I move as an unopposed motion—

1. (1)
   1. (a) That as from Saturday, 13 June, Saturdays shall be included as sitting days, Government business to have precedence; and
   2. (b) that on such days the House shall meet at 10 a.m. and business shall be suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.; and
2. (2) that on and after Monday, 15 June, business shall on each sitting day (except Saturdays) be suspended at 6.45 p.m. and resumed at 8 p.m.

Agreed to.

I move—

In order to put this Bill in its proper perspective, I propose to give hon. members a brief outline of the background of the control on the wine industry in terms of special legislation.

The production of wine has almost always tended to exceed the marketing possibilities on the internal market. Surpluses have had to be exported. Time and again when the export trade has experienced stagnation, there was over-production and producers frequently had to be satisfied with particularly low prices. In 1917 the Koöperatieve Wijnbouwers Vereniging van Suid-Afrika—better known as the K.W.V.—was established with the object of stabilizing the wine industry. More than 95 per cent of the wine farmers joined the K.W.V. From 1918 to 1923 the K.W.V. tried, by means of voluntary agreements, between producers and traders, to promote the orderly sale of wine. The K.W.V. undertook, inter alia, to maintain a minimum price and to dispose of the surplus on the internal market. Owing to the infidelity of members, together with dubious trade practices, it soon became clear that the K.W.V. could not achieve its objects in the absence of statutory powers.

Largely for this reason the Wine and Spirits Control Act (Act No. 5 of 1924) was put on the Statute Book in 1924. In terms of this Act, full control over the marketing of distilling wine in the Cape was assigned to the K.W.V. The control over distilling wine was subsequently, in 1957, extended to the whole country.

So all wine farmers, including non-members of the K.W.V., were compelled to sell their distilling wine or spirits through or with the consent of the K.W.V. only. Similarly all traders were compelled to obtain their requirements through or with the consent of the K.W.V. The K.W.V. was furthermore empowered to determine the minimum price at which distilling wine or spirits could be sold for drinking purposes in Africa South of the Sahara. Subject to the right of appeal the trade was also assured of the right to demand supplies from the K.W.V.

The provisions of Act No. 5 of 1924 as amended, were consolidated in 1956 in the Wine and Spirits Control Act (Act No. 38 of 1956). The Bill I am now submitting is an amendment of the 1956 Act and it therefore relates to the marketing of distilling wine by the K.W.V.

Provision for control over good wine by the K.W.V. has existed since 1940. To begin with, good wine was in 1924 excluded from the control of the K.W.V. In 1940 good wine however was subjected to control under the Wine and Spirits Control Amendment Act, 1940. In the 1940 Act certain powers were conferred on the K.W.V. to limit the production of wine physically. In 1957 the relevant Section 9 of Act No. 23 of 1940 was amended and a set of quota regulations was added to the Act as an Annexure. After a period of exceptionally large crops in 1954—1956 the present quota system took shape in 1957.

From this outline it is clear that there is sufficient statutory provision to control and stabilize the wine industry in times of surplus production, something the wine farmers had to contend with regularly in the past. As hon. members possibly know already, the wine industry is faced with an entirely new situation at the present time. According to expectations there will be no question of surpluses in the ensuing years, but on the other hand, serious consideration will rather have to be given to shortages of fair dimensions. The present production of wine is sufficient to supply the domestic demand for wine and wine products, and at the same time to maintain the export markets which have been developed at great pains and expense.

The reason for the shortage in the products of the vine are to be found mainly in the phenomenal increase in domestic demand. The Republic is experiencing a period of exceptional prosperity and the consumer is prepared to spend more money on goods which fit in well with the spirit of optimism. In addition the Bantu may now freely buy liquor, and new distribution points for liquor have also been established. From the following excise statistics, which show annual consumption, it will appear how suddenly the increase in consumption of liquor came about:

As regards unfortified wine, the increase was amazing—within one year almost a quarter. It is understandable that production can hardly adapt itself to changes in consumption of this nature. New plantings of vines require considerable capital investment, and it takes a long time before the vines reach the full bearing stage. Therefore it is difficult for production to keep pace with changes in demand.

Although the marketing possibilities for wine and wine products at the present time appear to be very promising, data regarding new plantings of vines between 1958 and 1962 indicate that the total production of wine during the following four or five years cannot increase to an extent worth speaking of. As against this, it may be expected that the potential demand will increase still more.

Earlier this year I already increased the total quota quantity of about 1,100,000 leaguers of wine at 20 per cent with as much as 500,000 leaguers. Thus farmers have been given an opportunity to produce more wine. The result of this will not be noticeable however for quite a few years. The existing legislation already makes provision for meeting temporary shortages in the wine industry, e.g. as a result of poor crops. (The Wine and Spirits Control Amendment Act, 1954 and the regulations in the annexure thereto.) By means of these so-called pool regulations, arrangements are made for the annual distribution or rationing of the available supplies of wine by the Distilling Wine and Good Wine Pool Committee. The pool regulations were brought into operation during January of this year. The good wine as well as the distilling wine crop are at the present time allocated on demand to the traders who are entitled to it on as equitable a basis as possible. A very senior departmental officer is chairman of the Pool Committee. Furthermore two representatives each of the K.W.V. and the trade are serving on it. When the pool regulations are in operation the K.W.V. may acquire at least 15 per cent but not more than 25 per cent of the distilling wine of the current wine crop by way of “surplus” for its own purposes. This year that percentage was fixed at 15 per cent. The distilling wine crop will probably be less than 350,000 leaguers this year, and the K.W.V.’s share of that for its own requirements will accordingly be inadequate. As a result of the increased domestic demand, the trade will be more or less in the same position.

Rationing measures of course are not a desirable practice and it becomes still more unpleasant and more dissatisfaction is aroused the longer it lasts and the more the shortages increase. Such a situation hampers the marketing. Other alcoholic drinks will replace wine and brandy if the demand cannot be satisfied, and the future marketing possibilities for the wine industry will thus be prejudiced. Once the domestic market has geared itself to alcoholic products, other than the products of the vine, it will take a lot of time and money to change the drinking habits and to make the public wine-conscious once again.

As indicated earlier, extensive provision has been made for the stepping up of wine production, and according to expectations, the production will increase considerably during the next four to eight years. If other alcoholic products were now to be permitted to capture a part of the wine market owing to a temporary shortage of wine, an adverse situation for the wine industry in South Africa will be created. It has therefore become imperative to give attention to other possibilities of wiping out the existing and anticipated shortages. Manufacturers of gin and liqueurs are already making use of sugar cane spirits to a fair extent. However, in terms of the law this spirit may not be used for the blending of brandy or the fortifying of wine. Apart from this, there are objections in principle to the use of a spirit which is foreign to viticulture, for the blending or fortifying of products of the vine. The Character of wine spirits is more in harmony with the character of the products of the vine. However, there is no substantial objection to greater use of cane spirits for the manufacture of products such as gin, vodka or liqueurs. This possibility of effecting an economy on the consumption of wine spirits must in my opinion be considered thoroughly. In 1963 more than a million proof gallons of wine spirits was used for those purposes.

However, when one wishes to disturb the existing marketing pattern as little as possible, another solution is available. This is to permit the importation of wine in bulk for processing here as long as the local production of wine is insufficient, in order to supply the local as well as the external market properly. The wine industry in South Africa at the present time produces sufficient good wine to be able to supply the demand. The disposal of good wine is however restricted by the rationing thereof, in order to be able to supply to a greater extent the demand for distilling wine for processing into brandy and spirits. Therefore the shortage really relates to distilling wine, and it will thus only be necessary to import wine which is suitable for processing into spirits. By so doing the wine farmers will be enabled to sell more good wine—for which they receive a higher price than for distilling wine. I have indicated already that, as far as distilling wine is concerned, the K.W.V. has full control over transactions between producers and the trade. It also bears a great responsibility to the wine trade to see to it that there will be sufficient supplies available at all times. It therefore seems logical that the K.W.V. should also be properly authorised to import wine intended for distilling purposes whenever significant shortages of distilling wine are experienced in the Republic.

With this object in view, this Bill now introduces a new section in the Wine and Spirits Control Act, 1956, namely Section 9bis. In sub-section (1) of Section 9bis the K.W.V. is authorized to import wine for distilling purposes in quantities approved by me. Furthermore it is provided in sub-section (1) that the K.W.V. may only import when the pool regulations have been put into operation, in other words in times of shortages. Because, as I have said already, sufficient quantities of good wine are being produced, this authorization relates only to distilling wine. In terms of subsection (2) the K.W.V. may process the imported wine into spirits. The marketing thereof is subject to the same provisions—such as the minimum price arrangements for instance—as if the wine or spirits were a local product.

In sub-section (6) it is provided furthermore that the imported spirits may be used only for the manufacture of products intended for sale on the domestic market. It is important that only products of pure South African origin should be exported. Certificates of origin are essential for the procurement of preferential tariffs or lower tariffs in the most important overseas countries.

Under sub-section (3) the K.W.V. is obliged to make available to the Distilling and Good Wine Pool Committee 75 per cent of the imported quantity of wine for apportionment among the applicants. The K.W.V. therefore may retain only 25 per cent but if the K.W.V. wishes to do so, it may even make available to the trade some of that. From sub-section (4) it appears that the said 75 per cent of the imported distilling wine will for all practical purposes increase the marketable quantity. However, separate allocations of the imported product are in fact made, and the K.W.V. is obliged only to deliver wine or spirits against such allocations. The separate allocations are essential in view of the exports of a pure South African product.

As the K.W.V. is the greatest exporter of wine and spirits and will not be able to export its share of 25 per cent of the imported spirits, it is hoped that the trade will be prepared to take over a portion of the imported spirits from the K.W.V. in exchange for a portion of their usual allocation of domestic spirits. No provision is made for such exchange transactions in this Bill. I hope that any problems that may arise in this connection will be ironed out between the K.W.V. and the trade.

In terms of sub-section (7) of the new Section 9bis the imported wine, and the spirits distilled from it, will be subject to certain provisions of the law applicable to the domestic products. The object of this is to prevent confusion and in addition to give equal treatment as far as possible to the imported wine.

To summarize, this Bill therefore provides that the K.W.V. may with the approval of the Minister, act as importer of distilling wine and may deal with in the same way as the indigenous product—but at the same time in such a way that the identity of the imported product is preserved. The object of the measure is to enable the K.W.V. to make more active efforts to satisfy the increasing demand until such time as the South African production can overtake the demand.

As I have explained, this Bill has become necessary to meet the shortages and as it is in the interests of the wine industry of South Africa, as a whole, I trust this Bill will receive the full support of all hon. members in this House.

The Bill which is before the House contains a brand new and very interesting principle. The importation of wine and spirits for consumption, that is to say, for drinking purposes, is already an old practice in South Africa. But never before has wine which is intended for distilling purposes only, been allowed to enter South Africa. The K.W.V. did not have that right and as far as my knowledge goes, nor did the trade.

As I see i.t, the main task of the K.W.V. is to absorb the surplus production of the vine in South Africa on the South African market in order by so doing to enable producers to obtain a stable price for their products locally. Because this Bill makes provision for the importation of wines into South Africa, this fact does appear rather incongruous to the uninitiated. It appears incongruous that when this surplus no longer exists, when the K.W.V. has, as it were, acquitted itself of its task, the K.W.V. will be permitted to import wine in order by so doing to create a sort of artificial surplus in the country. When one considers the problems of the K.W.V. one realizes that the position is not as incongruous as it appears to be. The export market which the K.W.V. has built up over the years has been built up with a great deal of trouble and at great expense. That market demands not only quality but another important requirement of that market is continuity of supply. One cannot supply the market in one year and not supply it in the next. The position is not as it is in regard to maize or butter which is exported. Unfortunately, it is a fact that the wine farmer, in spite of all his capabilities, has not yet succeeded in producing the same quantity of wine every year. The vine produces either more or less than it did in the preceding year. Secondly, the wine farmer has not yet taught the vine to supply grapes for wine to-morrow if the vine is planted to-day. This is a long process. The K.W.V. is saddled with this problem—that it has built up its export market on surplus production exclusively. As a result of the varying production in South Africa, that surplus is also a variable factor while the market requires continuity of supply. Apart from this, as the hon. the Minister has said, it is also a fact that local consumption varies. It has shown an increasing tendency over the past few years while the production has remained more or less static. It is true that quotas are now being allocated for new vineyard cultivation and that these vines will start producing within a certain number of years. In the meantime, however, production remains more or less static while the consumption is increasing. In my opinion the K.W.V. has had the new and bright idea of importing wine in order to see them over the difficult transition period.

