uniform, attended the meeting. Furthermore, they were organized. I say that if men in uniform are not permitted to go to public meetings, then it is all the worse when young children are called up to stand as a sort of guard of honour for the Prime Minister while they are wearing school uniform.

Are the children not allowed to wear a shirt and trousers; must they stand there naked?

The reply is quite simple; naturally they should be clothed but they should not be wearing their school uniforms and their school colours. A soldier can go there in civilian clothes but these children went there in their school uniforms.

Sir, I was dealing with the political talks over the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation and pointing out the shocking talks that we have been having from this gentleman, Mr. Benson, over the past seven or eight months. These talks are regarded so highly by the S.A.B.C. that they have even appeared in book form, and many of them have now been found in school libraries in Natal. In other words, political propaganda for the Nationalist Party is being made in the schools in Natal. Let me mention an example of the type of thing that this gentleman says over the radio. He said this on 23 March about a leader in the Rand Daily Mail—

That is what Mr. Benson says about the Rand Daily Mail and about this particular leader. He goes on to say—

That may be so, Sir, but scarcely a week goes by without some deed of this Government being quoted by Radio Moscow or Radio Prague.

This gentleman went on to attack the Sunday Times for defending Mr. Anthony Delius on 31 March and he said this—

Yet this Mr. Benson has no scruples about smearing a newspaper and identifying it with communists because some of the things written in that newspaper may be broadcast over Radio Moscow or Radio Peking. So, Sir, I could continue at length, but let us not confine ourselves to the condemnation of that gentleman by this side of the House: let us also listen to condemnation of him from one of the most prominent Nationalist writers and columnists in South Africa, the gentleman who does the regular column in the Volksblad, an official Nationalist newspaper in the Free State. This is what he said about the recent broadcast of Mr. Benson in which he attacked the Press. Let hon. members opposite now listen to what one of their own supporters has to say about Mr. Benson; let the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs listen to these words from one of his own followers; he said—

This Nationalist says that Benson’s talks do not agree with the truth, and he went on to say—

An official of the S.A.B.C. is spending his time attacking the Press in South Africa and the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has no single word of disapproval! And then “Willem”, this Nationalist columnist, goes on to say in the Volksblad of 17 April—

Somebody else higher up, says this Nationalist columnist, will have to call a halt and put a stop to this sort of thing. He then goes on to say—

Sir, this is one of the strongest possible condemnations of the S.A.B.C. coming from a Nationalist newspaper. It is almost as powerful as the condemnation issued by the columnist of the Burger, Dawie, last year when an unfortunate attack was made on a Minister of the Dutch Reformed Church via the Broederbond and through the S.A.B.C., and when Dawie had to write as follows—

Dawie found these documents interesting; I think the whole country did—

A game of cowboys-and-robbers played over the S.A.B.C.! Sir, this comes from their own Nationalist newspaper. Dawie then goes on to say—

Sir, does it not show signs of the lack of emotional equilibrium which has been found in the whole of the Nationalist Government over the past year or two?

Mr. Chairman, we have a democratic system of government in this country and in essence democracy means that the people decide, that the people govern, and that is why it is so important that the people be correctly informed. If a nation has to decide and its information is incorrect that nation must from the nature of things come to the wrong decision and that is why there is an obligation on all institutions which inform a nation, on all mediums whereby a nation is informed, to see to it that the nation has the correct facts, the truth, at its disposal. If it happens that one or other instrument or medium lends itself to not telling the truth, in other words informs the public incorrectly, is making the public form opinions which it would never have formed had it known the correct facts, the duty which rests on the remaining institutions to ensure that the facts and the truth are carried over to the public is so much greater. We had the peculiar position that both the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his vociferous backbencher made a vehement attack on the S.A.B.C. because the S.A.B.C. was supposed to have attacked the Press. They did not say the S.A.B.C. was not entitled to say that the Press was wrong, but they simply attacked that institution because it was supposed to have attacked the Press. Now I ask you, Mr. Chairman: Does it not redound to the credit of the S.A.B.C. if it tries to correct the wrong information which has been supplied to the public? Let me first, in general, remind the House of the Press Commission’s report. This is not what I say but it is what the Press Commission says. I just want to read a few extracts, not from the new portion of the report but from the section which was made public last year already. The Press Commission says—

In other words, the Press Commission says that from time to time the reports in the English-medium Press are throughout onesided, not only against the National Party but also against the Afrikaans-speaking section of the nation. The Press Commission states further that the English-language Press distorts the news “in regard to matters about which they contend racially and politically”. In other words, the Press Commission finds that when racial matter, matters of policy are concerned, the Afrikaner and the National Party are always incorrectly represented and the United Party is represented in a favourable light—

Can a finding of a Press Commission, on which members of both parties in this House served, be more condemnatory of the entire Press which supports that side—I am not referring to a few minor newspapers, but to the English-language Press as a whole—than to say that it distorts news in order to mislead the people? Mr. Chairman, what is the result in South Africa and what must be the result in any country when you always get distorted and slanted and false news, news aimed at one section of the population or at one policy? It must have this effect that that section of the people will ultimately, because of that onesided information, become orientated to taking decisions which, as a sober nation, it would otherwise never have taken. I found it very interesting that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition could have got up in this House to-day and launched an attack on the S.A.B.C. based on so-called distortion of news without giving the actual facts. I challenge the hon. member to get up and to produce facts to justify his attack. He should not make vague attacks, like his party usually does. The fact that when racial matter, matters of policy, are facts proves that they have no facts. The hon. member tried to reprimand me because of my reply to the vociferous backbencher behind him, that backbencher who is always so boisterous when it comes to these matters. All he did was simply once again to use abusive language towards the S.A.B.C.; he did not bring a single fact to my attention, except the facts he produced in a previous debate and which were explained in great detail at that time. He only said old things over again; things that have already been explained to him and about which nobody can say anything. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition held it against me because I pointed out to the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) that the complaints he had made were not complaints but only abusive language. The hon. member does not base his complaints on facts. From the nature of things you take notice of such complaints and I am sure the S.A.B.C. will give its attention to complaints based on facts, but no sensible person can give attention to complaints that are so vague that they are meaningless; complaints which are only made for the sake of the gallery, complaints which are only made to get the public to believe that there is some basis for them, whereas they are completely without any foundation. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition attacked the S.A.B.C. on a second point and I want to show you, Sir, how he has excelled himself to-day. He attacked the S.A.B.C. on a second point and he produced proof. I want you to listen to his proof. His proof was that the S.A.B.C. broadcast a scandalous piece of news this morning and when he said that the hon. member behind him said with acclamation that it should be investigated. Let me just read that piece of news to you. This is the news—

I think that is reasonable—

So far I do not think there is anything any members can take exception to.

Except that it is nonsense.

I read on—

I only rise to give the hon. the Minister an opportunity of finishing his speech.

Thank you very much; I appreciate it greatly. To continue with the quotation—

Is that a quotation or is that his comment?

No, all this is comment. I do not think anybody can take any exception to what I have read so far—

Now, who knows but that the Press comments we have just quoted lead perhaps to interesting things in Parliament this afternoon.

The S.A.B.C. gave a reasonable report on what appeared in the Sunday newspaper; to be quite honest they even over-emphasized it in favour of the Opposition. On the other hand a stand was taken where the Opposition was criticized. I want to know from hon. members of the Opposition whether the S.AB.C. should not be allowed to do that? May the S.A.B.C. not state the other side of the picture? The reason for the attacks on the S.A.B.C. is not because they are supposed to distort things. The reason for the attacks is because the S.A.B.C. dare to give the other side. It may not even give the facts concerning the other side; that is the point. In other words, hon. members opposite are bent on trying to give the people of South Africa one-sided information because they know that that is their only hope of ever coming into power again. If the people of South Africa knew the actual facts concerning both sides there could be no question as to what their decision would be.

Let me summarize by quoting what was said by somebody who was present in this building and who witnessed what happened during the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote. We listened to the Leader of the Opposition and we then listened to the Prime Minister. I do not want to tell you what our own reaction was, Sir, and that is why I want to give you the reaction of somebody else who also listened to the debate. He says—

Yesterday we once again saw that for all practical purposes the United Party, as parliamentary Opposition, has ceased to exist. The Prime Minister is a courteous person. Nearly three hours after the debate started he got up and said he had waited a long time in order to see whether anything new would be raised to which he could reply, but everything he had said before had been repeated over and over again. He said he could again give the replies and he would do so, but there was nothing new that he could get his teeth into. Dr. Verwoerd towers above his Opposition, but one sympathi7es with his problem; it gives little satisfaction to tower above nothing. The Prime Minister reformulated South Africa’s position in the world and the policy …

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. the Minister is reading a comment on something which happened during this Session.

I am quoting from the evidence of somebody who was present, Sir; it is not comment from outside.

Order! It is nevertheless comment on something which happened during this Session.

I shall respect your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I purposely quoted it in order to show that it was not my opinion but that of an impartial person. Every one of us who listened to this debate gained the strong impression that the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition were trying to state a case which was as spent as a flogged horse; which no longer made any impression; a case which could not even raise the slightest enthusiasm on that side of the House. Against that we had the Leader on this side who got up and stated the case in such a way that the Opposition was completely beaten.

The point I wish to make is this: The S.A.B.C. gave the two points of view. In actual fact the S.A.B.C. stated the one case infinitely more favourable to the Opposition than to the Government.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Firstly, I want to ask him who wrote that impartial comment to which he has referred? Secondly, I want to ask him whether he would approve of it if the S.A.B.C. were to quote from the two official newspapers of the two parties in South Africa about an attaok made on the Nationalist Party and the Prime Minister?

If the S.A.B.C. wants to be worth its salt it should have the right to state the facts to the people. This morning in its feature “Last Week in Parliament” the S.A.B.C. gave a factual summary. I do not think anybody on that side can have the slightest doubt as to the absolute reasonable way in which they have been treated. The painful thing is this, Mr. Chairman: In the attack the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made on the S.A.B.C. this morning, he gave this action of the S.A.B.C., which is above reproach, as an example. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, is the real object of this attack to get the public to know the truth or it is to smother the voice of the S.A.B.C.? [Time limit.]

We have just had the most ridiculous exhibition by the hon. Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, the Minister who is also responsible for the South African Broadcasting Corporation. He started off by making an admission on behalf of his administration of the S.A.B.C. The admission amounted to this that in his opinion, supported by the Press Commission, the English-language newspapers in South Africa supported the United Party and not the Nationalist Party and therefore the S.A.B.C. was entitled to put the other side of the question.

He said they distorted.

The hon. Minister is coming to the assistance of his colleague. I am not playing with words; I am making a statement that the hon. the Minister said it was the duty of the S.A.B.C. to correct certain things that were said in the English-language Press. Whether they were distorted or not. He said it was the duty of the S.A.B.C. to state certain things in reply to the English-language Press. But a little while later the hon. the Minister went to great pains to deny that; he spoke about the impartiality of the S.A.B.C.! He cannot have it both ways, Sir. It so happens that I have the exact text of this silly broadcast, one of the most stupid broadcasts I have ever heard in my life. It came over the air this morning; it was called “This Week in Parliament”. All I want to say is this: I challlenge anybody, anybody with the most remote sense of impartiality, to tell me what one can learn about Parliament from “This Week in Parliament”? There was nothing in it about this week in Parliament. There was silly speculation about members hesitating between preparing their speeches and packing their suitcases and then there was a comparison between what was comment on happenings in Parliament in two newspapers. But the significant thing to me was this: Why did this commentator not mention the names of the two newspapers concerned?

I shall tell you why, Sir. The impression had to be created, especially in the English version which I have here, that the Saturday newspaper published in Cape Town and which spoke against the Opposition, was an impartial newspaper, an independent newspaper. It could not be made known to the listeners that it was the Burger, the official organ of the Nationalist Party. I am sorry to have to say this, but I think it was a shameful attitude and the hon. the Minister should be ashamed of it. Then the hon. the Minister had the effrontery to stand up here and quote from the same newspaper and say it was a quotation from an impartial spectator. I ask you, Sir, can the political correspondent of the Burger be called an impartial spectator? Why did the hon. the Minister lack the courage to say he was quoting from the Burger? He had the cheek to call the Burger impartial! And this is the hon. gentleman who is in charge of our South African broadcasting services; this is the hon. gentleman who wants us to believe that he is studying the interests of the nation when he tries to justify the S.A.B.C.’s utter lack of impartiality, their jaundiced approach to South African affairs.

The hon. the Minister made a big point that it was the duty of the S.A.B.C., as it was the duty of any other public institution in South Africa, which deals with news comment, to bring the truth to the people of South Africa. I do not want to quarrel with that general sentiment but how does one determine the truth? How can one give the nation the opportunity to judge the truth or otherwise of any statement? You can only give them the opportunity to do so by making available to them the various opinions about a particular set of facts. This the S.A.B.C. does not do. That was the charge which the Leader of the Opposition brought against the S.A.B.C. to-day, and it is a fully substantiated charge. And the long speech made by the hon. the Minister a few minutes ago did not refute that charge in any respect. The charge brought by the Leader of the Opposition was this that the S.A.B.C. was a State-supported monopoly, an organization which broadcast news and comment which was prejudiced and one-sided. It may be true that the English-language Press does the same but the English-language Press are privately controlled newspapers. It may be true that the Nationalist Party Press does the same—I am certain they do—but it is their business; they are privately owned and they are sold to people who want to buy them. But the S.A.B.C. is a State-supported monopoly. Nobody else in this country can broadcast and anybody who tries to do this will be subject to criminal prosecution. It is a monopoly, Sir, and this monopoly is abused by this Government to propagate only Government propaganda. And that, I say, is utterly wrong.

May I ask a question?

No, Sir, I only have ten minutes. It is for the Minister to say that the Nationalist Party Press and the Nationalist Party as such are incompetent to deal with any distortions made by their political opponents. But it is certainly not for a State-supported monopoly to make up its own mind about these things and to deny to individuals the right to reply to bitter and unpleasant attacks made upon them through the medium of the S.A.B.C. Mr. Ivor Benson has made personal attacks on individual journalists and on individuals newspapers, Mr. Benson who was sacked by the Rand Daily Mail, Mr. Benson who has a grievance and a grudge against an English-language newspaper.

Recently the hon. the Minister was asked in a supplementary question by the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) whether a journalist who was so attacked by Mr. Ivor Benson, would get an equal opportunity to reply to that attack. What was the Minister’s reply? His reply was a judgment, Sir, namely, that if Mr. Delius could learn to speak the truth he would get such an opportunity. What right has the Minister to say that? It is for the listeners of the S.A.B.C. to judge whether Mr. Ivor Benson or Mr. Delius tells them the truth. And they can only do that in a democratic state when they have heard both sides of the question. That is our irrefutable charge against the S.A.B.C. under its present Broederbond control, and under its present control by a Minister who also happens to be a director of an Afrikaans newspaper. This is our charge: he does not allow the S.A.B.C. to present both sides of the question as happens in every democratic country that I know of, as happens on the B.B.C., as happens on the free and private American broadcasting stations, namely, that all sides of a question are debated. It would be different if that were to happen here, but here we have a State-supported monopoly used as a monopoly by the Nationalist Party. In other words, Sir, we are coming to a stage in South Africa where the Nationalist Party is being equated with the State. That is why I think my Leader was justified when he said this was proof of the meaningless, of the futility, of the protests of hon. members opposite that they believed in democracy. The end of democracy comes when the Government assumes to itself the right to equate the political party which has put it in power with the State itself. As long as the S.A.B.C. attacks the political opponents of the Government, without giving the other side an equal opportunity to reply to those attacks, this Government is equating the Nationalist Party with the State of South Africa, and that is a final denial of democracy which they cannot answer.

I want to make a suggestion to the hon. the Minister. Why will he not allow private enterprise the right to broadcast in South Africa? Why not give the people of South Africa the opportunity of stating various points of view over the ether of South Africa? Why not give the people freedom? Either he must instruct the S.A.B.C. to give other points of view equal chances over the air or allow other points of view to establish bradcasting systems. But he will not do it. This monopoly is being abused, and must apparently be abused, in the interests of the Nationalist Party. [Time limit.]

I listened with great interest to the performances of the United Party this afternoon. I realize that they were only performing. After all, the United Party has hit the headlines on the front page of the Sunday Times—“The United Party and its New Fighting Look”. Naturally they have to live up to that fighting look. Naturally we must expect them to come forward with the drama we have had. Look at the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan). He has taken my former constituency and, as I have said before, I feel a bit sore about it. The hon. member is so indignant; his voice trembles; he hits his papers and he shouts about the S.A.B.C. But when the hon. member used to write for the Kruithoring he also got indignant about the S.A.B.C. and its lack of impartiality. I remember reading those articles. In those days he was indignant because the United Party did not run the S.A.B.C. on an impartial basis. He got epileptic, Sir, about Ivor Benson; he nearly had a fit. I remember the hon. member writing a leader about Mr. Wilson who broadcast on the S.A.B.C. during the war. The hon. member said it was disgraceful that this man should be allowed to broadcast because he was not an impartial man, he was boosting the Government, that it was a sin and a shame. This hon. member trembled when he spoke about somebody who was held for having conducted subversive activities during the war. Sir, the hon. member was anti-war. He left Britain under a cloud because he was anti-war. He was anti-Smuts. It makes me sick to-day to read the letters of the hon. member in the Rand Daily Mail praising Smuts and saying something about his statue. But he used to be anti-Smuts and he was also anti-Semetic.

You were anti-Verwoerd.

I was never anti-Semetic. I have never been anti-Semetic in my whole life and I never shall be. But that hon. member was and now we have this performance by that side of the House. I appreciate those hon. members running to the defence of the English-language Press. Obviously they have to do so to-day. Of course it is to the credit of the Leader of the Opposition that the Sunday Times, which two or three years ago, was Progressive, has now switched and is entirely United Party. Mr. Joel Mervis no longer has a good word to say about the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman); he only has a good word to say about the Leader of the Opposition. I think the Progressives are on the run. I think the hon. member for Houghton was beaten to it in the Bultfontein case. We saw how the hon. member rushed in. But the Leader of the Opposition has beaten her to it. All along the line the Progressive Party is on the run. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has repeated what happened to the United Party in the past. I remember when the Liberal Party put up candidates during elections. Who opposed them? The United Party. I remember a member of the United Party saying: “There is no need for a Liberal Party in South Africa; the United Party is a Liberal Party.” Do you know what the position is to-day, Mr. Chairman? There is no need for a Progressive Party in South Africa, because the United Party is a Progressive Party. That is why the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) and the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) are in their element in the United Party to-day. It has been a great victory for them. It is a pity they lost the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell); I think he would like to return to them now that the position has changed. But I am afraid the days of the hon. member for Houghton are numbered.

Sir, what is all this about?

That is what we would like to know.

What atmosphere has the Leader of the Opposition created to-day? He says you cannot use what is happennig in the rest of Africa as a historical basis to judge South Africa; South Africa is different. That is the old story. I remember when I was in Kenya they said there were so few White people in Uganda that it would go Black, but not Kenya. They in Kenya who had had a Legco which was White up to then, would now have a few Africans in it and one Asian but that, of course, the White man would continue to rule Kenya. They said: “We are different; we have 75,000 Whites; Kenya is economically White; Kenya is different.” And the very men who said Kenya was different in the end found that Kenya was sold out from under them. I remember one man in particular, Mr. Blundell. I met him up there. The hon. Chairman has met him. He was one of those who said they must conform to a multi-racial political system. The last time I heard about him was two or three years ago when he retired from politics. Then he said he never could have believed that things would develop the way they had. But, of course, Kenya was different. The Federation was different. The pattern was different for the Federation; of course, there were over 250,000 White people in the Federation. What happened? Nyasaland went, but again they said it was different. Northern Rhodesia which was economically controlled by Whites was then different, but it went the same way. Then we had Southern Rhodesia—that was a different kettle of fish. Southern Rhodesia had its own constitution and it was different. There are 250,000 White people in Southern Rhodesia and therefore nothing could happen to it. What is happening to-day in Southern Rhodesia with its integrated constitution and 14 Black M.Ps? Did she get anywhere? No. She cannot even get independence unless she extends the franchise; even though Sir Edgar Whitehead assured the world that it would have a Black Government within 15 years. What is all this nonsense about being different? We know what the position is. I shall tell you what the position is, Sir. The position is “Africa for the Africans”.

I want to read from a television script. [Interjections.] Sir, I hope you will allow me a little extension of time to make up for all these interjections. Sir Hugh Foote was on the television panel. There was the ambassador from Nigeria to the United Nations; there was a member of the Executive Council of the Pan African Congress of South Africa and other individuals. But what I want to read was said by the Pan African Congress delegate. He was there with Sir Hugh Foote. [Interjections.] I know it hurts the hon. member. I read—

That is what is on the go. Why do hon. members opposite try to bluff themselves? I say this, the common enemy to-day is not the Nationalist Party as the hon. Leader of the Opposition thinks. The position in Africa is this that the have-nots are trying to grab what the haves have got and they are trying to grab South Africa. Not that they have any right to it, but to use for the rest of Africa. Why do you bluff the people in South Africa that that is not the position? [Time limit.]

I should like to return to the points raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Let us deal with those things which are relevant. An attempt is being made by the Government Press to create the impression that the Opposition is dead. I shall tell you what the object is, Sir. They want to create the impression amongst their own people that the Opposition is dead in order to create their own opposition within the Nationalist Party. You will see whether I am right or not, Mr. Chairman. I think the time has arrived that we talk in plain language to the hon. the Prime Minister. The Opposition has had its setbacks; nobody denies that. But I can say this to the Government: Inherently the Opposition is stronger to-day than ever before. That is so, inter alia, because a feeling of indignation is beginning to develop, not only here, but also outside the country, about the way in which the Government is governing the country. A feeling of indignation is beginning to develop because of the continual threats against the freedom of the Press. Mr. Chairman, why is the freedom of the Press important? It is not because the Press as such is important, but the Press personifies the freedom of speech. Once you start in the direction, as we have seen it happen in one dictatorship country after the other, of continually interfering with the freedom of the Press, you are heading in the direction of interfering with the freedom of speech in South Africa. That is the reason why the S.A.B.C. is these days carrying on the way it is. It does so with the object of creating the right climate, of preparing the road, for the Government to curtail the freedom of the Press. Mr. Chairman, if that is not the position, let the Prime Minister get up and give the country the assurance that it is not his intention to interfere with the freedom of the Press. The attack made by that side of the House on the English-language Press is one of the most unreasonable attacks I can think of, because the English-language Press, as a matter of fact, gives far greater publicity to the speeches and the standpoints of the Government than the Government Press gives to the Opposition. The hon. the Minister of Information should take some measurements and find out to what extent the English-language Press gives the standpoint of the Government in detail. The English-language Press gives most unprejudiced and fair reports on the speeches of the Prime Minister and of every Minister on that side. The English-language Press is a responsible Press. It is by far more fair towards the Government than the Government Press is towards the Opposition. The Government Press adopts only one line of action against the Opposition and that is to try to make it look foolish. They attend a United Party congress and the only thing they do there is to try to play the fool. Even what happens in this House appears in a mutilated, distorted and ridiculous form in the Government Press. We want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that if he wants justice to be done in South Africa, as far as the Press is concerned, he should put his own house in order. The Government Press sometimes tells blatant lies about the Opposition. If there is one Press in South Africa that is unfair and gives a onesided and unreasonable and false image of politics in South Africa it is the Government Press, particularly during elections. Why all these attacks on the English-language Press?