I think it is necessary to emphasize the fact that these imports will not take place every year automatically. The K.W.V. cannot import when it wants to. Two conditions have to arise before it can import: Firstly, the hon. the Minister must say that he is satisfied that the K.W.V. can import and the hon. the Minister can only say this when the surplus in South Africa has fallen to a specified minimum. This is therefore not the free importation of wine which some people may consider it to be.

The fact that this wine is being imported and that there will therefore be a larger quantity of wine available in South Africa also does not mean that the price structure will be changed. The minimum price will continue to be fixed on the basis of the South Africa production. As I have already said, it is an interesting idea and the United Party supports this Bill. There are a few questions which I want to put to the hon. the Minister and I hope that he will be able to reply to them so that we can have more clarity in this regard. In the first instance, Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, the relationship between the K.W.V. and the trade has always been good over the years. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister—as I see the matter, this is his duty; it is not the duty of the K.W.V.—has consulted the trade in this specific case because this matter will very definitely affect the trade as such.

Then there is the question of price. I do not know where the K.W.V. intends buying that wine. I take it that these wines will be bought in France and in other countries as will. At what price is the K.W.V. going to purchase the wine? I interpret sub-section (2) to mean the trade at the minimum price for distilling wine. The question arises to my mind, however, that if the K.W.V. purchases the wine at a price higher than the minimum price for distilling wine, at what price is it going to sell to the trade the 75 per cent which it must sell to the trade? I think that it will be wrong if, as a result of the import of this wine, consumer prices are increased further in South Africa. I think that the liquor consumer in this country already pays, to put it mildly, through his neck for his liquor.

There is another matter that I want to put to the hon. the Minister and that is in connection with import duties. I am not sure whether he said that these wines would be imported free of import duty.

Furthermore, sub-section (5) states that if a dealer does not want his share of this 75 per cent, it must be returned to the K.W.V. who will dispose of the wine as it deems fit. To my mind the logical step would be for that wine to be included in the 75 per cent again and that the K.W.V. should then be permitted by the pool committee also to allocate to the trade that quantity which has been returned if the trade wants it. I do not think that a trade share of this nature Which a dealer does not want should be returned to the K.W.V.

May I say again in conclusion that the United Party supports this Bill. We look forward to seeing how this new principle will affect the wine trade and wine production in South Africa.

I want to thank the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) and his party for supporting this Bill. We all believe that it will be not only to the advantage of the industry but also to the advantage of the country as a whole. The hon. member for Maitland asked whether the importation of wine will not mean that prices on our local market will be increased. Let me immediately reassure the hon. member in this regard. As far as I know, the K.W.V. has already entered into negotiations in order to obtain these wines at economic prices. So no danger exists that the proposed importation of distilling wine will increase liquor prices in South Africa. I merely mention this fact in order to reassure consumers in this hon. House!

Consumers may well ask why the K.W.V. did not make provision by way of a long-term policy for the fact that a position of this nature could arise in South Africa and why it did not ensure that sufficient liquor was produced in this country in terms of the Act which gives them the power to exercise control over the production of alcohol. Conditions have of course arisen over the past three or four years in South Africa which have been completely unforeseen. We think, for example, of the legislation which this House passed in 1961 giving the Bantu free access to liquor. We think of the Liquor Amendment Bill which was introduced by the hon. the Minister of Justice last year and of his very clever plan to stimulate the sale of more unfortified wine. In a third instance we think of the very successful advertising programme of the K.W.V. to popularize the consumption of wine in South Africa.

I want to make use of this opportunity to thank the hon. the Minister of Finance once again for the concession which he made to the wine industry in regard to advertising in 1960.

There is also a fourth reason why this shortage could not be foreseen, and that is the general upsurge in the economy of the country as a result of the capable actions of this Government. If hon. members ask me why the K.W.V. could not foresee this upsurge, then I shall say that it appears to me as though the K.W.V. underestimated the position in two respects. In the first instance, it is possible that, just like the Opposition, they underestimated the general upsurge in the country.

Order! That is not relevant now.

Mr. Speaker, I submit to your ruling. The second reason why the K.W.V. did not foresee this tremendous increase in consumption is perhaps because they underestimated the hon. the Minister of Justice and his ability to have the difficult Liquor Amendment Act passed by Parliament. We must pay tribute to him in this regard. This position exists. It makes no difference who is responsible for it. There is no better way of rectifying this position than the Bill which is now before the House. I support it wholeheartedly.

I am very pleased at the support given by hon. members on both sides of the House to this Bill, although I am even more pleased that most of them have given the Bill their tacit support. I just want to reply to the few questions put to me by the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman). The hon. member expressed his concern at the possibility that the K.W.V. may import wine at a price higher than the internal price. The conditions of import and the making available of the wine to the wine trade is that the K.W.V. must make it available at the same minimum price which holds good for the wine produced locally. In other words, the dealer will not pay more for spirits which are distilled by the K.W.V. in this way. Should any losses be incurred, the K.W.V. will have to bear those losses because the K.W.V. is the body which must effect stabilization in industry.

And if there are profits?

If a profit is made on these imports, those profits will be kept in a separate account by the K.W.V.

and used for the benefit of the wine industry as such. The hon. member himself can imagine the purposes for which that money can be used to benefit the wine industry. The hon. member need therefore not be concerned that because of the import of these wines he will have to pay more for his drinks in the future. He will still pay the same price if the trade does not increase the price for other reasons.

He only drinks whisky.

Then it will not affect him at all.

As far as the question of customs duties is concerned, this is of course a matter which will have to be decided upon by the K.W.V. and the Department of Customs and Excise. I think that the K.W.V. have already entered into negotiations with the Department in this connection and there will probably be further negotiations in this regard once the Bill has been passed.

The importation of wine is of particular importance to the trade in order to safeguard their local market and to supply that market. This question was discussed with the trade by the K.W.V., not by me as Minister. The trade supports this Bill fully because it is in their interests to keep the local market supplied.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

On Clause 1,

I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether I am correctly interpreting sub-section (2) when I say that in terms of this clause the K.W.V. are compelled to supply the trade at minimum prices with the wine or spirits which the K.W.V. may import.

Yes.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

When the House adjourned last night I had explained the provisions of this Bill up to and including Clause 4. I want to continue now with Clause 5. It is sometimes necessary for advocates from friendly neighbouring states to appear in our courts just as it is sometimes necessary for our advocates to appear in the courts of our neighbouring states, for example, those of the Protectorates and the Rhodesias. Provision is therefore being made that, subject to the provisions of other legislation, a person who is admitted to practice as an advocate in the Supreme Court or Higher Court of any country or teritory designated by the Minister by notice in the Gazette may be admitted to practise in the Republic without having to comply with all the requirements of this Bill provided that he is a fit and proper person and resides and practises as an advocate in the country or territory in which he has been so admitted. Of course, the Minister retains full control over the situation because the provisions only hold good in respect of advocates in countries or territories which he designates and he can at any time withdraw such designation, upon which anyone who has so been admitted can be struck from the roll. Hon. members can also compare these provisions with the provisions in Clause 7 (1) (c). Any person who is admitted to practise as an advocate in the Republic in terms of the aforementioned provisions also has his name inscribed on the roll of advocates.

I come now to Clause 6. Advocates whose names are inscribed on the roll of one division of the Supreme Court may in terms of the Admission of Advocates Amendment Act, 1946, apply to be enrolled as advocates in any other division. For the first time now a central roll of advocates is envisaged and there is no reason why an advocate should be restricted to practise only in the division in which he has been admitted, particularly because all divisions are now divisions of the Supreme Court of South Africa. Hon. members will remember that a similar principle was written into the Attorneys Act last year. Provision is therefore being made whereby an advocate who is admitted or is deemed to have been admitted can practise in any place in the Republic unless he has been suspended from practice as an advocate or his name has been struck from the roll of advocates.

I now come to Clause 7. The grounds on which advocates can be suspended or their names struck from the roll are set out in Clause 7 (1) and briefly amount to the fact that an advocate can be suspended or have his name struck from the roll (a) if he ceases to be a South African citizen; (b) if he neglects to become naturalized within six years (or within such further period as the court may allow) after he has entered the Republic; (c) if, after the coming into operation of the Act, he is admitted on the ground of a foreign qualification and neglects to obtain the required qualification in Afrikaans and English within two years or within such further period as the court may allow; (d) if he is admitted to practise in terms of Clause 5, and comes to practise or to live in the country or territory in which he resided and practised when he was admitted or if that country or territory has ceased to be a country or territory designated by the Minister; (e) if the court is convinced that he is not a fit person to continue to practise as an advocate, and (f) on his own application. These provisions have been accepted by the Bar. No definite legal provisions exist which give the various associations of advocates the right to apply to have the name of an advocate struck from the roll; as far as this is concerned, it is simply a customary law. In terms of judgments entered—I refer here for example to the Society of Advocates of Natal v. Knox, 1954 (4) S.A.—they do, however, have locus standi in judicio to make such applications. The Bar Council wants this right to be laid down in legislation and wants nobody else to have the right to apply to court to have the name of an advocate struck from the roll. That request is being given effect to in this clause.

Clause 7 (2) complies with the wishes of the Bar Council except that provision is being made whereby the State Attorney can apply for the striking from the roll of the name of an advocate who resides and practises in a country or territory in respect of which the Minister has withdrawn his designation in terms of Clause 5 (3). This is done because the Bar may possibly not want to incur the expense involved in the removal of the name of such person from the roll and the Minister may possibly deem it desirable that this be done. I have had discussions with the advocates and I want to make it very clear that the State Attorney only acts on behalf of the Minister in this case and that he will not and cannot act of his own volition in this connection. We will make this clear by way of an amendment. This therefore complies with the wishes of the Bar Council in this connection.

Clause 7 (3) merely assists in determining the jurisdiction of the court to which application has to be made to have the name of an advocate struck from the roll. Those whose names are struck from the roll of advocates or who are suspended are in terms of Clause 7 (4) forbidden to practise as advocates.

The provisions of Clause 7 (5) serve simply to enable the Secretary for Justice to keep the roll of advocates properly up to date.

I come now to Clause 8. Now that advocates will on admission be allowed to practise in any place in the Republic, it is appropriate that a central roll of advocates be kept. The necessary provision is contained in Clause 8 (1) and it is also further provided what the details are that will have to be recorded in the roll.

Clause 8 (2) simply prescribes a procedure which is aimed at enabling the Secretary for Justice to keep the roll of advocates. To lighten the onus of proof (for example, in the case in which someone who has been struck from the roll of advocates is accused of an offence under Clause 9 (1) read with Clause 9 (3)), it is provided in Clause 8 (3) that a document purporting to have been issued by the Secretary for Justice shall be prima facie proof of the facts contained therein. The Bar Council has no objection in this regard.

Clause 9: It is necessary that sanctions be prescribed (a) to prevent anyone who has not been admitted as an advocate practising as such or pretending that he is an advocate; (b) to prevent an advocate who has been suspended or whose name has been struck from the roll to continue to practise as an advocate; and (c) to prevent an advocate sharing his professional fees with unqualified persons. The provisions of Clause 9 are more or less in conformity with those of sub-sections (1), (2) and (4) of Section 32 of the Admission of Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyancers Act, 1934. These provisions are aimed at the protection of the profession; they are fair and reasonable and have the support of the General Bar Council.