Just think how unfair the Government Press is towards the Opposition during elections! We ask the hon. the Prime Minister first to put his own house in order. Then they can attack the English-language Press.

But there is another reason why there is indignation, increasing indignation, on this side and that is because of the way in which the radio is abused. What right has the Government to attack overseas newspapers for giving an exaggerated and distorted image of South Africa if it is responsible for the fact that in South Africa its own radio, the radio which is under its control, gives a distorted, one-sided and crooked image of the Opposition in South Africa? Not only does it give a distorted image of the position inside South Africa but it also gives a distorted image in its news services of the position outside South Africa.

Give one example.

Insignificant incidents in obscure parts of Africa are exaggerated for propaganda purposes, and leaders who have never been communists in their whole lives are suddenly branded as communists.

Give examples. You cannot do so.

The position has become ridiculous. Most of the propaganda is subtle, but there are absolute distortions.

You cannot mention one example.

We get it over and over again. I do not keep notes of everything. But I repeat that leaders who have never been communists are labelled as communists by way of news comment.

Who?

That is done. Does the hon. the Minister contend that because an action is not instituted it does not happen? Surely the overseas leaders concerned do not listen to the broadcasts. Radio South Africa is the most one-sided service in the country as far as its news and political service is concerned.

Just give one example.

As long as that happens, the Government has no right to criticize the English-language Press.

Our parliamentary system is based on the British parliamentary system, namely, that there is a Government and an alternative Government. It is part of our political tradition and unwritten constitution that the Government may not use the machinery of State, may not use the machinery of the constitution, with the object of making it impossible for the alternative Government to take over. If it does that it becomes an unconstitutional Government, and I am to-day telling the hon. the Prime Minister that what we are to-day experiencing in South Africa is that the present Government is abusing the machinery of State with the object of maintaining itself in power at the expense of the lawful alternative Government. I think that is in direct conflict with the whole spirit of our parliamentary system.

We are indignant not only because of the way the radio acts but also because of the people the Government selects to do so? Mr. Ivor Benson, for example, was an admirer of Sir Oswald Mosley. Are they the men to do that work? [Time limit.]

I have had an opportunity for many years to follow the discussions on the Vote of the Prime Minister, but I have never yet experienced something like this where not the great policy of the governing party at the feet of the Prime Minister is criticized, but where a mass of trivialities and petty matters are dragged into the discussions for no other purpose than to extend the time of discussion in order to create the impression outside that a titanic battle is being waged here. This debate is one all of us have been looking forward to for a long time, and one to which the whole country has looked forward, for in the position in which we are, and in the realization of the seriousness of the situation, all of us thought that this debate would offer an opportunity to expose the great matters of principle of our party, and we thought the Opposition would act like a responsible Opposition by availing themselves of every opportunity to react to the great matters of principle and to criticize them. But alas! What have we already had since the commencement of this debate? Agricultural matters, border industries, Bantu in White areas, foreign relations, Colour policy, immigration, even relations with the neighbouring states—and unless my ears have failed me the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on occasion expressed his doubts as to whether a friendly neighbouring state would be able to maintain itself. I was so shocked to hear that from the Leader of the Opposition, although he put it in the form of a question—in respect of a neighbouring state with whom we have always maintained the most friendly relations. How can he put such risky questions? I consider this the very acme of reckless irresponsibility to pass such remarks about friendly disposed neighbouring states even in the form of a question. Then reference has been made to our roving ambassasors, our television, to the Broederbond, etc., and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) has just dealt in detail with the appointment of a Mr. Benson: I repeat: Let us use this opportunity to criticize fully the broader aspects of our policy. This is the proper occasion for that. But when we wish to raise individual matters, there will be an opportunity to do so under the Votes of the various Ministers, and let us then discuss those matters fully. Having made these remarks, I shall now proceed to discuss certain points of criticism in respect of our foreign relations.

There was a time when the public outside noted with appreciation what the Leader of the Opposition said last year and as late as this year too, as well as what the Leader of the Progressive Party, Dr. Jan Steytler, said recently when the one great point was emphasized that as regards our domestic relations and our domestic differences, we will not allow ourselves to be dictated to from outside as to the solutions we should seek. In fact it has always been the point of view of the National Party that, as regards our domestic affairs, we shall settle these things among ourselves, and we shall not tolerate being dictated to from outside thereanent. That is the point of view the hon. the Prime Minister once again maintained inhis first reply during this debate, and that is the standpoint he maintained in his speech at Paarl also. However, it is such a pity now that although the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also says that, he always adds a “but”, and there is the eternal complaint that the position in which we find ourselves at the present time is attributable to the policy pursued by our Government. If then it is so, that the Opposition agree with us that we will not permit the outside world to interfere in our domestic problems, that these are domestic matters which we shall settle among ourselves, then my complaint against the conduct of the Opposition, particularly in a debate such as this, is that by their conduct, the way they are acting, they want the impression to be created in the outside world that they could enable the outside world to exert great pressure upon us through their influence, in order to bring about a change in the internal policy. I find that particularly deplorable. Let us disagree completely among ourselves, but let us not by our conduct give our opponents in the outside world food from which they can derive strength so that they may assail us with doubled fury.

One aspect in this regard which is continually and repeatedly referred to by the Opposition is our so-called growing isolation. Hardly a single debate passes during a session in which they do not hammer upon that growing isolation to the fullest extent; in fact, to such an extent that our enemies overseas must continually gain the impression that what is going on here in our country is a growing isolation, a terrifying form of huddling together in a kraal, and perhaps having to surrender under compulsion. I say it is a great pity that this argument should always be used. We have replied to it repeatedly, but there is no improvement. It may be true perhaps that politically in certain respects only, we are isolated, but if regard is had to the relations of our country with the outside world as a whole, one finds a tremendous degree of interplay economically, and in the educational and other fields, and only in the political sphere is there this contrast. Nor is it a fact that it is being forced upon us wholly and completely by our enemies only. But the impression is created thereby by the Opposition that we are heading for a terribly isolated position, and if there is one thing our enemies outside desire, namely the Afro-Asian bloc, then it is to isolate us deliberately in their programme for destroying us. That is their aim. Why should the Opposition always come forward with this argument of growing isolation, when they themselves know that in the economic and scientific and other fields there is interplay and no isolation. Perhaps there are differences only in respect of the Colour policy. If that is so, is it not fair to ask: What exactly is the criticism of the outside world we are fighting against? Let us try to formulate it clearly for ourselves. I cannot formulate it better than the manner in which it was done last year in that important speech by our Secretary for External Affairs, when he led the mission to UNO. In his well-known speech before the Security Council he summarized this criticism in a few words, and he mentioned five points. The first point of criticism against us, he said, is—

Now I ask the Opposition, on this one point: Do they agree fully with us that we regard South Africa as our homeland, our only homeland in the defence of which we shall make the greatest sacrifices? That is the first aspect. It is not recognized that we have a permanent homeland in Africa. The second point is—

I need not go into the history of this matter. There are the facts of how we occupied this country. In the third place—

Fourthly—

And fifthly—

I believe that all of us sitting here will reject these five propositions. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Mayfair referred to many of the matters raised by this side of the House. All these matters seem to me to be weighty matters. They have all been illustrated by very good examples the obvious effect of which is to require the hon. the Prime Minister to give a very explicit explanation of his policies and replies thereon.

Now I must say that as far as the attack on the S.A.B.C. for its lack of impartiality is concerned, and attacks also on other bodies, by the Leader of the Opposition, we have had no adequate replies. As a matter of the fact, the reply given by the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs on the question of bias completely convinced me that he himself is approaching the matter from such a slanted position that I am not at all surprised at finding the complete prejudice which we do find in the broadcasts made. Various members on the other side have asked us to give illustrations of these things. I assure them that we shall do so now as well as in the future. I was given the task of going through the broadcasts we have had during this Session. I read through practically all of them until three weeks ago. Since then I have listened to most of them on the radio. What I heard there fully confirmed the opinion gained by reading through the others. The broadcasts under the title “Yesterday in Parliament” must be distinguished from the weekly talks given by a certain gentleman under the title “This week in Parliament”. In my view there is a complete contrast between these two series. The broadcasts under the heading “Yesterday in Parliament” generally give a very fair view of things. Sometimes they do say things which seem to me to put things very much from the Nationalist Party point of view; at other times, however, they again make points which, if I put myself in the position of a Nationalist Party supporter, would seem to be put from the point of view of the United Party. Taking the overall view, I think these gentlemen are endeavouring to give an impartial view of what is happening here. But I am afraid that by no stretch of imagination can I say the same about the weekly talk “This week in Parliament”. I have taken out a number of extracts of the sort of thing which is said and about which we complain. I am going to give examples of these to the House now. I wish to invite hon. members to go through all these I have here, to approach them from a completely objective point of view and then tell us whether these extracts constitute a fair and impartial review of events in Parliament for any one week. Neither are these talks of a very high calibre. But it is really their lack of impartiality to which we object very strongly. A complete scorn of the Opposition shows in some of these broadcasts. They constitute an attempt to pour scorn on the Opposition, to belittle it and to suggest that it is virtually not there at all. This all is in line with the propaganda of the Nationalist Party organs. We know that only too well. The sort of thing you get is this. On 3 February 1964, for instance, he said that it was likely that the Opposition feels like continuing its opposition over the 90-days question. Such a stupid thing like that! On 24 February again he said—

That is true, but we knew perfectly well what the Bill was about and what it would contain. On 2 March 1964 he said the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill was an “emaciated subject” which should not be brought up again. He said that well knowing that it would be brought up again and by saying what he did he obviously wanted to belittle the Opposition in its approach to the matter. Another remark also with this intent refers to the Broederbond. We have already had occasion to-day to refer to the Broederbond. Moreover, it is obviously a burning question in the country. [Interjections.] I challenge anybody to say it is not. If there is an hon. member who says that it is not so, then obviously he has not been going through the country and listening to the people. On 23 March 1964 this is what the hon. gentleman had to say about the attitude of the Opposition in this regard—

On 3 February 1964 he said that there could not be much disagreement on the Price Control Bill. Now, it so happened that the Opposition opposed that Bill on very sound grounds, namely, that we did not want to see this measure being a permanent part of our legislation. Well, this sort of comment is absolutely ridiculous. On 24 February 1964 he said about the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill that the Bill was clearly not as drastic of the one of last year and that the emphasis of the Bill was on consolidation and not on restrictions. On 2 March 1964 he said that the Government case had been clearly stated in regard to the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill, that they were only streamlining influx control, that the viewpoint of the United Party was not very clear, etc. On 23 March 1964 he made a completely inaccurate statement by saying that only one Opposition frontbencher had taken part in the debate. The facts are that in addition to the hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for Kensington one of the Opposition Whips also spoke in the debate. It is well known that a Whip is considered equivalent to a frontbencher for this purpose. This particular commentator goes out of his way to put all Government actions in a most favourable light. On 3 February 1964, for example, in connection with finance and on 2 March 1964 on the question of Railways, he said the Government was alive to all the problems and naturally was planning to meet the challenge.

Of course they are!

You see, Sir, that is the type of remark hon. members opposite would like to hear!

It is propaganda.

These extracts serve to show that this comment is completely onesided. You simply cannot find anything which is reflecting upon the Government or anything which is to the credit of the Opposition. In his broadcast on 17 February 1964 he said in connection with the shortage of work then experienced in this House, that that was due to the new rules. Well, it may have been partly due to the new rules but there were other factors as well. As a matter of fact, the Government itself realized that. In other words, this man is just an apologist for the Government every week.

I can multiply the number of examples I have quoted but I now want to turn to Mr. Benson. Let me give the House some examples of his comment. First of all, let me pay tribute to the courage and the sense of fair play of the writers in the Volksblad and in the Burger who were prepared to say that Mr. Benson should really not be on the air. Writers in Dag breek have had the courage to say the same thing. In his talk of 10 September 1963 Mr. Benson revealed that the editor of Dagbreek had expressed his dislike of Mr. Benson’s talks, in these words—

There you are! It is not only this side who have to give examples. There are three examples also from the Government controlled Press where people have had the independence and courage to speak up against it. For that I salute them. There are plenty of examples of the type of thing Mr. Benson goes in for. I have hundreds of examples here. Always he is attacking the English-language Press in this country. [Time limit.]

With reference to the various references made here to the radio talks in the series “This week in politics”, I should like to say a few words in regard to the brilliant logic of our friends opposite. I should like to endorse one remark of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, namely when he said: “Parliament can be abused; it can be controlled.” A day or two ago there appeared two brief reports in one of the English Sunday papers, which in my view were mutually contradictory, like the arguments of members opposite. The first report was as follows—

Mr. Chairman, this paragraph refers to the correction by the S.A.B.C. of the facts in connection with the visit of Japanese businessmen and their difficulty in finding accommodation in Johannesburg. This report contains no mention of the problems of the hotels or of the factual statement of the S.A.B.C. No, it concerns the Broederbond and its influence on the S.A.B.C. This reminds me of what Langenhoven said: “Kleinserigheid is ’n baie sekere teken van seer kleinigheid”. (“Sensitiveness is a very sure sign of puerility”).

In any event, only a few pages further on, we read the following report in the newspaper in question—

In the first report manliness was hidden under a blanket and no clear stand was taken on the facts of the matter dealt with in it. As regards the second report, if my memory serves me correctly, the S.A.B.C. said nothing more in its report than was said in the second report of yesterday’s Sunday Times. Is that why it is being attacked now? Is that why the Broederbond is now being dragged into the affair? If it is the task of the Broederbond, a secret organization, to enlighten the public on the factual position of matters, and if it is the task of the S.A.B.C. to do so also, then the time has arrived for the public to show its recognition and appreciation of that. I think the S.A.B.C. and the Broederbond are doing their duty, and follow their consciences much better than the Opposition or its Press does. I think it borders on political immorality for a newspaper to abuse its privilege by making itself guilty in two reports in the same edition, of a blatant contradiction. And then hon. friends opposite come here and dramatically proclaim their indignation. This indignation to me is nothing but a tremendous confusion. Now I mention one example of the same policy and the same political honourableness of which we have had a example in this quotation, and which I find in the United Party, and this relates to the Bultfontein case. We have had tremendous tirades here on Bultfontein and death by torture, and while we were listening to that, what was happening at Bultfontein? The organizer of the United Party at Bultfontein was busy arranging a protest meeting, and what was his story? He said this: “Yes, that is what you get from the “Rafferboetie” (negrophilist) Government; those policemen have no right of appeal.

Disgraceful!

One sets oneself certain limits in any game, and it is my honest conviction that if there is a thing which should be brought home to those people who suffer from nothing but a form of political and intellectual crotalism (stiffness) it is that we should give them an injection so that they may return to normality.

I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question now, not on what his attitude is going to be as regards freedom of speech or freedom of the Press in this country, but whether he does not think the time has arrived for the revision of the question of privilege in respect of the manner in which the reputation of our beloved fatherland is done the greatest disservice, and immorality is committed against that beloved fatherland? My question to my Leader is as follows: Has the time not arrived for something to be done about it in this highest council of our country? If there is a thing that worries and grieves me, it is the lack of piety, the lack of knowledge of and respect for the elementary rules of propriety in this House, namely to abuse its privileges under the false pretext of patriotism, and doing so in order to undermine our fatherland and to mislead its honourable citizens.

The hon. member for North-West Rand (Mr. J. C. B. Schoeman) has referred to the question of the Japanese visitors to Johannesburg and the report in that regard over the radio and in the Sunday Times. The public will weigh up who is right and who is wrong there. The facts were fully stated, I trust, on the radio and also in the Sunday Times, and I leave the matter there.

But I want to come back to the need for absolute fairness in these broadcasts. I fully appreciate that hon. members opposite believe they have the only solution for saving South Africa, and they no doubt believe it sincerely. But we believe equally strongly that we have. We do not mind them working as hard as they can for their point of view, but we object to their using the organs of State such as the S.A.B.C. to try to put over their point of view. Where various attacks have been made on Opposition papers, and also on papers outside this country, for having made attacks on South Africa—and I disapprove of any attack on South Africa by whomever it is made—I say it is as great a disservice to South Africa that there should be this absence of a fair placing of the Opposition’s point of view to Government supporters. The point has been made here to-day that in the Nationalist Press you get practically no mention made of the Opposition’s point of view. I must say that the reports of the Cape organ of the Nationalist Party of our parliamentary proceedings seem to me to be very fair, but when it comes to speeches made outside by members of this party, the really telling point is always omitted, and indeed, even when people on their own side make speeches. I want to give this example. Dr. Geyer, as chairman of Sabra, made a speech at the last conference of Sabra, where he stated a certain point of view. In the Cape organ of the Nationalist Party you have an extract of that speech printed on the leader page, but one had to read in the Argus that he had said that unless the numbers of Bantu in the urban areas could be drastically reduced, and unless at least half those Bantu could find a place to live in their so-called homelands, these would be questions to which separate development has not yet supplied the answer. But that was completely left out of the Cape Nationalist organ, and why? Of course, because it went against Government policy, and that is what happens in the case of a highly respected paper. I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs was not here when we gave him chapter and verse for our criticisms of certain people on the radio, but I am glad he is back now. I should like to deal with certain talks given by Mr. Ivor Benson, carrying on from where I left off. This gentleman criticizes English-language newspapers and English-language universities and the church to which many English-speaking people belong. He criticizes just about every institution which shows any opposition to the policy of this Government. He even criticized the Christian Institute; he calls them “leftists” and “liberals”, etc. I want to say this. If you find members of the Opposition daring to criticize any institution which the Afrikaners as a whole hold dear, like their universities or their newspapers or their church, then, by jove, you have really done something. But here we have a Government monopoly attacking things which are probably very nearly as dear to the English-speaking people as those institutions are to the Afrikaans-speaking people. I do not say that we agree with all the views expressed in those institutions. They are not linked to us in anything like the way the institutions I referred to are linked with hon. members opposite. But the fact is that those are institutions which are, broadly speaking, supported by English-speaking South Africans. And I would draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that there is this freedom to attack these institutions.

It is most important for South Africa that we should get the overwhelming support of the voters of the country for the course that we take. It certainly will help us greatly to solve our problems, and one appreciates that the hon. the Prime Minister realizes that he has a big job to try and keep his flock with him in carrying out his policies. One realizes, therefore, that this is very largely why we have this whole Broederbond machine going ahead so strongly. And when one compares it with institutions like the Sons of England and the Freemasons, one must remember that it is unchallenged that all but two of the Afrikaans-speaking members of the Cabinet are Broederbonders. It is clear that the head of the radio and the head of the Censorship Board, and until recently the head of the Information Department, and the heads of very many of the organs of Government are Broederbonders.

How do you know that?

I know that because these documents are there and there has been no repudiation of them at all. I want to tell the Prime Minister that I was one of those who did not believe that there would be any advantages from becoming a Republic, and I would still like to be told what advantages there are; but I was told by hon. members opposite that at any rate we would get greater unity then. I believe that as the result of the threats facing us, and because we are all South Africans, there is a certain amount of unity, but I do not ascribe that to the coming of the Republic. One was therefore thoroughly shocked to find in this post-Republic period that not only was the Broederbond continuing, but it was actually being expanded, because we have seen the formation of a junior branch of the Broederbond, the Ruiterwag, and apparently this body has 900 public servants among its members. It is thoroughly shocking to find that in this post-Republic period this body is actually being expanded, a body whose aim and object is not South Africanism, that broad South Africanism, but solely sectionalism. I say it is shocking to discover that, and also to discover into how many facets of our national life this body is prepared to put its tentacles. One finds that they disapprove of the Lions, the M.R.A., Rotary, and it is obvious from the lists how many public servants are members, and when one reads the answer of the Rev. Beyers Naudé to the Broederbond broadcast defending itself, he simply said this—

I am paraphrasing what he said, but I think it is a fair paraphrase. That is a most terrible position. It is most undermining for anybody in the Public Service who is not a Broederbonden We know that people are undoubtedly using their influence in too many cases in order to advance their own interests. They are not advanced on merit, but because they cling steadfastly to the policy of Bantustan apartheid. The fact is that the Borderbond is sworn to support Bantustan apartheid, and obviously therefore the Prime Minister wants to keep his hold over his flock so that they will support Bantustan apartheid. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) made a rather long-winded attack on Mr. Ivor Benson and the S.A.B.C. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) did the same thing. He said: “Who is this man? He was dismissed by the Daily Mail”. If that is so, then I should like to ask: How better can a man qualify to be a true South African than to be dismissed by the Daily Mail for political reasons? In any case, he is not the only man who has had to leave the newspaper world for political reasons, and the hon. member for Yeoville knows that that is correct. Mr. Morris Broughton, the Editor of the Cape Argus was dismissed.

He retired when he was due to retire.

Nonsense!

Yes, dismissal can be described in all kinds of fine-sounding ways. Mr. Benson based one of his talks on what Mr. Broughton had written in his book “Press and Politics in South Africa”, and anybody who has already read that book will agree with me that what Mr. Benson said of the English-medium Press in South Africa paled into insignificance when compared with what Mr. Broughton said and what Mr. Lindsay Smith said in his book “Behind the Press in S.A.” I just want to read what Mr. Broughton said—

I do not think Mr. Ivor Benson has ever expressed himself in such strong terms about the political effectiveness of the English-language Press; he did do so as far as their methods are concerned. The United Party have had a great deal to say about what Mr. Benson said, and I resent the method used by the hon. member for Pinelands. Why did he not take one of Mr. Benson’s statements about the Press and reply to it? In his remarks about the Press Mr. Benson referred on a few occasions to the handling by the English-language Press of the escape of Goldreich and Wolpe. Does the hon. member for Pinelands remember it? What impression did it make upon him? Does he agree with what Mr. Benson had to say about the handling of that matter by the Rand Daily Mail?

But that is not the point.