Clause 10: The existing law provides that when an adequate number of advocates is not available, the court can permit an attorney to discharge the functions of an advocate in any proceedings in the Supreme Court. A position of this nature can, for example, arise on circuit or at out of the way places. The Bar Council wants this provision to be retained. That is being done in Clause 10.

Clause 11: The procedure that has to be followed on the admission of advocates is at present contained in the rules which hold good for the various Divisions of the Supreme Court and are in no way uniform. It is desirable to have uniformity in this connection now that uniform legislation dealing with the admission of advocates has been drawn up. The Chief Justice and the Judges-President have the power, in terms of Section 43 (2) of the Supreme Court Act, 1959, to issue rules in respect of a variety of matters. It is desirable that power should be given to them specifically to issue rules regarding the admission and so forth of advocates. This power is now being given to them and a recommendation will in due course be made to them to issue rules in this connection.

Clause 12: Because the South West Africa Division of the Supreme Court is a Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa, it is desirable that the provisions of this Bill should also be of application there. The South West Africa Administration has no objection of the application of the provisions of this Bill to the territory and the Department of Bantu Administration and Development has no objection either to the application of the provisions of the Bill to the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel. The Rehoboth Baster Council has also agreed, as it must in terms of the law to the application of the provisions of this Bill to the “Rehoboth Gebiet”. But the Bar Council of South West Africa objected some years ago to a Bill dealing with the admission of advocates (which was also to have been made of application to the territory) apparently because it was not consulted at the time of the passing of the Supreme Court Act, 1959 and also because it preferred the admission of advocates in the territory to be regulated by the rules of the South West Africa Division of the Supreme Court. We do not know whether the aforementioned Bar Council has again been consulted by the South West Africa Administration but its attitude at the time was in any event so negative that for that reason it cannot be permitted to frustrate the desired uniformity in this regard. Indeed, the Bill actually makes it easier for inhabitants of South West Africa to be admitted as advocates. Southwesters who have, for example, qualified abroad, can at present be admitted only if they are domiciled in the Republic. Clause 3 (2) (b) will now enable such a person to be admitted even though he is not domiciled in the Republic. We know of at least one person, a certain Mrs. Blum, who will benefit by this provision.

As far as Clause 13 is concerned the legal provisions mentioned in the Schedule have now become obsolete and are being repealed. Persons, however, who have obtained certain foreign qualifications are required in terms of the existing provisions to pass an examination in Roman Dutch Law and the statute law of the Republic unless they have been exempted therefrom by rule. Because the right of admission on the grounds of foreign qualifications is being retained to 31 December 1971, it is necessary that the rules in terms of which the particular examinations must be written or exemption given for the writing thereof, must also remain in force until that date.

The Natal Advocates and Attorneys Preservation of Rights Act, 1939 gives certain Natal Attorneys the right to practise as advocates. This right is being retained at the request of the Bar Council.

As far as Clause 14 is concerned the intention is not to put the Act into operation immediately because the Universities must be given time to make the necessary arrangements for the introduction of the degree course of baccalaureus legum envisaged in Clause 3 (2) (a). Moreover, the Minister will possibly consider making a further concession to unnaturalised persons who have been in the country for longer than six years to enable them to become naturalized. In such a case the coming into operation of Clause 7 (1) (a) (ii) can be postponed until a date approved by the Minister. It is mainly with this in mind that provision is being made in Clause 14 whereby various provisions can be put into operation on various dates.

I may say in conclusion that the Bar Council has also made representations to me as far as the provisions of the Attorneys Act in regard to advocates admitted after 1934 are concerned. Hon. members are aware of the fact that if a man started his degree course prior to 1934, he could practise either as an attorney or as an advocate, and if he wanted to practise as an attorney, it was not necessary for him to serve as an articled clerk. Those who began their studies after 1934 had of course to serve a period of two years as an articled clerk. As a result of the six-month “cleansing” rule agreed upon by the Bar and Side Bar, it would have meant that a post-1934 advocate who wanted to practise as an attorney would in actual fact have been engaged for two and a half years, six months of which he would have completed and two years during which he would have served articles. At the request of the Bar Council I have removed that particular provision from the Attorneys Act and legislation in that regard will also be introduced into this House in due course. Such advocate will only have to serve as an articled clerk for two years before qualifying as an attorney. Those are the provisions of the Bill. I move.

The House is indebted to the hon. Minister for a very full and a very clear explanation of the principles involved in this Bill. The Bill has an unfortunate history. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the provisions of the original draft were submitted to the Bar Council and unfortunately they were released to the press and unfortunately the contents of the advocate’s admission procedure were made something of a political matter in South Africa. I am very pleased that the hon. Minister has not put in this Bill two of the provisions which were in that Draft Bill which was made available to the public. The first was for a board to provide…

Is the hon. member now discussing something that does not form part of the Bill?

Mr. Speaker, with respect it is relevant, because I want to ask the hon. Minister whether one of those provisions is in fact not still in the Bill. The other is the question of whether or not persons who have been named by the hon. Minister under the Suppression of Communism Act would be allowed to practise.

This Bill does not deal with that aspect at all.

That is so, but there is one aspect of the Bill in respect of which I want to ask the hon. Minister why it is in the Bill at all. It appears in Clauses 3 and 5 where it is provided that “subject to the provisions of any other law”, any Division shall admit to practice and authorize to be enrolled as an advocate any person who on application made by him satisfies the court on certain matters set out in the Bill. What I want to ask the hon. Minister is: Where he says “subject to the provisions of any other law”, what other law does the hon. Minister have in mind? One would have thought that it would have been sufficient to say that any Division shall admit to practice a person who fulfils the qualifications set out in the Bill. It is here provided “subject to the provisions of any other law”, and it must mean “subject to the provisions of any law which is not already on the Statute Book”, because it obviously cannot refer to any previous law as this Bill when it becomes an Act will repeal any other law which is in conflict with it, this being the later Act. Perhaps the hon. Minister will allay any fears that I may have that in fact he has in mind some other laws, other than this charter for the admission of advocates, which will affect which advocates may practise and which advocates may be admitted to practise by the courts.

The hon. Minister has dealt with the clause relating to “tweetaligheid”. It is very desirable that all advocates would be bilingual, especially as advocates in many cases go onto the Bench when they become seniors. I hope that this provision will make people bilingual. I want to say to the hon. Minister that bilingualism is something which one achieves by practice and in some parts of the country we are less bilingual than people are in other parts of the country, simply because one has less opportunity to practise bilingualism.

There is one aspect of the Bill which puzzles me and that is that there is no reference in it to those persons who were entitled to practise if for example they had been admitted to the Inns of Court in Great Britain. If one is admitted to the Inns of Court in Great Britain and if one has done Roman Dutch Law in one’s examination, one comes back to the Republic and one may write the statute law examination which is prescribed by the Joint Committee for Professional Examinations, and one can be admitted to the Bar as if one had obtained a university degree in England, and there are many people who have in fact been admitted on this basis. Now I do appreciate that this is in fact a matter of reciprocity. There was a time. I think seven or eight years ago, when a South African advocate could on payment of £100, if he had practised here for three years, be admitted to one of the Inns of Court in Great Britain, and seven or eight years ago they abolished this right, and I think that that being so, we are quite entitled to abolish the reciprocal right which is involved here. But I don’t see in this Bill any protection for those people who at present might be studying at one of the Inns of Court under the apprehension that when they started their course they would be entitled to come back to South Africa, having Roman Dutch Law as part of their final examination, and writing statute law on their return—that they might be able to practise at the Bar. As the hon. Minister will of course appreciate, it has always been customary to preserve the rights of people which are affected by a Bill where persons are engaged on a course of conduct to qualify. The hon. Minister has done it in respect of persons now studying at overseas universities, and I hope the hon. Minister will deal with this point because I think it is important in respect of those persons who have gone over to the English Inns of Court.

So far as universities are concerned, of course this is quite a different matter because the question of reciprocity is not involved here at all. The hon. Minister has said, and he said very blandly, that it is important that the South African advocate be trained at South African universities. It is a statement with which I cannot altogether agree, but a statement with which I cannot disagree either. I think, however, it is a bland statement which I do not think is justified by the history of the illustrious persons who have adorned the Bench for example in this country. We have many most eminent Judges who had their initial legal training at overseas universities. We have many eminent barristers to-day who have had their training there, and I must say that I am sorry that this is eventually to go. I know that the hon. Minister has come to an agreement with the Bar on this Bill, but I am sorry that this is the position. You see, Sir, we provide that our advocates shall be educated persons, we provide that they must not just have a legal degree, but they must also have some other degree. In other words, one wants a roundly educated person to go to the Bar, because eventually that person could go to the Bench, could become a Judge of the Supreme Court. That is the only way in the normal course that our Judges are appointed. So I am sorry that the hon. Minister has decided to proceed with this aspect of it. I don’t think that there is any necessity for it. I don’t think for example that there is anything wrong with the department of Roman Dutch Law at Oxford. I don’t think one could find a more eminent professor of Roman Dutch Law than the late Professor Lee, and in any event, the hon. Minister would have control over this aspect, because when such a person returns to South Africa, having taken such a degree, provided that degree is a good legal degree, the Minister, or the Chief Justice can prescribe what further examination should be taken in terms of the provisions of the Joint Committee for Professional Examinations. So that if it is inadequate from a practical point of view, those practical examinations could be written on their return. And of course it is not only the University of Oxford which is affected. There are four Dutch universities, Leyden. Groningen. Utrecht and Amsterdam, all of which have a wonderful history and tradition in respect of Roman Dutch Law. But be that as it may, I hope the hon. Minister will indicate why he thinks it is necessary to proceed with it.

There is a very interesting provision in Clause 9. It provides something which I was most surprised to see. It provides—

I am quite amazed to see this. It has been the tradition and the custom of the Bar since time immemorial that no advocate should ever be able to enter into partnership, and indeed I believe it is considered to be unprofessional to share your fees with anyone else, with another advocate, certainly with anyone else. But it seems that as long as you share with an advocate, as long as you are in partnership with an advocate, that is all right; what is not all right is when you are in partnership with someone else in respect of your professional services. Perhaps the hon. Minister would indicate how this provision has come about, and why it is considered necessary, whether in fact some suggestion has been made to him that there might in the future be some snag in the normal relationship which exists at the Bar and that partnerships might indeed be allowed and sanctioned at the Bar.

The hon. Minister asked me during the previous discussion on the second reading debate whether there were still these dual practitioners in Natal. Indeed there are many of them still in practice, persons who are entitled to practise as advocates and entitled to practise as attorneys at the same time. You still have a large number of them in Durban and they indeed have their fair share of the work in Durban. But these persons, although their rights are still preserved, in terms of this section which I have just referred to, namely the sharing of one’s fees with persons other than advocates, may well be affected by the provisions of sub-section (3) of Clause 9, because it provides that any advocate who contravenes the provisions of sub-section (2), (that is sharing fees with someone other than an advocate) shall be guilty of an offence, and be guilty also of unprofessional conduct and be liable to be suspended from practice or to be struck off the roll of advocates.

I have said distinctly that they will retain the same rights as those they have had up to now.

I accept that that is the intention. Whether in fact it goes so far as professional conduct. I don’t know, but certainly so far as the offence is concerned. I am quite satisfied.

The other point also relates to Natal. This is an agreed measure with the Bar. Now in Natal when you are admitted to the Bar, unlike any other province, before you can be admitted, you have to pay £50 to the Society of Advocates. I think this is provided for in our Rules of Court, but the Rules of Court are laws as well, and as the Bill stands at the moment it seems that that being law, it will have been repealed by implication by this Bill when it becomes an Act. I want to ask the hon. Minister whether in fact this matter was considered in his discussions with the General Council of the Bar and whether in fact this provision will no longer apply in Natal.

They did not discuss it with me.

Well, there you are. I presume there was a Natal member in the delegation that saw the hon. Minister.

He led the delegation.

Well, perhaps we can look at it again in the Committee Stage.

Apart from those points which I have raised, it is a Bill which meets with our approval and it has been approved by the General Council of the Bar. It is a matter which relates to their domestic relationship as much as anything else, and we give the Bill our blessing and we will support the second reading.

I thank hon. members for the acceptance of this Bill as well as for the short debate that accompanied the acceptance. The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) asked me what is meant when the Bill says “any other law”, and that a person may be struck off the roll in consequences of that. As far as I understand the position, there is no other law save this legislation we are dealing with now, in terms of which a person may be struck off the roll. The member knows also, and I told the Bar Council also that this is my point of view, and it is a point of view I strongly hold, that an acknowledged communist should not be permitted to practise as an attorney or as an advocate, because of the special relationship between such a person and the court.

Why is it not in the Bill?

I am coming to that. I have put the matter to the Bar Council and the Bar Council is divided on this principle. A section of the Bar Council is in favour and a section of the General Bar Council is against. The Bar Council has adopted the attitude, however, that if I wish to continue with this matter, it is my business, and I have given the Bar Council an undertaking that if such legislation is ever introduced (it will not be done during this Session) then before I take steps to have a person struck off the roll, I shall give the General Bar Council an opportunity to consult with me on the person in question and to state its case to me. I have given that undertaking, and if I do introduce such legislation I shall honour that promise to the Bar Council. The hon. member knows what my attitude is in this regard. I have mentioned it previously, but it is as well that I should do so here again. The hon. member will recall that we had the case of Slovo who was restricted by me. The Johannesburg Bar Council through the mouth of its chairman made represenations to me to suspend those restrictions. The hon. member will recall that I told the chairman of the Bar Council I was quite prepared to remove those restrictions fully provided the person in question would give me his word of honour—I did not even want it in writing; I did not even want it made to myself—if he were to give the chairman of the Johannesburg Bar Council his word of honour that he would not make himself guilty of subversive activities. He refused to give that assurance to the Chairman of the Johannesburg Bar Council. Hon. members know the role Slovo played during the months following those discussions between me and the chairman of the Bar Council, in South Africa. I am very honest when I tell hon. members that I do not believe that a person like Slovo should have the right to practise in South African courts. His conduct has shown it very clearly. Now the hon. member asks why it has not been included in the Bill. I deliberately did not include it in this Bill now, and I do not intend introducing legislation this year, for the simple reason the hon. member is aware that the two senior advocates appearing in the Rivonia case are acknowledged communists, and any legislation I may introduce now will be construed by malicious persons outside as an attempt on my part to stop those persons from defending the accused concerned, or that I wish to intimidate them in this way, or what have you. For that reason I decided not to introduce legislation in that regard.

The hon. member asked whether the persons who have acquired certain rights in the Inns of Court will be affected, and what their position will be in future? The only person who has acquired a right to practise elsewhere if I may put it thus who will be permitted to practise in South Africa in future will be the person who will acquire the right in terms of Clause 5 of this Bill; that is to say, persons practising in friendly neighbouring territories and who acquire rights here with us. The hon. member really answered the question himself by mentioning that it is a matter of reciprocity. We have certain rights in Britain of which they have deprived us, and it follows merely that we for our part must take similar steps. The General Bar Council has made no objection to that.

The hon. member has referred to Clause 9. Now I just want to tell him that after my Bill was drafted, and I had referred it to the General Bar Council, the Bar Council itself drafted a Bill which they sent to me. I do not know whether the hon. member has a copy of that, but I can show him the Bill. My legal advisers of course did not agree with the wording of the Bar Council’s Bill, but in essence the two Bills are similar, and in the General Bar Council’s Bill drafted by themselves, in their own words, there is Clause 10 (2) which reads as follows—

In other words, the provision emanated from the General Bar Council itself. They asked for it to be inserted here. I did not ask them for what reasons they wished to have it inserted, and I did not discuss it with them on these lines, but it is a provision asked for by the General Bar Council itself, and as I am no longer actively practising, I should like to advise the hon. member to ask them, at the next meeting of the Bar Council, for what reasons they included it in their own Bill.

As regards the other Natal questions, as the hon. member knows, the acting chairman of the General Bar Council is Mr. Adv. Shaw, senior advocate of Natal, and I have been given the assurance that all the Natal questions have been ironed out in the Bill and that nobody will be prejudiced in any way.

I move—

The amendments contained in this Bill are of a twofold nature. In Clauses 1 and 2 it is suggested that the procedure to be adopted relative to appeals to the Minister of Economic Affairs against decisions of the Electricity Control Board, be amended and in Clause 2 it is proposed that the Electricity Supply Commission should also have the right to invest its funds in stock of the Rand Water Board. As regards the question of appeals, the position is as follows at the present time.

Section 45 of the Electricity Act, 1958, provides that authorized undertakers for the supply of electricity, urban local authorities, etc. shall have a right of appeal to the Minister of Economic Affairs against decisions of the Electricity Control Board. The Minister’s decision is final, save in those cases where the Act specifically makes provision for an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Electricity Control Board is an expert body in connection with all facets of electricity supply, including the determination of tariffs, an aspect which requires exceptional knowledge. Where parties therefore appeal to the Minister against decisions of the Board in this connection, that person (that is the Minister) in the very nature of things must have absolutely expert knowledge and detail at his disposal in order to give a sound decision.

Apart from this it goes without saying that the Minister must give all interested parties involved in such an appeal an opportunity to submit further evidence to him either in writing or verbally. He must therefore deal with the matter virtually like a judge, and such appeals could, apart from the technical intricacy of it, take up a lot of time. It is felt therefore that the present Act ought to be amended so that the burden of sifting and considering involved technical evidence in order to arrive at a decision, should not rest upon the Minister alone. As the existing Electricity Control Board already functions as a kind of arbitration body, it will not be expedient to make provision for another such body, and consequently it is proposed in this Bill that the Act be amended in such a way that appeals against decisions of the Board may continue to be lodged with the Minister, but that the Minister will then have the right to refer such appeals to the Board for report, with an indication, if he so wishes, of any particular aspects to be borne in mind by the Board in drafting its report. The Bill provides furthermore that the Minister may then after consideration of the report of the Board, submitted to him, after reconsideration of the case, give a final decision. Before the control Board reports to the Minister, however, it must give the appellants an opportunity to make further representations to it verbally or in writing in connection with the appeal. This procedure ought to be a more satisfactory basis for disposing of appeals to the Minister of Economic Affairs under the Electricity Act.

As regards the second aspect covered by the proposed Bill, namely the investment of Escom funds in stocks of the Rand Water Board, there is not much to be said. This amendment flows from representations received from the Rand Water Board and the Electricity Supply Commission. Under the present Act Escom already has the right to invest such portions of its sinking fund which is not required, immediately, in stocks and securities guaranteed by the Government, capital shares of the S.A. Reserve Bank, as well as stocks and securities of urban or local authorities or of the Commission itself.

The Rand Water Board is well known all over and there can be no doubt at all that its stocks are not risky in any respect. In addition stocks of the Board are recognized in terms of other legislation such as the Building Societies Act, the Banking Act, the Insurance Act, etc. as stocks of a gilt-edged nature, apart from the fact that the Board itself is regarded as a local authority for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. So there is no risk involved in this concession to Escom and I believe therefore that the hon. House will not find any difficulty in approving this proposed amendment. I move.

The hon. the Minister has given a full explanation of the clauses of the Bill and we have no objection to supporting the second reading.

As stated by my colleague, we have no objection to the passing of this Bill, but I just want clarity on one or two points. The hon. the Minister clearly stated the reasons for the Bill and its application in relation to the principal Act where appeals could be lodged with the Minister as the final Court of Appeal in disputes arising between a supplier licensed under the principal Act in a given area and consumers in that particular area falling outside the jurisdiction of the supplier himself, as another local authority. In this particular case such a dispute has been going on for a number of years between the various local authorities in the Cape Peninsula and the City Council of Cape Town regarding the supply of electricity by the City Council to these areas and particularly in respect of a surcharge on electricity accounts levied by the City Council, which produces revenue which the City Council uses to reduce rates in their area, thereby causing the local authorities drawing their supplies from the City Council to indirectly subsidize the rating structure of Cape Town. That has long formed the subject of dispute. There have been minor adjustments made in the negotiations between the various parties concerned, but a deadlock was reached and it had to go on appeal to the Minister as provided for in the Act. I understand from the Minister’s explanation and from representations made to me that certain technical flaws have come to light in the principal Act which hamper the Minister in giving his attention to this appeal. It is in order to clear the ground, so that the Minister in considering the appeal may call in technical advice or other assistance he requires, that the present Bill now makes provision for that. We support the Bill because there should be no hampering of an appeal of this nature. It affects a large number of people, both inside and outside the area of jurisdiction of the City of Cape Town. In the one case the outside consumers contribute towards a rate fund and in the other case in their own area there is the raiding of the electricity fund of the City Council in order to assist rating. When in terms of the Electricity Act the City Council has to replace worn out machinery they find that the electricity reserve funds have been raided and the consumers thus again have to pay an increased charge for electricity to refund the capital cost of the replacements. Therefore it is a most important matter to all of them and I trust that this Bill will allow the Minister to give his serious attention to a matter which affects a large number of people in the Cape Peninsula.

I can give the hon. member the assurance that it is the intention to refer the dispute referred to by him back to the Electricity Board in terms of this proposed amendment.

I move—

Quite a number of the clauses in this Bill are aimed at stating more clearly and bringing into line with the actual practice certain provisions of the principal Act, more particularly in regard to the powers and functions of the C.S.I.R. These amendments are contained in Clauses 1, 2 (a), 2 (b), 2 (c), 2 (d) and 2 (e), and in view of the fact that no new principles are contained therein I do not think I need say more about it except, by way of an example, to give an explanation of Clause 1.

This clause deals with the ministerial approval which is necessary for research undertaken by the C.S.I.R. A strict interpretation of Section 3 of the principal Act, as it is worded at present, creates the impression that the Minister of Economic Affairs has to grant approval in regard to every individual piece of research work done by the C.S.I.R. That creates an impossible situation in practice and this provision has never been applied in that way. The implication of the proposed amendment of this section is therefore merely that the actual intention and practice should be stated clearly in the Act, namely that the Minister only approves of the sphere of research and that it is, quite correctly, left to the C.S.I.R. as to what specific problems or investigations should be tackled within that broad sphere of research, and as to how it should be done. This amendment does not derogate from any parliamentary or ministerial control.

Clause 2 (f) remedies the position in regard to the purchase or acquisition in any other way, as also the alienation or letting of movable and immovable property by the C.S.I.R.

In terms of the present Section 4 (3) (a) of the principal Act, the C.S.I.R. may, with the approval of the Minister of Economic Affairs, purchase immovable or movable property, or acquire it in any other way, or hire it or alienate it or let it. In other words, it amounts to this, that the Council, for example, may not even purchase stationery without the specific approval of the Minister. This provision has in the past created problems because of the fact that it is impracticable first to obtain ministerial approval for the purchase, for example, of office equipment, in order to satisfy the auditors completely. In this connection I may mention that the annual expenditure of the Council is approved by the Ministers of Economic Affairs and Finance, and that the State’s contribution to the C.S.I.R. is approved by Parliament.

This approval and the voting of money alone, according to the strict interpretation of the Act by the auditors, does not completely comply with the legal requirements, although it cannot be said absolutely positively either that it is not sufficient approval.

In order to remove this uncertainty, the proposed clause now provides that the C.S.I.R. may purchase or otherwise acquire movable property, or let it, etc. without obtaining specific ministerial approval for every transaction. Sufficient control, also from the parliamentary point of view, can still be exercised by way of the annual approval of the Council’s Budget. In the case of the purchase, etc. of immovable property, specific ministerial approval, apart from the parliamentary approval of such expenditure, will still have to be obtained.

In regard to Clause 3, the position is that Section 11 (1) of the principal Act at present provides that any invention made by an employee of the Council or by somebody who has received a bursary from the Council, becomes the property of the C.S.I.R. and that the C.S.I.R. can exercise all rights over it.