The hon. member attacked Mr. Benson for having taken the English-language Press to task in this connection and I want to ask the hon. member in all fairness whether he agrees with what Mr. Benson said about the handling of this matter. Mr. Benson had this to say in one of his talks—

The hon. member knows full well that it is the English-language Press which takes the lead in depicting saboteurs as pious, fine people and the poice as bullies. Mr. Benson went on to say—

The Rand Daily Mail had two baby pictures on the same page in a news story about four men sought by the police. Bless me if the Mail did not turn up a couple of days later with another baby, still unborn! Mrs. Kantor, the wife of another man detained under the General Laws Amendment Act, is also expecting a baby! … Then there was the story about Mrs. Wolpe having had her face slapped by the police. This was not presented as a rumour but as an allegation supported by two affidavits—an affidavit, by the way, is a sworn statement. Not only was Mrs. Wolpe quoted as saying that her face had been slapped, but readers were given the circumstancial detail that she lowered her voice as she made this allegation. When a full inquiry was called for by the Minister, what happened? Mrs. Wolpe denied she had ever made such a statement.

Is this the sort of journalistic practice which the hon. member for Pinelands defends when he attacks Mr. Benson? Let him tell me what motive he has in attacking Mr. Benson if it is not because Mr. Benson brought all these things into the open.

She was only putting the record straight.

I wish the hon. member for Pinelands had the courage to read out the examples chosen by Mr. Benson in his talks and then to show me point by point where Mr. Benson made a mistake and where he blackened the name of the English-language Press. I challenge the hon. member to do that. But this little game of theirs of attacking the English-language Press is still not as bad as the spectacle we had here on Friday when the police were attacked.

But two Nationalist newspapers objected to Mr. Benson. What about them?

Unfortunately, I shall have to hurry on because I still have something to say to the hon. member for Yeoville. I told the hon. member for Yeoville to-day that Senator Sutter had said in this House that he (the hon. member for Yeoville) was connected with the S.A.B.C. The hon. member denied it. On 23 April 1945 Mr. Sutter stood up here and said (Hansard, col. 5818)—

This is the man who is to-day the editor of the Landstem—

Laughter. I am quite prepared to admit that there may possibly be another Marais Steyn. I know of quite a few constituencies in this country which have already been represented by a certain Marais Steyn, but nevertheless there are not many Marais Steyns. I am quite confident that I am not very far out in recognizing the Marais Steyn mentioned by Senator Sutter as the hon. member for Yeoville. But there is something else which leads me to believe that it is the hon. member. Senator Sutter went on to say—

Nor was this the only occasion on which the hon. member for Yeoville was “instantly discharged” because from 1953 to 1958 he was “instantly discharged” on quite a few occasions by the voters! [Time limit.]

I have the full authority of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) to say that the statement made that he was employed by the S.A.B.C. and was dismissed by them is entirely untrue. In the quotation read by the hon. member for Innesdale it is quite obvious that it was a case of mistaken identity. However, if ever proof were needed that Mr. Ivor Benson was writing Nationalist Party propaganda, we had it here this afternoon when for almost a third of his speech we had to listen to the hon. member for Innesdale using quotations from Mr. Benson, which he then used to attack the United Party. That is proof that he is a Nationalist Party propagandist.

What did you write when you were the editor of the Kruithoring

I can assure the hon. member that everything that was written in the Kruithoring was official Nationalist propaganda, and because I became sick and tired of it, I left. If the hon. member for Mossel Bay had belonged to the Broederbond he would probably have been in the Cabinet to-day.

When I spoke earlier I accused the S.A.B.C. of using the tactics of smearing in its news broadcasts. I said that they were on occasion offensive, that some of the reports were slanted, that other reports were incomplete, and that in some reports they suppressed facts and in other cases they gave reports which were quite untrue. Soon after that we had a continuous parrot-cry from the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, in which he asked us to give examples. I have so many examples here that it would exceed the ten minutes at my disposal if I were to give them all, but let me take a few at random.

In 1963 there was a false report in regard to UN. It was so false that according to a Press report I have here the head of the news service of the S.A.B.C., Mr. J. B. van Zyl, told the UN that a report quoting a petitioner to that body as calling for an armed invasion of South Africa may have been inaccurate, and if it was the corporation regretted it. It was proved inaccurate and the corporation admitted that it had made a mistake.

Here is another example of an untrue statement. Mr. Ivor Benson once wrote that the Prime Minister had made a triumphant breakthrough in English-speaking Durban. It is utterly untrue. I would still like to see the Nationalist Party win a single seat in Durban. There is a seat vacant near Durban in Ixopo where they are afraid even to put up a candidate. But I remember another untrue statement by Mr. Benson. In one of his talks he said that there was communist influence behind the ecumenical movement; in other words, that this world-wide movement of Christian churches had behind it communist influence.

Who says that is not true?

The hon. member for Randfontein says it is not true. Is he also one of the people who say that the Christian Students’ Association is dominated by communists?

No. I will not talk such nonsense.

There have been threats by the S.A.B.C. The hon. the Minister asks for examples. I quoted three instances were threats were made against the Press by Mr. Ivor Benson, in which he said that once the Press Report was published action could be taken against South African journalists. The hon. the Minister asked for examples of false comments. Here is one by the gentleman who writes the weekly review of Parliament. This is what he said—

In other words, his comment was that the United Party did not see anything promising in launching an attack on the 90-day clause. This was said last year, and we saw what happened last week; we saw the defeat of the Government on this particular point. We have had instances of the suppression of facts. Earlier this year the S.A.B.C. came out as a vocal supporter of the Nationalist Party in a municipal by-election in Potchefstroom. An official Nationalist Party member was put up as a candidate. The S.A.B.C. proclaimed that fact in its news service and said that here, for the first time, an official candidate of the Nationalist Party had been put up as a candidate in a Potchefstroom municipal election. What happened? That candidate lost, and not a word was ever published by the S.A.B.C. about the fact that its protegé had lost that by-election.

When one comes to the suppression of news, one also thinks of the refusal to broadcast the result of the Natal Open Golf Championship because an Indian won it. When it comes to criticism it is not only we who criticize; it is the Volksblad and the Burger and Dagbreek, the Prime Minister’s own organ, who criticize. Dagbreek said, on 30 September last year, that the “the newsworthiness of news suffers when the emphasis falls too much on one side or if too much of one kind of news is offered, no matter how South African it is; even the listener who likes the emphasis can find it boring. … The essential impression of objectivity must not only be the watchword of policy but also of the action of important officials (of the S.A.B.C.) in and outside Broadcast House. The hon. the Minister challenged me to mention an instance of inaccurate broadcasting. Does he not remember that Mr. Eric Louw, or Dr. Eric Louw as he now likes to be called, had to criticize the S.A.B.C. for a false report with regard to the United Nations and that he did so in these strong terms? He said—

Sir, it takes a lot to embarrass Mr. Eric Louw but the S.A.B.C. succeeded in embarrassing him. If the Burger can write this about the news services of the S.A.B.C. surely there is something wrong. The Burger says—

Somewhere between red-ants-in-the-pants and self-complacency, surely there must be a middle way. I hope the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs will try to find that middle way. I have a quotation here in which Dawie complains that the S.A.B.C. was using politics and in which he demanded that it should stop doing so. I have a report here of a radio interview with Mr. Garry Allighan which was axed and not used. All these are cases of slanting and unfair comment. Is this statement made by Mr. Ivor Benson in one of his talks true? Mr. Benson said this—

Sir, I ask you is what we have heard here this afternoon not a defence of the Press? Have you not heard the Press defended at every United Party public meeting held during the past months? We have been defending it and if Mr. Ivor Benson says that only newspapers have been defending the newspapers, he is not speaking the truth. [Time limit.]

The hon. the Minister of Information explained earlier this afternoon from what source the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan), who states his case with so much enthusiasm, derives his enthusiasm. I do not want to pursue that matter and I hope the hon. member will forgive me if I do not follow him but I believe, as I have said on a previous occasion, that this is a matter which can fruitfully be raised under the Vote of the Minister concerned. I can see no justification for raising a matter of this kind under the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister.

Sir, during the week-end the English-language Press diligently looked for reasons to account for the rejuvenation in the ranks of the United Party. This afternoon we were told by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) that the United Party was far from dead but was growing from strength to strength. We on this side of the House welcome those words. It can only redound to the benefit of this country to have a strong Opposition once again. We only hope that they will grow in the right direction and not in the wrong direction. The impression which they have sought to create in the debate so far and which they want to give the outside world, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put it, is that if the United Party comes into power there will be a movement away from apartheid, that something else will be put in its place which will soothe world opinion more and that the pressure exerted upon us from abroad will thus be relieved. As against that our attitude is that the very fact that pressure has been exerted upon us by the outside world has resulted in greater national unity. I think we must seek the cause of the so-called growing enthusiasm on the part of the United Party in this growing national unity. If there is one thing which the United Party fears it is this growth of national unity, this growth towards a more united South Africa. Greater national unity is the one thing which the hon. the Prime Minister has always aimed to achieve ever since we became a Republic, and this national unity has grown more and more as the pressure exerted upon us from abroad has increased, and if there is one thing which the United Party fears it is greater national unity. I say that unequivocally because when one reads the daily newspapers or when one looks at the gestures which are made from time to time, even in a province like Natal, gestures such as we have had in recent times, there is one fact which comes to light and that is that the attitude of both Afrikaans and English speaking at the present time is an attitude of “my country, my nation, first”. It has become perfectly clear that if a crisis does arise, both Afrikaans and English-speaking sections will rally to the cause of our beloved South Africa.

Are we living in a crisis then?

This national unity which is growing from strength to strength is a nail in the coffin of the United Party, and that is why they are making a final, desperate effort on this occasion to make some gesture of courage and fighting spirit.

I want to proceed to deal with the next point and that is that the impression which the United Party has tried to create in this debate is that if we would only accept their policy it would eliminate the possibility of a clash with the outside world; that steps would then be taken to move away from apartheid and that concessions would then be made which would satisfy the outside world. But as the Secretary for Foreign Affairs indicated in his speech before the Security Council when he led the mission to the United Nations, the criticism which is directed against us by the outside world, the hostility of the outside world, goes much deeper than that. In the very first instance we will have to prove to Africa that we are an established White sovereign state, and that is precisely what they refuse to accept. Pan Africanism, as it revealed itself at the Addis Ababa Conference last year and in the establishment of the African United Organization, is more and more assuming the form of “Africa as a whole for the Black man”, with no place in it for the White man, even in the southern part of Africa. It is no longer a question of concessions or minor amendments or adjustments; on the contrary, we have reached the stage where there is such a sharp division that it is clear that if we make any concession, it will be a concession to this predominant view of Black domination throughout Africa. What we have to contend with in Africa is a social and political revolution which entirely rejects everything that has been brought about in the past through tribalism, with its traditional tribal authorities, in favour of a one-pary state with a dictatorship. I believe that history will still show that in the transitional period of this social and political revolution it was the Republic of South Africa which succeeded in creating a state of affairs in which the Bantu were able to switch over gradually from a tribal form of government to the democratic form of government. That is how we view their development towards self-determination. But, Mr. Chairman, that is not how the United Party views it. The criticism which the United Party levels at us in respect of the Transkei, for example, is in the first instance that the hon. the Prime Minister was driven to this step by the criticism of the outside world. [Interjection.] He did say so, but let me add that we have consistently adopted the policy that in developing the Bantu homelands we wanted to introduce the principle of self-determination. The only difference is that because of foreign pressure this process in the Transkei was put into operation earlier than we ourselves had really planned, but that has nothing to do with our ultimate aim. Our ultimate aim was to do precisely what has in fact taken place in the Transkei. That is the first difference, and the second difference, which is an important one, is that in applying the principle of self-determination in the Transkei, in the way in which we propose to apply it there, we are not giving effect to what the Afro-Asiatic states mean by self-determination. By “self-determination” the Afro-Asiatic states mean full freedom immediately, in other words “one man one vote at once”, and that is what we want to avoid in South Africa. In other words, the point I am making is that although the Leader of the Opposition differs from us as far as this particular method is concerned, he cannot deny us the right to say that in fairness we have every reason, in terms of our own policy, for wishing to grant self-determination to our non-Whites. [Time limit.]