It is felt, however, that in cases where inventions or discoveries are made by full-time officials of the Council, or by people who receive bursaries from the Council, are found by the C.S.I.R. to have been made in their spare time and have no connection with the work, knowledge, etc. which they have done for or acquired from the Council, the rights to such inventions and discoveries should not belong exclusively to the C.S.I.R. It is, for example, not impossible that a typist in the service of the Council may in her spare time evolve a new kind of knitting machine, but in terms of the present legal provision this patentable article becomes the property of the Council. The provisions of Clause 3 therefore amount to this, that the employee or the holder of a bursary retains his rights to that invention or discovery, and that the C.S.I.R. can enter into an agreement with that person whereby the C.S.I.R. is enabled to use it.

Lastly, in Clause 4 an attempt is made to achieve a greater measure of freedom of movement or flexibility in the financing of the C.S.I.R. Hon. members will notice that the object of this clause is to replace the present Section 15 of the C.S.I.R. Act with a new Section 15. On broad lines the proposed provisions differ from the present Section 15 as follows—

1. (a) The proposed Section 15 does not distinguish between capital and running funds for the Council, whereas the present section, inter alia, provides that the Council must maintain a capital fund which may only be used for work of a capital nature, and a running fund which may only be used for current expenditure. The section then continues to provide what moneys shall be put into these separate funds and in what proportions;
2. (b) As in the present section, it is provided in the proposed new section that the Council has to submit a budget to the Minister of Economic Affairs for bis consideration once a year. In regard to running funds, the existing section, however, provides that the Minister of Finance, on payment to the C.S.I.R. of the running funds voted by Parliament, may impose any conditions. Also in the case of capital funds it is provided that the Council may invest any portion of it which is not required immediately, but that the interest gained from such investments shall be added to the capital fund. As soon as the Council, however, want to utilize it for other purposes, the approval of the Minister of Economic Affairs must be obtained.
   In view of the fact that running and capital funds will now be consolidated in terms of the proposed provision, the new section merely provides that the Council shall use the funds voted for the broad purposes stated in the annual estimates it submits to the Minister of Economic Affairs. On a careful analysis of this provision it will be found that, in order to give effect to the idea of greater freedom of movement, the Council, under the various broad items of expenditure enumerated in the Estimates submitted to the Minister of Economic Affairs, shall have the right, without the specific approval of the Minister in each particular case, to use capital funds for current expenditure and vice versa if the circumstances of course justify and demand it. In this way, for example, a comprehensive item of expenditure, “Nutritional Research”, may appear in the Council’s estimates, with sub-divisions for motor transport, office equipment, apparatus, etc., all under that item of expenditure. If circumstances demand it, the Council will be able to use funds for motor transport to defray the expenditure on office equipment. It will, however, not be possible to use the funds approved for nutritional research for a completely different item of expenditure like road research. Proper budgeting practice is therefore still being followed;
3. (c) In regard to credit balances at the end of a financial year, the Council shall have the right to utilize such balances during the next financial year as it deems fit. At present the Minister of Finance can impose conditions when paying over funds voted, which, inter alia, amounts to the fact that the Council has to repay to the Treasury any credit balances it has at the end of a financial year. In practice this provision has never applied;
4. (d) In terms of the present provisions, the C.S.I.R. is not allowed to build up reserve funds, whereas the new Section 50 expressly allows it with the approval of the Minister of Economic Affairs.

Hon. members will therefore note that the proposed amendments, within reasonable limits, still ensure the necessary measure of parliamentary and financial control. The greater measure of freedom of movement envisaged will be of the greatest importance to a body like the C.S.I.R. which is entrusted with such an unpredictable function as research. Under the present legal provisions, this freedom was given to the Council as far as possible, but it will be appreciated that the procedure which has to be followed every time the Council, for example, wants to use savings on capital funds to defray shortages on current funds is a time-consuming process and causes an appreciable amount of extra administrative work. Those are factors which do not contribute to the smooth working of this body which in particular, due to the many unpredictable aspects of research, has to take speedy decisions.

I believe that these two amendments will contribute towards eliminating the aforementioned problems, although some of them are not very serious problems.

We are not opposed to the second reading of this Bill, but during the Committee Stage we will ask for further information in respect of certain clauses and will move certain amendments.

This Bill introduces new principles, both in Clause 3 and in Clause 4. In Clause 3 it provides, under certain circumstances, for employees of the C.S.I.R. to get certain advantages and rights if they make discoveries and inventions as the result of their own efforts if these are done in their own time. The ideal state is that every person who works for the State should give their best services in the interest of the State and will give the State the benefit of their discoveries, but we have not reached that Utopian state yet where people are prepared to do everything for society, and if we are going to keep our employees working for the State when they have invented or discovered something which can be of benefit to themselves, we must make provision of this kind. As the Minister knows, we have lost one or two very able officials who have gone to industry because they can do better there than by working for the C.S.I.R. There may be certain difficulties in regard to the interpretation of this clause, but those difficulties will be analyzed and examined in greater detail in the Committee Stage. But it is a step in the right direction because unless we do this some of our best scientists will be lost to the C.S.I.R., because they will get better rewards in private industry.

Clause 4 introduces a new principle in the provision it makes for the financing of the Council, and we will have the opportunity of examining that in greater detail in the Committee Stage. Subject to these observations, we support the second reading of the Bill.

I move—

The amendments proposed in this Bill are, firstly, aimed at ensuring the smoother functioning of the South African Bureau of Standards and, secondly, complying with the need of local authorities in regard to the provision of uniform standard building regulations.

In regard to my first statement, I wish to refer hon. members to Clause 2 of the Bill. In terms of the present Section 10 (2) of the principal Act, the S.A.B.S. Board may, with the approval of the Minister of Economic Affairs, purchase movable or immovable property or otherwise acquire it, or hire it or alienate it or let it. In other words, it amounts to this, to take an extreme example, that the Board cannot even purchase stationery without specific approval by the Minister This provision has created problems in the past because it is impracticable first to obtain ministerial approval for every small purchase of office equipment, for example, in order to satisfy the auditors completely. In this regard I may mention that the Bureau’s annual expenditure is approved by the Ministers of Economic Affairs and Finance and that the State’s contribution to its current and capital expenditure is voted by Parliament.

This approval and voting of funds alone do not completely comply with the legal requirements, according to the strict interpretation of the Act given by the auditors, although it cannot be positively stated either that it is not sufficient approval.

In order, therefore, to remove this uncertainty, the proposed clause now provides that the S.A.B.S. Board may purchase or otherwise acquire movable property or let it, etc. without obtaining specific ministerial approval for every transaction. Sufficient control, also from the parliamentary point of view, will still be exercised by way of the annual approval of the Board’s estimates. In the case of the purchase, etc. of immovable property specific ministerial approval, apart from the parliamentary approval of such expenditure, must still be obtained.

A further step taken to facilitate the functioning of the Bureau is contained in the proposed Clause 3 of the Bill. This proposed provision, which will replace Section 13 of the present Act, is particularly aimed at achieving more flexibility in the financing of the Bureau. In this case, precisely the same principles apply as those which I explained during the second reading debate on the C.S.I.R. Bill, and I therefore believe that hon. members will not expect me to repeat that explanation now.

The other proposed amendments, namely those in connection with the drafting and publication of standard building regulations by the S.A.B.S. are contained in Clauses 1, 4 and 6. The S.A.B.S. has done research during the past 17 years or so and made studies in regard to this matter and has now reached the stage where it can draft a set of model building regulations. The benefits of this work can fruitfully be used by all local authorities in the Republic, and in fact it is at the request of the Provincial Administrations that this amending Bill is being introduced.

After consultation with the Provincial Administration, it was decided that the best procedure would be to achieve the legal application of these regulations by means of an amendment to the Standards Act, rather than to leave the promulgation of it to every province or every local authority separately. One great advantage of this procedure is that the greatest measure of uniformity will be achieved by this method, apart from a tremendous saving in cost in so far as the publication of the regulations is concerned.

In practice the system will work as follows: The first step will be that the S.A.B.S., with the approval of the Minister of Economic Affairs, will publish these standard building regulations in the Government Gazette, together with any amendments thereto. Every local authority will then be able to decide on its own, and with the approval of the Administrator of the province concerned, whether it will accept the whole set or only portions of it as part of its by-laws. Such acceptance of the regulations or of portions thereof, or of later amendments to them, will then be announced in the official Gazette of the province concerned.

In order to combat the problem of the high cost of the publication thereof, it has been agreed that a local authority—

1. (a) if it accepts the regulations as a whole can publish them as its by-laws merely in the form of a brief notice in the official Gazette of the relevant province, which contains a reference to the number and date of the notice in the Government Gazette;
2. (b) if it accepts the regulations in an amended form, takes the same steps I have just described, except that the complete text of the amendment together with a reference to the chapter number and title of the original, which was accepted in amended form, shall also be published.

The proposed amendment in Clauses 1, 4 and 6 therefore only give legal force to the regulations which the S.A. Bureau of Standards makes available and prescribes the procedure which should be followed. I am told that this set of regulations is a model which can be followed by many other countries, and I therefore believe that the House will agree that their application, on a voluntary basis, can be of great benefit to the Republic.

We support the second reading of the Bill, which gives further powers to the Bureau of Standards, which, as the Deputy Minister well knows, was started by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson). While the Bill is giving these additional powers to the Bureau, we trust that the Bureau will not overlap in any way with the work done by other Departments. We want to warn the Minister of the danger of empire building and we hope that there will not be overlapping with the work done by the C.S.I.R. and that as far as possible there will be co-operation and co-ordination of effort. Clause 2 gives the Department power to build its own laboratories, and we do not want to have duplication of effort if that can be avoided.

Clause 3 provides for the financing of the Bureau, which is an administrative matter. Clause 4 deals with the standards for building and we hope that the local authorities, when the standard building regulations are introduced, will as far as possible accept and adopt those standard regulations. Many local authorities unfortunately have the habit of going off on their own and it is better, if we are going to reduce building costs, to have standard building regulations which will be adopted throughout the Republic, which will improve our building standards and help the building industry as a whole to be better acquainted with a standard system rather than to have small variations on the part of many small local authorities. This is an administrative measure and we will pass the second reading.

I am sorry that I have to rise before the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but I do so deliberately, not to anticipate anything which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition may have to say but simply because I think it is necessary and in the interests of South Africa that I should make a perfectly clear statement at this early stage with reference to the resolution which was adopted last night in the Security Council. In this connection I refer to the Sapa-Reuter report which appeared in this morning’s Cape Times, and the first paragraph of which reads as follows—

The United States, Britain and France declined to join the Security Council appeal to the South African Government last night for an amnesty for all people under death sentence, imprisonment or otherwise restricted because of their opposition to apartheid.