Before dealing with the continuation of the debate to-day, I just want to say a few words with reference to Friday’s debate. In the first place, I want to correct a point from which the wrong inferences were drawn. The question was put to me what electrical shock machines were discovered in police stations, and my reply was that in some places such apparatus was found, but that it was obviously in private hands. From that it was evidently inferred, wrongly, that I had said that the countrywide investigation undertaken by the Police Force had led to the discovery of such aparatus in various places. I did not say that, and in any case I did not mean it that way, because I have no idea what the result of the investigation was in that respect. I have no information about it. My reference was— and this I want to state clearly in the light of the fact that some newspapers drew this inference—to the apparatus referred to in court cases. In this regard I have no special, additional information over and above what is already known.

I have to reply to the questions raised by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). I wish to say that I do not resent his absence; I understand and fully sympathize with the reasons for his absence to-day. He asked me specific questions on the Defence Force—questions about equipment, secrecy and matters of that kind. I do not think it is incumbent upon me under my Vote to reply to the hon. member with regard to details on those matters. As far as wages and housing and similar subjects dealt with by him are concerned I can only say that through the discussions in the Cabinet I am fully aware of all the steps which are being taken by the Minister of Defence and I am fully satisfied that he is trying to meet all the needs to the utmost extent.

The hon. member also raised the point that there should possibly be less secrecy in South Africa with regard to Defence matters than there is. He said that a veil of secrecy might arouse suspicion. In that regard I wish to express the view that comparisons with a big state like the United States is of little value. In the United States there may be reasons why it was felt that a great deal of information should be disclosed. When a country is very strong and feels that it needs to make known its strength to warn others then it has a very positive reason of its own under the circumstances under which it is operating for making information available. It would not necessarily reveal everything, but such information as it does make public, is disclosed for the very specific reason that the world and possible opponents may know with what they have to reckon should the occasion arise. In a country like South Africa which is small and up against many problems, it would be less wise and less necessary to disclose the extent and the type of equipment that it has available or is acquiring. Consequently I do not think that it should be said on the basis of such comparisons that South Africa must indicate to a far greater extent than it does how well-equipped its forces are.

The other question which he raised and which is the one which he could specifically address to me, if he wished to do so, is whether some outside control body or consultative body should not be instituted, a body to act in close co-operation with the Defence Force but representing considerable extent and breadth of opinion. I believe that in the past the suggestion has been made that a Defence Council should be appointed, but I gathered in this debate that the hon. member was now asking more specifically for a special Select Committee of Parliament with special powers in order to guide the destinies of our Defence Force on a broader basis than Governmental control alone. The Minister of Defence has discussed this matter with me on his own initiative on various occasions, and informed me as to the organizational position in the armed forces of various countries and the value experienced of the various forms of organization existing there. It seems quite clear that there is very little advantage to be gained from either such a Council or a Select Committee operating in the way suggested by the hon. member. One of the fundamental problems is that any kind of body would have to be guided by those who are not only knowledgeable or experienced but who are experts at this stage of the development of heavy modern weapons. Even those military men who are older and who participated in previous wars and have therefore had much experience, find themselves at considerable loss when dealing with the newer situation, with the newer possibilities of the present time. Consequently any body of men, however constituted, will have to base their decisions mainly on advice given by the present professional staff. As a result it has been decided, as indeed other countries have found, that a Defence Force Staff Council, consisting mainly of the professional experts of the day, perhaps under the chairmanship of the Minister of Defence or some person specially appointed to act as chairman, ought to deal with these matters and exercise control. It has been found that this is also of great value in expediting matters, whereas with the intervention of another council or body consisting partially of laymen who have to be guided, such expedition becomes no longer possible. By and large therefore it would seem that at the present stage there would not be much value in setting up either such a Council or a Select Committee. We are however prepared to keep our eyes open and should our opinion change due to a change of circumstances, then we will be open to conviction or even take the initiative in instituting such a body. After comparing the position in other countries and after an analysis of the arguments advanced by the hon. member, and others, the conclusion to which we have come, for the time being at any rate, is not to proceed on such lines. Apart from this issue, I think all the other matters which have been raised here should be raised under the Defence Vote and not under my Vote.

Then I want to deal with the further course of the debate. If anything has become clear to me, it is that there are now two facts from which one cannot escape. The first is that in the Opposition, and more particularly the United Party Opposition, the progressive element has triumphed and that the Leader of the Opposition is now playing the leading role in that trend of thought inside his party.

Connected with this, it has become quite clear to me that certain newspapers, which formerly kept their distance from the United Party when they thought that that party was moving to the right, have noticed that change and are now again inclined to take sides with the United Party. For that, however, they also expect the quid pro quo which they got to-day, viz. support under any circumstances and for anything they say or do. Therefore the position is that the United Party, under the leadership of the present Leader of the Opposition, has become an instrument in the hands of the more leftist elements whom they previously opposed, but who have now completely taken them in tow. I think it is necessary for the members of the United Party and for the people outside to ask themselves whether in the light of this debate, in the light of the support given to so many injustices which are committed against South Africa, they can still support him and his party.

A second fact also became quite clear to me, namely that the United Party and its Leader no longer hesitate to harm South Africa by continuously attacking almost everything done by the Government or anything which shows South Africa in a good light, even when it is to the benefit of South Africa. From the series of attacks we have had to-day, and also during the previous days of this debate, it is obvious that they want to keep on presenting an ugly image of South Africa to the world. In so far as that image is not yet bad enough for their liking, they are prepared to make it even worse. Therefore it does not surprise one that one of these backbenchers, following this new clear course adopted by his Leader, was even prepared to tell the world that under certain circumstances, which really means even now, this Government is an unconstitutional Government, or is beginning to become unconstitutional. When does one do a thing like that? When does a Member of Parliament dare to tell the world, in times such as those we are living in now, that the Government through its actions is an unconstitutional Government or is on the way towards becoming one? It is when they try to justify intervention from abroad to unseat the Government. I accuse the United Party and its Leader, by the form they have given this debate, of being ready to harm South Africa by reason of their selfish ambition, and without considering the interests of South Africans. That is the hard and bitter accusation which arises from the attitude adopted by the United Party and its Leader.

I want to begin by mentioning the example of what happened the other day. It is common knowledge that South Africa’s economic position is sound and that the prospects are bright. Nobody who loves his country will try to cast doubt on that. I want to mention one example, however, of how the Leader of the United Party did in fact try to cast doubt on it. He referred to the fact that last year the outflow of capital was R95,000,000 more than the inflow; i.e. that the net loss was R95,000,000. What is he implying; what impression is he seeking to create? Surely the implication is that there is something wrong with our economic situation; that already weak points or breakdowns exist. But what is the truth of the situation? It is correct that the outflow of capital was R95,000,000 more than the inflow, as far as my information goes.

Private capital.

The net outflow of capital.

No, private capital.

The really important fact in this regard is that R8 7,000,000 of private capital was allowed to leave the country, inter alia, for the purchase of shares, in other words for the repatriation of our own shares. That is one fact. In other words, the Government, in view of the favourable state of our reserves, and in spite of the fact that this difference between outflow and inflow would result, saw fit to allow R87,000,000 to be used for the repatriation of South African shares. What is the position of our reserves as the result of that? It still remains as strong and as sound as we could ever expect it to be. Another phenomenon which should be taken into consideration in connection with this is that during the first months of 1964 the inflow of foreign capital, as far as that can already be calculated, exceeds by far the outflow of capital. In other words, in the first quarter of this year there was a marked contrast even with the broad tendency he mentioned. I shall not say more in this regard. There are aspects of the matter which he can discuss with the Minister of Finance under his Vote. The point I wish to emphasize is this. We are dealing here with a situation which, if only one takes it a little further than the mere difference between the outflow and the inflow of capital, and one relates it to other features of the financial situation, cannot give the impression that South Africa is in an unfavourable position. If one points to one fact, one should also point to the other facts, because that will make the whole picture clear and more favourable for one’s country. But that is what hon. members opposite do not want to do. They want to harm South Africa by emphasizing only one point and creating the worst possible impression, and then leaving it at that.

I shall give another example. The Leader of the Opposition to-day started off by attacking me in regard to the speech I made at Paarl. He blamed me for having told the country of the favourable and encouraging aspects of our inherent strength. He does not tell the world that I was trying, legitimately, and in accordance with my duty, to encourage South Africa by stressing the good aspects of our position, particularly because the United Party and its Press exaggerate the other aspects. He blames me for having tried to emphasize the encouraging aspects and for having told the people that they should realize that our country enjoys great benefits in the economic as well as in other spheres, and that they need not be afraid of all the threats with which our opponents try to frighten them. He blames me for it and says I should not have spoken in that way. He says I should rather have praised the Western nations I should rather have told our people how nice and helpful they are towards us. I was not running down the Western nations. I could legitimately have attacked them in regard to many things they say and do against South Africa. I could have attacked them, because in season and out of it they take the opportunity to say that they are revolted by the colour policy of the Government. What right have they to express an opinion in regard to the domestic policy of a friend, which is how the hon the Leader of the Opposition wants me to regard them? Would we dare to say that they have an abhorrent policy? What right have they to interfere in our internal affairs to that extent? It is not even interference in a constructive manner. They do not give us wise counsel, but make this kind of attack in public in order to derive benefit for themselves. I could have attacked them on the assistance they often give the Afro-Asian states in the latters’ persecution feud. I could have attacked all those things, but I did not do so. What I did in fact was to speak positively and to point that our economy is strong and affords protection for us, and how this is also an asset for South Africa in foreign politics. I further stated that certain countries of the world, particularly the Western nations will inevitably arrive at the stage where they will have to say, in regard to these venomous urgings on the part of some of the Afro-Asian and communist nations in regard to boycotts and attacks: Thus far, and no further. Is that wrong? Is it wrong to stand up for one’s country? Is it wrong to encourage one’s people? Is it wrong to state the facts in regard to the country’s strength when others, and particularly the Opposition, are so fond of pointing out the weaknesses? Of course not. I shall continue to do so. I shall also continue to condemn the United Party because that party even tries to interpret what one tries to state as a positive fact the defiance of friendly countries. It is and remains the Government’s desire to live in friendship with the other countries. We are honest with them, when they attack us, by telling them where we differ from them. We do our best to support them where we have common interests. We are not trying to live in an emotional state of tension with them. In the diplomatic and other spheres we try as far as possible, but of course within the framework of our principles, to maintain the greatest possible measure of friendship. The Leader of the Opposition wants to spoil all this. I sometimes wonder, when I hear this type of speech here and read the type of speech made to the public outside, how many attempts they also make to influence diplomats in this country against this Government and therefore against South Africa. Therefore I say that the world and South Africa should know that the United Party, through its behaviour in this debate, has only tried to sling mud and to depict South Africa in a bad light. When he dragged in, in the way in which he did, my Paarl speech, which was an objective and decent speech in which I positively stated the strength of South Africa in the light of the problems faced by us, he harmed South Africa. Nor does he mind how much South Africa suffers as the result of anything he says or insinuates. I say this very unequivocally and clearly in reply to the accusations he made here to-day.

The next point on which he attacked me was in connection with the Press. It was an attack from two angles. The one was that I am alleged to be the cause of a large section of the Government Press propounding a policy which exclusively supports the Government or the Nationalist Party, and I am particularly alleged to give even detailed instructions to those newspapers. Now it is common knowledge that those newspapers are owned by shareholders who are Nationalists, people who believe that there is a certain direction in which South Africa will best be served. Those newspapers were established to assist the struggle of South African Nationalism in their coloumns and are controlled by their shareholders and their elected directors. Obviously they support the cause and the policy of the National Government. There is nothing wrong with that. No one has ever denied it. However, it is now being said that I, personally and continuously, exert influence in regard to the details of their daily actions. Possibly that was said in an attempt to associate me with some article which perhaps appeared in one or other of these newspapers. I have, however, said previously, and I repeat it again: I am in fact the chairman of two of these publishing companies, but I personally do not interfere with the editorial activities of these newspapers. The broad policy of this Press allows me, as the leader of the National Party, to be the chairman of those boards of directors. It is the task of those newspapers to defend that policy. But I myself do not interfere by giving instruction —and I have never yet done so—in regard to the editorial work or in any other way. I have said so before, but still the Leader of the Opposition to-day got in this gibe that I regularly concern myself with the work of these newspapers.

That was of course just by way of introduction because he wanted to belittle me, but particularly because he wanted to act as the protector of another section of the Press. None of us has any objection—in fact, we understand it—to the other section of the Press, English as well as Afrikaans newspapers, supporting the United Party or the Progressive Party or the Liberal Party policy. We all know that those newspapers are just as partial to the one side as the Nationalist newspapers are to the other side. It is useless for the Opposition to pretend that those newspapers are impartial or neutral, because they are not; not a single one of them is. What is in fact true is that many of those newspapers go appreciably further than merely to support that party. They approach very near the brink of committing treachery towards South Africa. That is an objection which was in fact raised by the public. There are some newspapers which even go so far in their comment, as to harm South Africa as far as possible, and which at the same time are also inclined to tell many untruths. I do not intend mentioning the names of any newspapers. I mentioned names on previous occasions when it was necessary to do so. But it is significant to me that the Leader of the Opposition to-day, together with his party, are putting their full weight behind that very type of newspaper in South Africa.

The public very carefully notes what appears in these newspapers. They are fully aware not only of the manner of reporting news, not only of the form of comment, but also of the effect a great deal of what appears in those newspapers has on the image of South Africa abroad, and the consequent increasing danger for South Africa resulting from the increased misapprehension outside. Let me tell hon. members that I, as a newspaperman, have always in my speeches here been opposed to Press censorship. I have always adopted that attitude; I do not like it at all. It is difficult to implement it and there are also other objections. I have always been a protagonist of the freedom of the Press, and I still am. But there is a difference between freedom and abuse. There is a difference between the right, on the one hand, to have your own ideas and to expound them, the right to attack the Government and to attack it vehemently, a right which I fully admit the Press has, and, on the other hand, the right, a right the Press has not got, under no pretence of the freedom of the Press, to commit treason against its country and to expose its country to the dangers of attacks and destruction from outside. To create an impression in the world outside, by means of reports and comments, which lead to the type of attacks we have to contend with to-day, is wrong. It is against that that we object; not against the freedom of the Press; not against criticism of the Government; not against sharp criticism of the Government and its actions, but we object to it when a country and its people are made suspect in the world outside in such a way that it can do the country a great deal of harm. We are now told, that we must protect the Press. Against what must we protect it? They say against the Press Commission enquiry. Do they feel guilty in advance? Is the reason for this attitude that the United Party and the Press which supports them are afraid that the report of that Press Commission may disclose something in respect of which they have to pave the way to-day to prevent us from taking action if that should be recommended? It looks surprisingly much as though the speeches of to-day are intended to place us in such a position that we shall not dare act! I have not even seen the second part of the Press Commission’s report. I do not know what it contains at all. I have formed no opinion about it. The Government has not judged, or seen or expressed an opinion on it. But what I want to announce is this: This type of attack will not prevent us from doing our duty if facts were to become known or if action were to be recommended which would be in the interests of the safety of South Africa. There are two things therefore between which we should distinguish very clearly namely the right of freedom and the right to attack the Government—a Government will not easily deprive its opponents of that—and the position where dangers are created for the country and the people, which is what we are now discussing. This protective attitude of the Leader of the Opposition only makes one doubt their motives. It also makes one doubt when they try so hard to defend all other institutions and persons which do what they obviously want to do more and more, and that is to attack South Africa, and in that way encourage the attacks which are made on our Republic from beyond the borders of South Africa. Perhaps I should add this that when you go into the history of the growing prejudice against South Africa you will find that it really took shape after the National Party came into power in 1948. Since then the Press of the other side has made it its task to bring about the downfall of this Government by besmirching our name and by giving our country as bad a name as possible in the world outside. From the very first day this Government came into power in 1948 up to the present you recognize the marks of what had appeared in a portion of this Press and of what had been said by members of the Opposition. in all the attacks from outside. There is very little in those attacks from outside which is original. Everything can practically be traced back to what we have had from the ranks of the Opposition and their Press.

Strangely enough the next matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition was that of the Broadcasting Corporation. Once again we have to-day seen the peculiar phenomenon which we so often get with the Opposition and which we also often find with other propounders of liberalism—that broader group with which they are getting more and more entangled—namely, that liberalism, although theoretically the direction which wants to give all people as much freedom as possible and which wants the rights of the individual to be little encroached upon as possible by those in power, grants so little of that which it demands for itself to its opponents. The liberals—and I include the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his Party in the broader class; not in the narrower Liberal Party-class—ask for freedom of the Press, but if anybody else gets that freedom and exercises it it is suddenly no longer right. In other words, they do not want the S.A.B.C. to have entire freedom of movement in South Africa. That may not be. Why not? Why may the S.A.B.C., on the one hand, not be so independent that it can report impartially—as far as that is humanly possible to do—as it sees it, on what happens in Parliament, but, on the other hand, also have the right to comment freely on what happens? Why may this organization, which is not dictated to by the Government what it should say, not make its own comments even if they are pro-Government? We have never yet interfered and said: You must put this or that broadcast over the air in our favour. It is an organization which also has the right to express its opinion and it does so.

But it is a monopoly.

It is indeed a monopoly in this sense that it is the only institution of its kind. But if the hon. member wants to argue like that, one would also be able to say the English-language Press too practically has the monopoly of access, via its newspapers, to the English-speaking public in South Africa. It is true that they are private organizations but they are all so closely linked together that there is practically just one central power which governs them. That is a monopoly for all practical purposes. The complaint of the United Party is this: They were satisfied and happy in the past to have the benefit of this powerful voice—although it was a private monopoly—in order to reach the English-speaking people and even certain Afrikaans-speaking people. We know most Afrikaans-speaking persons also buy and read those big newspapers. But to-day they cannot tolerate the idea that that monopoly should be broken in as much as there is comment by the S.A.B.C. of a different nature, comment which also reaches the homes of all the people and who can then decide for themselves. The liberals want the ears of the public to be closed, they should not sometimes hear National sounds as well—not National Party sounds, but National sounds! One should differentiate between those. Hon. members opposite are so accustomed to the prejudiced and partial news service they have had for years that they can no longer see or hear a general national point of view without saying immediately it is a National Party poin tof view. They can no longer recognize love for one’s nation as something different from love for the National Party. The result is that hon. members of the Opposition resent the attempt by the S.A.B.C. to guide the people to consider the interests of South Africa and South Africa only.

I am not giving judgment on the comment that was made. I am trying to defend the right of the S.A.B.C. to make comment with the same freedom which the Press demands for itself and which the Opposition wants to confer upon the Press. I want to add that I think the time has arrived that, with the assistance of the sum total of the means of communication all the people be given an opportunity of hearing all sides and of reading about all aspects and not about some only. In the past hon. members of the Opposition thrived on the possibility that only one side was really generally heard. They now have to fight against the fact that all sides will reach everybody, and now they shout. I am not at all prepared to interfere in any way in that freedom which the S.A.B.C. enjoys.

What about the freedom of Die Burger?

The freedom of Die Burger! Just imagine Sir, these members who, by means of their “divide and rule” campaigns are trying to curtail the freedom of Die Burger, having the nerve to say that!

The facts are furthermore that these people who dare to make these charges also accepted at the time when they were in power that the S.A.B.C. could broadcast certain reports which supported the cause in which they believed. Of course their excluse is always that there was a war on. But we also had that pro-government attitude outside the war years, as well as during the war-years. We who opposed them—I was an editor of a newspaper at the time—noticed how the S.A.B.C. of the day were allowed to make broadcasts which we regarded as out-and-out partial to the Government. The phenomenon in respect of which they condemn us today was, in my personal opinion, was present to a much greater extent at that time than today, if it is there to-day. But not only that, Mr. Chairman, at that time this United Party which dares to make these attacks used another machine which should in particular have remained outside politics, even to try to win an election. I refer to the army. In 1943 they used the fighting forces to win an election for them. What right have they to hurl accusations?

Then I want to add something else. The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is reproached for giving sharp replies at times. Those replies are deserved because of the way he is continually tantalized by some hon. members on the other side. I do not hold it against the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs for replying to some questioners as they deserve to be replied to in view of the way in which they try to conduct a feud.

Hon. members also made accusations in regard to the reliability of various broadcasts. We have to-day had quotations giving both sides, quotations as to what is supposed to be reliable and what is not supposed to be reliable. The facts are apparently that the attacks which came from that side were in such general terms that they did not refute the specific examples of comment advanced by this side. At the same time it is also clear that the examples given by the Opposition were more particularly examples which depended on how one regarded them, on whether you judged them to be true or false. It is often easy first to give your own interpretation of an allegation you criticize and then to attack it. I am, therefore, not going to sit in judgment on what is true and what is false, the correctness or incorrectness, the deliberateness or non-deliberateness, of every point of view dealt with. I personally have not heard most of the broadcasts and therefore do not know, from first-hand knowledge, what they contained. But what I do want to say is that nobody is going to tell me that the people who control the S.A.B.C. and those who are employed there, are people who will deliberately go out of their way to tell untruths. Unlike the newspapers which support the United Party, the S.A.B.C. is after all not an organization which was established in the first instance to take part in party politics. Its news service and its comments constitute an extreme minor portion of the entire service is renders to the broad sphere of our national life. I also believe that if hon. members were to make a study of the broadcasting services in other countries, Britain included, they will find much more to criticize, also in the forms of attack on or support of the Government or the Opposition. I myself have sometimes wondered how it is possible, by means of those broadcasting corporations— which, just like ours, often enjoy the support of Governments in indirect ways—to hear the type of political news, and such a lot of it, as I have heard and seen there.