It goes without saying, of course, that one is very grateful for the attitude adopted by the United States, Britain and France, and I think also Brazil according to this morning’s radio report. However, that is not what I want to talk about because it is not my function to deal with foreign affairs. I want to confine myself to that portion of the resolution which refers to “people under death sentence, imprisonment or otherwise restricted because of their opposition to apartheid.” It is well known, of course—and I do not say this for the sake of hon. members in this House or for the sake of the public in South Africa but I say it for the sake of the record, for reasons which I shall indicate later on—that the political policy of the National Party Government is one of separate development or apartheid. It is also well known that the official Opposition, the United Party, the Progressive Party and the Liberal Party are opposed to the policy of apartheid; that they do not subscribe to that policy; that is also a fact. Unfortunately this policy is not understood in the outside world—here I am speaking for the sake of the record and hon. members will see in a moment how necessary it is that I should say this for the sake of the record—where it is alleged in season and out of season that it is a crime to oppose the policy of apartheid; that it is not only a crime but that people are in fact charged and detained; that their movements are restricted and that they are even sentenced to death purely and simply because they are opposed to the policy of apartheid. I want to make it perfectly clear, with reference to the words contained in this report, that no person has ever been sentenced to death in South Africa because he has opposed the policy of apartheid. I want to make it perfectly clear that there is not a single prisoner in any gaol in South Africa who is serving a sentence because he has protested against the policy of apartheid; because he does not subscribe to it or because he is opposed to it. Furthermore, I want to make it perfectly clear that no person has had his movements restricted in any respect, in terms of the powers at my disposal, on the ground that he is opposed to apartheid. There is no such thing in South Africa that people are sentenced to death, that they are thrown into prison or that their movements are restricted because they are opposed to apartheid. The Opposition can testify to the fact that every person in South Africa is entitled, always ha§ been entitled and always will be entitled to oppose apartheid and to establish a political party to oppose the principle of apartheid, and indeed there are such political parties already. It is necessary unfortunately that I should make it perfectly clear that it is no crime or offence to oppose apartheid in South Africa. Since it is stated in this resolution that people have been sentenced to death, that they have been thrown into gaol or that their movements have been restricted “because of their opposition to apartheid” I want to emphasize again that that statement is devoid of all truth. It so happens that I have received protests in the past few months from various parts of the world, protests from which it is perfectly clear that there are people abroad who adopt the attitude that people are convicted here, that they are even sentenced to death, simply because they protest against apartheid. I have even received protests in connection with the three persons to whom reference has been made here previously and whose case is at present before the Appellate Division, namely Mini, Khaba and Khayinga, who were sentenced to death in the Eastern Cape court by Mr. Justice O’Hagan for the coldblooded, premeditated murder of a fellow-Bantu. I have received many protests from the outside world in connection with this case. They go so far as to say that the only crime committed by these people, apart from the fact that they protested against apartheid, is that they engaged in trade union activities; they say that we have reached the stage in South Africa where a person no longer has the right even to take part in trade union activities without running the risk of being sentenced to death. There are also protests from the outside world to the effect that we no longer tolerate an Opposiion in South Africa; that no Opposition Party is allowed to exist in South Africa. Well, it is scarcely necessary to say it here in the South African Parliament but it is necessary to say to the outside world for the sake of the record that we do have an Opposition in this House. It is not for me to say how dead or alive they are, but we do have an Opposition here, and the statement that there is no longer an Opposition here, that no opposition is tolerated in South Africa and that all opposition in South Africa is in fact suppressed, is one which is devoid of all truth. Against the background of this resolution adopted by the Security Council, may I just show hon. members what sort of protests we receive from the outside world. Let me start with a protest which I received yesterday from the Communist Party of Australia. The resolution which they sent to me reads as follows—

The West Australian State Conference of the Communist Party of Australia expresses its strongest opposition to the repressive laws now being used against the people of South Africa which have resulted in death sentences being imposed on political opponents of the South African Government.

I second.

You are talking nonsense.

That is so; but you are afraid to speak out against the English-language newspapers.

Hon. members know what the position is, but these are the things which are being said. It may be said perhaps that these things are only being said by communists, but communists are not the only people who say these things; there are many other people who say the same thing; whether they are communists or not I do not know. Sir, I received the following protest this morning from a group of persons in Britain—

The only trade union of which I am aware to which these three persons belong is the Murder Incorporated trade union. Let me give hon. members a further example. Here I have a protest from a source of which one must take notice, coming as it does from the River Workers of Great Britain—

That is the attitude which they adopt. Then I received the following protest from the Australian Trade Union Congress—

The suggestion here is that they were sentenced to death because they stood for the right to strike—

I should like hon. members to listen to the next paragraph—

Here I have a protest emanating from the Butman section of the Communist Party of Australia—

Note the use of the word “persecution”—

Then finally this last protest emanating from the Scottish Trade Union Congress General Council, in which they say—

It should really read “three”—

In spite of the fact that the true facts of the case were sent out into the world, in spite of the fact that we went out of our way to make the true facts widely known, this statement is not only made by these people but it is repeated by those countries which voted in the majority on the Security Council.

I just want to make it perfectly clear again that no person in South Africa has been sentenced to death, imprisoned or otherwise restricted in his movements because he has protested against apartheid, because he does not subscribe to the policy of apartheid or because he has attacked that policy.

Before my Vote is discussed, I think I should continue where I left off last year. Hon. members will remember that last year when my Vote was under discussion I gave the Committee a review of the security position in this country. I do not think my Vote can be fruitfully discussed unless I give the Committee a very brief review right at the outset so that we will at least know what we are talking about and what the background to the present situation is. Hon. members will recall that it was my privilege to tell the Committee last year that we had succeeded, thanks to the steps taken by the S.A. Police Force, in breaking the back of the terrorist organization with which we had to contend at that time, namely Poqo. Hon. members will recall that I also stated that all that remained was to undertake certain mopping-up operations. Those mopping-up operations, as hon. members are aware, have since been carried out with thoroughness. The terrorists in question were arrested and brought before the courts of South Africa. I am in a position to tell hon. members to-day that 1,162 of these Poqo terrorists were found guilty by the courts. But they will also recall that at the time the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other members said to me, “You boast about having wiped out Poqo, but Poqo is not the only danger.” They quite correctly said to me, “There is perhaps a greater danger and that is the danger of the organization known as Umkonto we Sizwe.” As a matter of fact I had said so here myself. On the one hand hon. members levelled the reproach against me that at that stage that organization had not yet been wiped out. I told them that we would give our attention to this organization during the recess; that I had the fullest confidence that the S.A. Police would also break the back of this organization; that the S.A. Police, as far as it was humanly possible, would also exterminate this organization to perpetuate peace and order in South Africa. Hon. members will recall that the Leader of the Opposition told me that they based their attitude in that connection not on information which I had given here but on independent information which the Leader of the Opposition had at his disposal. Just as I was able to announce last year that the back of the one terrorist organization had been broken, it is my pleasant privilege now to be able to say to the Committee that the back of the other terroristic organization, namely Umkonto we Sizwe, has also been broken. I do not know what attitude the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is going to adopt in that connection, but I am in a position to say to the Committee that thanks to the steps which I am going to mention in a moment, I am once again able to announce, as I did last year, in spite of the threat that the Government would be taken over in 1963— and hon. members will remember that I told the Committee with the fullest confidence that these terrorist organizations would not take over in 1963 nor in 1964 nor in 1965 nor at any time after 1965—that we still have peace and calm in South Africa and that as far as this Government is concerned it will do everything in its power to maintain that peace and calm by maintaining law and order in South Africa and ensuring the safety of the individual and, more importantly, the safety of the State as a whole. I was accused by certain hon. members last year of boasting when I stated that I had the fullest confidence that these organizations would not be able to take over the reins of government in 1963 or 1964 or at any time after 1964. Mr. Chairman, we have peace and calm in South Africa, firstly, because the Government, in spite of all the criticism directed against it, did not hesitate for a single moment to maintain law and order in South Africa. We have peace and calm in South Africa because the Bantu—and I say this because it is becoming clearer to me day by day—have realized more and more that the policy of separate development not only holds out benefits for the White man but also for the Bantu. I am very glad to be able to say to the Committee that we have had very fine co-operation from the Bantu population of South Africa in connection with the mopping up of subversive elements. Mr. Chairman, we have peace and calm in South Africa as a result of the measures taken by the Government—and when I talk about measures taken by the Government I mean each and every one of those measures, both those with which the Opposition agreed and those with which they did not agree—we have peace and calm in South Africa because the broad masses of the public —of that I am convinced—support the Government in the maintenance of law and order in South Africa. It is particularly gratifying to be able to say openly in this Committee that the measures taken by this Government are wholeheartedly supported not only by those who support my party but also by the ordinary man in the street who supports the Opposition. It is up to the Leader of the Opposition and members of the Opposition to tell us what their attitude is in that connection; I cannot speak on their behalf; they must speak for themselves. Lastly we have peace and tranquility in South Africa because, thanks to the great zeal and the hard work of the police, we have succeeded in these past months in bringing before the courts of South Africa those people who were responsible for sabotage and other subversive activities. It is my duty now to give an account of my stewardship in that connection. Since we last met here, 269 people have been brought before the courts and found guilty of sabotage, that is to say, of destroying railway installations, post office installations, power installations, buildings, etc. I am not referring now to members of Poqo; I refer to supporters of the A.N.C. or Spear of the Nation. One hundred and fifty of them have been found guilty on minor charges. Hon. members will recall that we were faced with the problem that people went abroad to receive training there in sabotage and then came back here to commit subversive acts in South Africa. In this case too I told the Committee that although it was very difficult to exercise control because of our long boundaries, we would do our best to bring those people to book. I am very glad to be able to tell hon. members that 126 such people have been found guilty by the courts of South Africa. Since we last met here 78 people have been found guilty of murder— murders which are described in these protests as “trade union activities”! This figure includes the murders at Bashee Bridge; it includes the murders at Paarl; it includes the murders of Bantu headmen, and it includes the murders of detectives and witnesses.

That is so; but you are afraid to speak out against the English-language newspapers.

How many were found guilty of murder in the Bashee Bridge case?

Twenty-two. Six persons have been found guilty of conspiracy to murder, and six have been found guilty of attempted murder. In these circumstances I think I can say that we have also succeeded to a very large extent in breaking the back of this other terrorist organization. One can never be sure, of course, for reasons which I am going to mention in a moment. But I say to the committee that apart from the factors which I have mentioned, apart from the action taken by the police, one of the most important facts which gave rise to these convictions and which helped to bring about the peace and calm that we have in South Africa to-day was the fact that Parliament passed this 90-day provision—and it did so just in time. Hon. members know what threats were being made against South Africa. Sir, I am not speculating here; I do not say this because I want to justify the 90-day clause but hon. members will have read in the Press that many prominent accused persons admitted in court that they were planning to do certain things—and if they had put their plans into effect the inevitable result would have been a very great upheaval in this country— but they said that they could not carry out their plans, that they abandoned them, because the 90-day provision made it impossible for them to do so. I do not want to enlarge upon this but I want to deal now with the 90-day provision itself. Hon. members are aware of the fact that Parliament has to approve of the extension of this provision. They know that this provision will lapse after 30 June unless it is extended by way of proclamation by the State President. Hon. members, and the Leader of the Opposition in particular, may ask me why I do not immediately repeal the 90-day provision in view of my statement that I have broken the back of this organization and that we have calm and peace in this country. I gladly reply to that question.

I told hon. members last year that the back of Poqo had been broken but that we still had to do a certain amount of mopping up. The same applies to Umkonto we Sizwe. The back of that organization has been broken but there is a certain amount of absolutely essential mopping-up work that remains to be done. Secondly the position is—and I must first see what is going to happen—that instructions have been given by the communist party outside this country that pending the verdict in the Rivonia case, acts of sabotage in South Africa must be kept down to a minimum. Judgment will be given in that case to-morrow. I do not know, and nobody knows, what steps are going to be taken after the judgment. But I want to say that we are ready for whatever may come, just as we were ready for all eventualities in the past. We would like to give South Africa the assurance that the lives and property of our people will continue to be protected as in the past. I gladly give that assurance on behalf of the Government and, in particular, on behalf of the South African Police.

But, thirdly, I must take into account the fact that the communists and their fellow-travellers, as the result of the severe blow dealt to them, have started a new recruiting campaign; they are re-grouping themselves. I naturally have to see what the effect of that is going to be. I must also take into account the fact that various Africa states are continually and openly inciting people to commit violence and murder in South Africa. I have to take into account the fact that that incitement comes not only from the Africa states as such but even from the Anti-apartheid Committee in England and from the so-called Christian Council, whose secretary is a communist, in Britain. I also have to take into account the campaign of agitation which has been launched by the communists themselves. But, to come nearer home, Mr. Chairman, I have to take into account the fact that Leballo, in spite of the fact, as I said last year and as the facts have proved, is a braggart and a liar, is still in Basutoland, and not only Leballo but the whole of his Presidential Council; that they are organizing murder from Basutoland and that instructions are going out from Basutoland to people in South Africa to commit acts of violence here. I have to take into account the fact that Leballo has boasted—whether this is true or not I cannot say—that he has a bomb arsenal in the mountains of Basutoland and that he will not hesitate to use those bombs. I must see what happens in Basutoland to Leballo and his supporters. I have no jurisdiction there.

Moreover, Mr. Chairman, I have to see what the position is and how it develops in connection with the various sabotage camps which have been organized in Africa—in Ethiopia, in the Congo, Ghana, Tanganyika, Algeria, etc. Although I am going to advise the Cabinet to extend the 90-day provision further by way of proclamation when it lapses on 30 June, it seems to me that depending on all these things, depending on the internal situation in South Africa, it may be possible for me, thanks to the progress that we have made, to advise the Cabinet during the forthcoming recess to suspend this provision. It must be understood perfectly clearly, however, that if it is suspended it will be brought into operation again as often as it is necessary to do so to ensure the safety of South Africa and her people. I want to make that perfectly clear. Whatever criticism there may be and from whatever source that criticism may come, if this provision is suspended during the recess, it will be brought into operation again if it is in the interests of South Africa to do so or if the circumstances justify it. I believe, however, that the conditions will be such that it will be possible for me to make that recommendation to the Cabinet. Sir, I felt that it was incumbent upon me to make this announcement to the Committee before the commencement of this debate.

Finally, while I am on my feet, I hope hon. members on the other side will permit me to make just one further observation. Last year, while my Vote was under discussion, the hon. member for Houghton moved on behalf of the Progressive Party that my salary be suspended. The Opposition then found itself in a very difficult position. As a politician I understood their position. They were in a very difficult position, but eventually they voted in favour of that amendment. But it is not in the interests of Parliament and it is not in the interests of the country that the lead in that connection should be taken by the Progressive Party. I am convinced that the hon. member for Houghton will again put forward the same proposal in the light of the statement which I have just made here. But I do not think it is a good thing that we should have a repetition of what happened here last year; if therefore the Leader of the Opposition has not toyed with this idea himself, I want to suggest to him that it would be better for him to move such an amendment and not to wait for the hon. member for Houghton to do so. I shall not take it amiss if he does so; I understand his position. I understand that he is in this difficult position that certain newspapers which support him expect him to move such an amendment. Far be it from me to deprive the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of his support or to hold it against him if he does decide to do so. I want to conclude by saying that in case that idea has not occurred to him, it would be a good thing if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition rather moved such an amendment himself because then we will not be putting Parliament to shame as we did here last year.

Mr. Chairman, there is no point in my asking for the privilege of the half-hour at this stage.

Order! Before the hon. the Leader of the Opposition continues, I just want to point out that Votes 47 and 48 can also be discussed.

Thank you, Sir. There seems no point in asking for the half-hour at this stage. I shall therefore satisfy myself with a few preliminary remarks. First of all, I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that the question of his salary is one which will depend upon his behaviour in this debate. Secondly, I should like to say that he has made quite a promising beginning. I think he was extremely wise to make use of this opportunity to make the statement which he did concerning the three Bantu, whose case is still sub judice, and the charges against them as a result of the propaganda made overseas, particularly in Australia. The Australians appear to be avid letter-writers. They have even written to me and I have passed those letters on to the Minister. Since the hon. the Minister thought it necessary to make certain remarks for the purposes of the record I think it would be wise perhaps if I too made certain remarks for the purposes of the record. I think those remarks should take the form of making it perfectly clear that the official Opposition in South Africa believes, and believes very firmly, that Article 2, sub-article (7) of the Charter of the United Nations Organization, should be observed in the spirit in which it was originally drafted and that as far as we as an Opposition are concerned, we shall tolerate no interference in the internal affairs of South Africa by anybody or by any country. It was for that reason that on previous occasions we supported protests by this Government at action by the Security Council. I think, for the purposes of the record. I should say one or two other things. The first is that there is a free parliamentary Opposition in South Africa. I can testify to that. The second is that there is a free Press in South Africa. I can testify to that as well. There is a third thing that I should like to say, Sir, and that is that that free parliamentary Opposition and that free Press are South Africa’s greatest assets in the outside world.

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

Afternoon Sitting

When business was suspended I was speaking for the record as the hon. the Minister had done. There is one more thing I would like to say for the record and that is that the Opposition attests, as indeed it should, that it is no crime to oppose apartheid in South Africa; that there is no such crime and that nobody can be convicted for stating that he is opposed to apartheid and that he opposes the policies of this Government. Since everybody knows that, I have wondered why it should be that the propaganda of the kind which is obviously being made in certain countries overseas should have even a small measure of success. I believe there are two reasons for that; the one perhaps the fault of the Government and the other perhaps the fault of the Minister. Many, of the people who are opposed to apartheid have no means of political expression. Because they have no means of political expression it is readily believed, when they engage in underground activities, that they are in trouble because they are opposing apartheid. I think the second reason is because of the unwillingness of this Minister, and his predecessor in office as well, to give adequate reasons for banning and restrictions on the liberties of individuals. I believe that if people outside knew why certain individuals had been banned or restricted, and it was made public, there would be an end to this sort of nonsense and the success of propaganda of this kind.

I return now to the Minister and his understandable anxiety about his salary. I wish to raise three important matters with him. The first is naturally the security of the country and the 90-day clause. The second has to do with passive or civilian defence in South Africa and the third has to do with his conduct of his prisons and the escape of prisoners, both awaiting trial and after sentence.

When one speaks about the security of the country I think there is a great measure of satisfaction and a deep sense of gratitude that the Minister can give us the sort of report he gave us this morning. I think he believes he is getting on top of these organizations and I think that we on this side of the House owe a very sincere debt of gratitude towards the South African Police for the magnificent work they have done in that regard. But there are still queries which remain unanswered. Perhaps the Minister cannot answer them but I believe they must be put, also for the sake of the record.

Why not try me and ask them?

The Minister has told us of the large number of people who have gone outside South Africa to receive training in sabotage. He has told us how many he has picked up on their return; I think 126.

Not only on their return—going and coming.

Going and coming. He has said elsewhere that the number who have gone out may be as high as 5,000 but he admits that it is extremely difficult to give us any idea of what the figure can be. I think we should have some indication from the Minister as to what the position is in respect of the organizations sending those people out. Have they lost heart? Are they continuing? Are they coming back and giving us full details as they seem to be doing in Rhodesia, according to reports that have been made available to me? Are they still organized? Do their movements still mean anything? Have we any clarity yet as to who is financing them? I think those are questions to which the attention of the Minister should be drawn.

He said that South Africa was peaceful and quiet and that peace and security had been restored. But in spite of the fact that that peace and security have been restored he still wishes to retain the exceptional weapons which he found necessary during a time of crisis. He gave us reasons why he wished to retain those weapons. I do not think any of those reasons were new except, perhaps, the information which he made available that the communists had decided to go easy, according to him, on sabotage in South Africa until after the Rivonia trial result comes out. I believe with the Minister that the crisis is past; that is my information as well, for what it is worth. The crisis being past, is it necessary still to retain these extreme weapons which he needed in a time of near emergency? The hon. the Minister has made no bones of the fact that the weapon which he regards as the most important is the 90-day clause which entitled him, on suspicion, to retain an individual for 90 days until he has answered questions to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Police.

all individuals; only certain categories of individuals.

Are you sure he has not got you?

I am surprised at a remark like that of the hon. the Prime Minister after the mess he has landed himself in with his new commission. Does he not realize what he has landed himself in? He asks if the Minister has not got me. I think we have got them both. But what I regard as a real tragedy is that the Minister is not showing that little bit of extra courage to come forward now and take this step at this stage. You see, Sir, despite his confident words, that fact that we will not go any further gives the impression that he is still a little bit jittery, still a little bit worried about what may happen. It gives the impression, which I think is a terrible pity, that he does not think his police can manage the situation without these extraordinary weapons. I think he is doing his police an injustice. I think he is undermining the self-confidence of every decent policeman who wants to get back to normal methods. I believe that by continuing with this measure, he is continually placing the courts in a most invidious position. Do you appreciate, Sir, that it was only a day or two ago that a magistrate in Cape Town refused to accept confessions from two 90-day detainees who gave evidence before the court?

That is nothing new. That is in accordance with our law. I did not expect him to accept the evidence.

This is most interesting, and I am going to take the Minister up on this. Here is what the magistrate said—

Sir, how many other cases have there been where the police have sought to use confessions made by people when they were under 90-day detention? If that is the Minister’s view, why does he allow that evidence to be brought in trials? Surely his instructions then to his public prosecutors and his police should be that they may use this weapon to find information, but they may not bring evidence before the courts of any confession or evidence given as a result of this. The hon. Minister says he expected the court to throw out those confessions. Mr. Chairman, where are we getting to now? You see, Sir, I think the courts are in a most invidious position, and I think by continuing with this clause the hon. gentleman is continuing to offend the conscience of a large section of the nation. You see, Sir, like the Minister they believe that the emergency is over, and what they might have been prepared to stomach in an emergency they are not prepared to stomach when they do not believe the emergency exists any more. I think it is a pity that the Minister will not take this step now for two further reasons. He knows as well as I know, and he said so in his statement this morning, that the fact that this clause is not re-promulgated does not mean that he is deprived of it permanently. He knows he retains the power to have it re-promulgated at any time on his advice to the Cabinet and advice to the State President, if necessary within a couple of hours. It is not a question of chopping off the hands of the police as he was saying in the past. He is merely saying to them: Now fight according to the accepted rules of civilized countries once again; I dislike this clause almost as much as you do; you need no longer offend your consciences, you need no longer repudiate your training as good policemen. I believe the hon. Minister does not like this clause. I believe he would like to get rid of it. What it needs is a little courage, a little determination at this stage. What new dangers is he faced with that he has not been faced with during the last two years? I think there is a second reason why it is a pity that he will not expedite the uplifting of this clause, and that is that nothing, absolutely nothing, could do more to change South Africa’s image overseas and relieve outside pressure on the Republic than the decision not to re-promulgate the clause. I believe the hon. gentleman could do a great deal for South Africa, and I believe he would lose nothing. I believe it would not be showing weakness, I believe it would be a sign of strength on the part of the Minister and on the part of the Government.

There is an awful lot one could say about this 90-day clause. We have always been against it. We have pointed out its dangers. I think the hon. Minister has appreciated what those dangers are, and I think the time in which it has been in operation has shown that it is a danger to the police. I wonder whether full use is made of the existing methods when this method is available. I believe it has placed the courts in a very difficult position. I believe it has done a lot to besmirch the image of South Africa outside our country. I do not propose to take up time dealing with it. It has been condemned by leading psychologists, it has been condemned by some 100 university professors, it has been condemned by 19 of South Africa’s most important Church representatives, representing, they say—I cannot say—some 5,000,000 Christians.

You cannot say!

Can my hon. friend deny it? These people say they represent 5,000,000 Christians. Is anybody here prepared to get up here and deny that?

Who are they?

It is always amazing to me to have interjections of this kind from people who do not know what is being talked about. I go further and say you cannot brush those people aside and say that they are leftists, that they are fellow-travellers, that they are all liberals, that they are all misled. I believe a very large number of them are ordinary, good South African citizens. I believe the Minister himself as a lawyer with legal training, as one who has been locked up himself, appreciates some of the dangers. I think he realizes a great deal of what this criticism is about and what it means. Sir, one of the troubles we have had with the administration of this clause, and one of the troubles I fear we may continue to have while it is in operation is that the conditions under which detainees are held, it would appear, differ from place to place. It would appear that they vary to such an extent that one is left with the impression that there are conditions pertaining in certain areas which could do permanent harm to the detainee. I was much struck by an article which appeared in the Byvoegsel of the Burger. It was an account of a detainee in Holland during the war, written by a Dutch resistance fighter. Here is what he said. I know he was guilty. I know it was war-time. I know his conditions were severe—

Where is the parallel?

Where is the parallel?