The next point raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was that of television. As far as television is concerned I just want to say this: I have already adopted the attitude on a previous occasion that I think it would be foolish for South Africa to introduce television at a time such as the present, at a time when we are busy with very great developments, developments which demand a great deal of money and for which we need all the available labour and technically trained people. At a time such as this it would be foolish to introduce a type of technical industry or service which is really not necessary and which, at its best, can only be regarded as a luxury article. I repeat that in my opinion it would be foolish at this stage to devote capital and manpower to something which at best is a luxury article, particularly when we bear in mind that there may be circumstances ahead of us which make it necessary for us to strengthen our position in respect of essential requirements. Of what value would it be to us to have a television service if we can put the money and the manpower required for such a service to very much better use for industrial development which will enable our economy to stand more and more on its own feet in the event of difficulties which may be in store for us? When I talk about “difficulties which may be in store for us” I am not thinking so much really of Afro-Asian attacks on South Africa and what may flow from such attacks, I am thinking of the broad international situation and the possibility that the West and the East may clash, in other words, that the communists and the West may clash. South Africa will then have a role to fulfil. As a matter of fact, the economic role which South Africa will then have to play will be of very great importance. South Africa’s ability to produce more manufactured goods in such circumstances would be of much greater importance than her ability to produce the apparatus necessary for the introduction of television, or to allow her people to spend and invest money in that direction. That is how I view the question of television against this broad background. I would also remind the Committee again of what I said on this subject on a previous occasion, and that is that television, as far as its development is concerned, is still in its initial stages. Colour television is perhaps just around the corner and long-distance television may also be just around the corner. As a matter of fact, in both these respects television has already made a certain amount of headway. In addition to that there is a great likelihood that further and rapid progress may be made in these spheres. In these circumstances therefore it would be foolish to go and introduce television, only to replace it again within the foreseeable future with something else which offers greater benefits. What do we miss if we do not introduce television?

But the whole world has television already!

These other developments such as FM have great advantages, advantages in this sense that it will improve the existing reception. That, however, is an improvement of something which already exists. As far as television is concerned it actually means very, very little to us in our daily lives. I am beginning to suspect that hon. members of the Opposition are emphasizing this simply because they believe that this will prove a popular charge against the Government; in other words, that they have a political motive. My second impression is that there are some of their supporters who want to make money out of television and they want to exploit the public in this respect. [Interjections.] Hon. members opposite say that there is a different, a sinister reason behind the Government’s refusal to introduce television and that is that we, and perhaps I, do not want television because we want to protect the Press, more particularly the Afrikaans Press. They are not even prepared to look at this matter from a broad angle and to say that all newspapers would suffer as a result of the decrease in the income that they derive from advertisements. No! They come along with the ugly allegation that we want to protect the income of the Afrikaans newspapers. Why do they adopt this ugly attitude towards us?

But the Minister himself said so.

No. The Minister pointed out what effect television might have on the income of newspapers. What he may have said is that the Afrikaanslanguage newspapers could be hit hardest and might therefore be the first to disappear. In any event it is alleged that he stated that the introduction of television may cause harm, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition immediately makes the charge against us that the real reason for our refusal is that we want to protect our own private interests. What I am attacking therefore is not what the Minister said but what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is now saying. Let me tell him that that is not the real reason and that it need not be the real reason either. If it were the real reason, if that were the obstacle, it would be the easiest thing in the world to remove it. If the position was that we wanted to protect the income of our own Afrikaans-language newspapers we could introduce television and give the sole right to advertise on television to Afrikaanslanguage publications only. That would compensate them then, if we wanted to practise deception or if we wanted to be selfish, in whatever light the critics choose to regard the situation. It would be the easiest thing in the world for us then to use television to enrich our own business undertakings. Or, alternatively, if we wanted to protect the whole of the Press against any damage that they may suffer as a result of the loss of advertisements, we could give the sole right to the advertising time to all the newspapers jointly in our country. But that is not our problem. That is not the point. My attitude is, as I put it a moment ago, that under present-day circumstances, with the great economic upsurge in this country, it would be unwise, having regard to the great gaps which still remain to be filled, and also from the point of view of making the best use of the country’s money and manpower, to invest money in a sphere which not only is not essential but which at best is a luxury and, moreover, a luxury containing harmful elements.

Then I just want to refer to the last point which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition dealt with once again when he referred again to the attacks on the Broederbond. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition should perhaps be forgiven for this now that he has become the protector and the champion of the newspapers which have made it their life-work to destroy the Broederbond and now that he has entered into partnership with them as far as this attack is concerned. I suppose in the circumstances one should forgive him for what he is doing or at least understand it. But I want to say something here in very clear terms. The last time we discussed this matter I adopted an unambiguous attitude. That attitude, alas, as always happens, was again distorted by hon. members on the other side and by the Press which supports them into something which is not my attitude and something which I did not say. I adopted the attitude that in the first place I knew that the Broederbond was not trying and had not tried to bring political influence to bear on this Government. I know that that is so, and I say that also in reply to one of the ugly accusations that was made here today and that is that people are unfairly promoted in the Public Service as the result of intervention by the Broederbond. I know that that is not true, and this attempt to antagonize public servants against each other by sowing suspicion amongst them is nothing less than scandalous. That allegation is untrue. I maintain that the complaints which have reached me about favouritism in the Public Service are directed, as I said last time, against Freemasonry and not against the Broederbond. I added that I myself was accusing nobody. Unlike hon. members on the other side I do not make accusations against such institutions. I refer to bodies such as the Broederbond, the Freemasons, the Sons of England or the Caledonian Society, etc. I stated unambiguously that I was not attacking these bodies; that I was making no accusations and that I was not asking for an investigation.

You are running away.

Let us accept that that interjection simply reveals the type of mentality that we have to contend with here. I said perfectly clearly last time that I would nevertheless agree to an investigation into the affairs of bodies which practise secrecy in some form or another if the Leader of the Opposition would put forward such a comprehensive proposal, but I also stated that I was not prepared to be a party to such a proposal because I myself would then be accusing these bodies and that I had no intention to do so. I stated that perfectly clearly. The Leader of the Opposition nevertheless came forward with the proposal that the Broederbond only should be investigated, leaving me free to add the Sons of England and the Freemasons or any other body I cared to add. I refused to do so. I was then unjustly accused of running away from the challenge which he had issued to me, and it was stated that I was attacking these bodies and that I ought to include them in the investigation. Sir, I call the members of this House as my witnesses that what I said on that occasion, as I say now, was that I was not attacking these bodies. As far as the Sons of England are concerned I went so far as to give them a testimonial by saying that I had been pleasantly surprised by and had gained a very good impression of the Sons of England when we became a Republic outside the Commonwealth. They informed me personally that they regarded themselves in the first place as Sons of South Africa who gave their whole loyalty to the Republic of South Africa. I also testified to the fact that after two of their annual congresses they sent resolutions of loyalty to South Africa to both the State President and to myself. I said that I accepted it as genuine and that I regarded it as a very fine gesture. I went on to say that I was not going to make any accusations against them; that I did not know what they were doing but that I was not going to make any accusations against them. I said that I was not prepared to be a party to the inclusion of the name of any other body in a motion which was an indictment against one body, but that if the Leader of the Opposition himself proposed the appointment of a commission of enquiry to investigate the Broederbond, Freemasonry and the Sons of England and any other secret body that he or others wished to add, I would accept such a motion.

That was not how you put it.

Are you not ashamed of yourself!

I did say that.

You said you would consider it.

Yes, I said I would consider it, but I went on to say later cn that I would accept it. Very well, let us say for the sake of argument that I simply said that I would consider it, then I say now that I am prepared, as I was at that time, to accept such a broader proposal. Let me also say this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: The Freemasons have made a public statement which clears the road for him to put forward such a proposal. It has been stated publicly on behalf of this body that they have no objection to such an investigation taking place, and the Leader of the Opposition could therefore have added their name. I say to him therefore that the road has been cleared for him. Let him stand up now and propose that a commission of enquiry be appointed to investigate the Broederbond, Freemasonry, the Sons of England and any other secret bodies; I shall accept his proposal and have such a commission appointed.

Will we come to an agreement about the commissioners and the terms of reference?

I shall consult with the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the terms of reference and the members of the commission of inquiry, but I did not say that I would come to an agreement with him;

I said that I would consult with him. I hope we shall be able to come to an agreement, but it would be foolish on my part to concede that an investigation can only be instituted if he and I are in full agreement, because that may lead to problems. In a matter of this kind somebody has to make the ultimate decision.

I will accept the proposal that such a commission be appointed; I will consult with him about the two aspects referred to, and I will appoint a commission in due course with suitable terms of reference. Sir, I do not have to take this matter much further. I want to resume my seat now so that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can tell us before we adjourn whether he will be prepared to propose that those bodies be investigated, because in doing so he will be taking the onus upon himself of saying that there is possibly some harm in those bodies; I do not say so. (Laughter.) I do not know whether it is the Freemason who sits behind the Leader of the Opposition who is chuckling there so loudly, but what is perfectly clear to me is that they do not like the idea that their party should act as complainants in asking for a commission of inquiry. Because that is what they are doing. I, on the other hand, say that I do not of my own accord express distrust in any body and that I do not propose to have these particular bodies investigated but that I will do so if the proposal comes from the other side, in other words, if the Opposition make this general charge. I hope we understand each other perfectly clearly with regard to this matter.

I want to conclude by just adding this: I have used sharp words here to-day in certain respects about the Leader of the Opposition and his side of the House. I felt obliged to do so because I am convinced that the way in which they and their newspapers conduct their attacks may result in great danger and harm to South Africa. Sir, we love our country, South Africa. We want South Africa to triumph, and it is terrible to think that an Opposition makes use of this Parliamentary platform and of public platforms, and of the freedom of their Press, to jeopardize the possible survival of South Africa. It is a terrible thought. I have made this attack therefore in the hope that we will reach a turning point and that we will fight each other along different lines and no longer along the lines which have been followed hitherto in this debate.

I want to say immediately that I strongly object to the hon. the Prime Minister accusing the Opposition of trying to hamper the possible continued existence of its own fatherland. I make bold to say that there is no Opposition in the world that behaves so correctly towards its fatherland as this Opposition, and if I had had the record of that side of the House during the war years I would not have had the temerity to make such an accusation. I think it is high time that this be said, and said sharply.

The hon. the Prime Minister has now put a proposition to me in regard to the Broederbond. I want to tell him immediately that as far as I am concerned I know of no harm which is done by the Sons of England or the Freemasons, and because I have the fullest confidence in them, and because this is the only way in which I can get a commission appointed to investigate the Broederbond, I now want to suggest that a commission of inquiry be appointed. I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that I hope we will be able to agree in regard to the commissioner or commissioners, and I hope that we will be able to agree on the terms of reference and that we will agree that the evidence should be given under oath and that the sittings wherever possible be held in public. I think that the hon. the Prime Minister has to-night done something to encourage co-operation between the two large racial groups in South Africa, because I think it is now time that this matter should be investigated once and for all so that we can ascertain what the true position is.

In the few minutes still available to me I should like to start by referring to the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. Sir, have you ever experienced the phenomenon in this House which we have had here to-day? The hon. the Minister gets up here to defend one of the officials of the South African Broadcasting Corporation, and what does he do? He reads certain quotations from two newspapers, and then in order to prove that the reporting of the one newspaper is fair and accurate he quotes from another issue of the same newspaper. I have never seen the like in this House. The Minister tries to prove the correctness of something which was broadcast by Radio South Africa and what was taken from Die Burger, and he quotes from Die Burger to prove that what was broadcast by Radio South Africa was correct! Not only does he appoint himself as a witness in his own case, but also as the judge, and it seems to me that he even wants to act as the advocate in the case. Not for a long time have I seen such a game, if I may be permitted to use that word in this House.

The hon. the Prime Minister began by accusing me of the fact that the United Party is now moving in a progressive direction and of having made myself the leader of that group in that House. But what evidence has he adduced to prove it? There was not a single proof. Curiously enough, most of the young men who are referred to in the Press as people who are moving in the progressive direction are people who won their seats in contests against Progressive candidates.

Business interrupted to report progress.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.