If he is guilty you have the right to punish him. But is this the punishment which you prescribe for him in trying to find out whether he is guilty or not? You see you may do far more harm …

All supposition.

I think keeping quiet for 30 days would be the biggest punishment he would ever have to have. You see, Sir, the Minister knows and I know that you can break a man under those conditions, and he knows what the responsibility is. Is it necessary for it to be continued? What has been the Minister’s defence up to now when he has been charged with carrying on these provisions too long? The Minister’s defence has been: Have I abused my powers? Sir, how can powers be abused? I think there are three ways. One is the conditions under which you hold a man.

Koffiefontein!

Listen to that. Koffiefontein was a Sunday-school holiday compared to what is happening to these people. The second possibility is that the man may be ill treated while he is detained. The third is that he may have been wrongly held. Sir, I have spoken about varying conditions of detainment. In respect of ill treatment of detainees, I want to say straight away that there have been many complaints in the courts as the hon. Minister knows, complaints in some cases by state witnesses who have given evidence, and I think that what happened at Bultfontein was a shock to the nation. And it is no answer to me to say that the police uncovered that scandal themselves and took the necessary steps. I would expect them to do that.

Why raise that?

Not at Bultfontein.

No, I know. Is the hon. member so childish that he really does not know what we are talking about? The question is the confidence in the police. If they could do it to a prisoner, they could do it to detainees. The position, I think, is this that the Minister, I think, will tell us that these complaints are being investigated by the police. Once again we have the police investigating themselves. I say here and I do not believe I will be contradicted by any self-respecting policeman in South Africa that that is not fair to the police. And it is not fair to the Minister. He has brought it on him self and perhaps he deserves it, but it is not fair to the Minister because he staked his reputation and his honour on the fair treatment of people who are being detained in this way.

I told the hon. Minister once before because of complaints made to me that either this was a pattern of behaviour amongst the police, or the people complaining were regimented conspirators who had been taught to bring in complaints of this kind the moment they were charged or locked up.

You do not know how right you are.

I possibly do know how right I am. I am afraid I am right in both suppositions. That is what worries me. If I were right in only one, I would not worry, but I am afraid I may be right in both. Now, Sir, the Government side opted for the fact that all these people had been regimented and trained … [Interjections.]

What rabble!

I am not surprised, Mr. Chairman. They do not like hearing the truth and they cannot take it. They are going to hear a lot more. One thing they will not do is to keep me quiet. I say the other side of the House opted for the belief that this was the result of training amongst those who were detained. But after Bultfontein can we believe that? Because the very things of which they were complaining it is now being proved were things of which the police in one police station were guilty. If they could have been guilty in one case, are we quite sure that they could not be guilty in another?

They have been punished. What more do you want?

Order! Hon. members should give the hon. Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to make his speech.

We are also worried because of what happened at White River. They were also punished. So what? So it happened in two police stations. There may be some more, and it may be that some of these complaints are justified, and it may be that there has been an abuse. I do not know. But I believe the hon. Minister is not fair in asking the police to investigate themselves. He is not fair either to the police or to himself. I think it leaves us all with a sense of uncertainty, it leaves us all hoping that all is well, but fearing that it may not be. It does the country no good either.

As to the third possibility of abuse, the possibility that people may have been wrongly held …

Do you know of one case?

I am going to draw the Minister’s attention to several things now. I expected that question. First of all I want to draw his attention to a pamphlet that has been put out and is getting fairly wide circulation, in which two statements are made, both of which I believe to be incorrect, but I want the Minister to contradict them publicly so that this story does not go on going round the country.

The Russell pamphlet?

Yes, this is Russell’s pamphlet. May I draw your attention particularly to the allegation that a certain Detective-Sergeant Card said on 29 January—

That is obviously impossible, and I think the hon. Minister should deal with it so that this does not gain currency. The next thing is that he will be getting a letter from Australia. The second point is—

I do not believe that is possible either. But I want this Minister to say that categorically.

By now you know that Russell is a liar.

I am not accepting that Russell is a liar. I am accepting that this information is incorrect. But the one statement was made in a newspaper, and it is now for the Minister to put these things right.

When it comes to the question as to whether a man has been rightly or wrongly held, perhaps only the Minister knows, because he tells us he investigates every case personally, and of the 200 odd who were let out before their time and who were not charged, I accept at once that those who have talked (I believe the word is “sung”) will not talk about it. They will be afraid of reprisals. Many of them will say that they have not talked who possibly have tajked. I do not believe that we shall ever be able to find out accurately what the position is. But what worries me is that it would be a very brave man who would complain that he had been wrongly held, because he would always have at the back of his mind the fear that he might be held again. I want to say to the hon. the Minister: Can he put his hand on his heart and tell us that not one of those 200 who were released and not charged failed to give the information the police suspected he had? [Time limit.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not moved that the Minister’s salary should be reduced. Had the Standing Rules of the House only allowed me to do so, not only would I have moved that the salary of the Leader of the Opposition be deleted, but that he be fined for this pathetic exhibition he gave here this afternoon. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asks why this image exists overseas, why the false idea exists abroad that we do not have a free Press in South Africa. He asks why the idea prevails there that any opposition against apartheid is a crime. Sir, I lay the accusation at his door that it is he and his friends of the English Press who tell the outside world that there is no free Press in South Africa, and I lay it at his door and at the door of the English language Press that they have said that it is a crime to oppose apartheid in South Africa. I shall prove that chapter and verse. The hon. member now says that there is a free Press in South Africa. He knows Mr. Horace Flather, the doyen of the journalists in South Africa, the chief editor of the senior newspaper in South Africa. What does Horace Flather write about the freedom of the Press in the Bulletin of the International Press Institute? He says—

That is Horace Flather, an editor in this country who says that if anyone writes about the grievances of the Black man he can be deported. I asked the Leader of the Opposition on various occasions to repudiate it, and he refused to do so.

The hon. the Minister of Justice has expressed his concern that some of the countries in the Security Council decided to ask that these people should be released because they say that they were condemned because they opposed apartheid in South Africa. I want to tell them this, that this does not surprise me at all. It does not surprise me that the Afro-Asian countries did that. It does not surprise me that Norway came to the conclusion that these people were being detained in prisons and banned and condemned to death because they opposed apartheid. What surprises me is that Britain and America and France and Brazil had the sense to analyse these things. Because in recent years some of the most senior newspapers in South Africa and some of the most senior journalists here told the outside world that it was a crime to oppose apartheid in South Africa.

Are you asking for another Press Commission?

What those people decided in the Security Council is what the English language Press prescribed to them. When the hon. the Minister said it, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) said it was not true. I shall now read to him what was said by the English language Press in South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon. members are now making a row because this is the damning proof … [Interjections.] You see, Sir, these are attempts to distract the attention of the House from these damning things I am now going to mention. Because I say it is they and their newspapers who have told the outside world that it is a crime to oppose apartheid in South Africa. Here I have the first quotation—

This was not written by a child, but was published in the Sunday Express and written by one of the leaders of the Progressive Party, Professor Julius Loewin. It is an infamous lie. Here is the next one—

This is a report by the International Society of Jurists which was quoted by the Eastern Province Herald on its front page without a single word of contradiction. But listen to this one—

This is what they tell the world—

And then this—

The “opponents of apartheid”. Then they continue to say this—

How. Sir, can you expect other countries to think otherwise than that opposition to apart heid is a crime if this is what is told to the world? And what I have quoted here was written by Stanley Uys in the Sunday Times.But let us come to more responsible people. We come to the editor of the Cape Timesand what he told the outside world in regard to what this Government was doing with the opponents of apartheid—not criminals, not saboteurs, but with the opponents of apartheid. The editor of the Cape Times wrote this—

He tells the world that this Government “is stopping criticism by force”, and then he continues—

I ask the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) whether, when these people are told this sort of thing, he blames them for saying that these people have been condemned to death because they opposed apartheid?

They are unimportant people.

Who are unimportant? The majority in the Security Council? Is Norton an unimportant man? Let me read the following, and let the hon. member say whether he is also an unimportant man. The editor of the Star writes in a leading article—

Unfortunately all African opinion, however moderate, is now suppressed unless it supports apartheid.

[Time limit.]

It was interesting to hear the diatribe of the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee), more particularly as his Government had the Press Commission sitting for 14 years, which funked examining the activities of the South African Press. For 14 years they sat and could make out no case against the South African Press. They have left it now to this poor unfortunate hon. gentleman to come and cry like a baby because a lot of the reports in the newspapers are half-truths. What are he and his Minister of Information doing? It is not my job to put them right; it is theirs. Instead of which, he comes here and tries to blame us for what the Press is doing in South Africa, which he does not like anyway, and already he has revealed that he does not know the law, through some of the stupid statements he has made.

But I want to come back to the Minister of Justice. I asked him whether he could put his hand on his heart and give us the assurance that no one of those 200 people who were released and not charged had failed to give the information of which the police suspected them to have knowledge. Can he tell me that there was not a single case where the police believed that a man had information and in fact it turned out that they were wrong? I will not say that is abuse, but I say that is the sort of thing of which one has to be careful. The Minister said no one need stay inside for one minute if he talks. Can that be right? He has to satisfy the Commissioner of Police. The statements have to go to the Commissioner, and that does not happen just overnight. I have been given information of at least one detainee who was held for 15 days and claims not to have been interrogated. I will give the Minister the name. But let us suppose for a moment that the powers which the Minister has under this clause have not been abused at all.

Why not give me the name now so that I can have it investigated in the meantime?

I will hand it to you. Supposing it has not been abused at all, is that a justification for continuing with the clause? Even without any abuse at all, this is a terrible power and a dangerous one, and the Minister knows it. Yet he is keeping it at the moment, more to meet a potential emergency than an existing one. He says there is no emergency. He says he is keeping it to meet a potential emergency, which of course may never recur. One asks oneself whether the Minister is doing the country more good than harm by keeping this clause in force longer than is necessary after 30 June. I have no doubt what the effect, is in the outside world. The effect is harmful indeed. I agree, of course, that that should not be the criterion; it is merely a factor. We must decide ourselves; it must not be left to the outside world to influence us. But if by taking a step here we can relieve pressure on the Republic and do ourselves no harm, it is worth considering.

The question is: What is the position internally? Do we really have to confess that after the activities of the police and after people were charged and brought to court, we are still in a position to-day in which the Minister cannot maintain peace and quiet without these tremendous powers? It seems to me that if we admit a thing like that, we are doing irreparable harm internally; we are continuing to place the police in a difficult position and to embarrass the courts and to affront the conscience of a large part of the nation, and we are continuing to run the risk that certain people will be done a grave injustice. That is all I want to say about the 90 days’ clause.

But I do want to say a word about the Minister’s administration of his powers, which entitle him to ban or restrict people. I want to ask him whether an appeal was made to him on behalf of a man called Vigne who was banned to reply to a statement made about him on a privileged occasion by the Minister of Justice in the Transkeian Legislative Assembly. It may be that there is something in that statement which the Minister thinks is exceptional, but it does seem to me a strange situation that a man can virtually be accused of murder, or something very close to it, by a Minister on a privileged occasion, and the Minister who has the power to let that man reply should refuse to let him reply to clear his name and state what the position is. It may be that there is an explanation. I put it to the Minister because I would like to know what the facts are and what his reaction is.

There is another matter in respect of the Minister’s use of his powers, and that is in connection with the one man held under Section 4 of the General Laws Amendment Bill, Sobukwe, at Robben Island. Questions have revealed that he applied for a one-way exit permit to leave South Africa with his family in February this year. We are now in June, and according to the last reply the Minister gave in the House the matter was still receiving consideration. It does seem to me an awfully long time to consider a matter like that. May we know what the Minister’s decision is?

I have already advised his attorneys.

I do not know his attorneys. We asked a question here last week, and Parliament is entitled to know, and I would be grateful if the Minister would give us some idea of the reasons for the delay. I think it is perhaps better if I take up the other subjects I want to raise later on when this part of the debate is finished.

I should like to deal with what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in respect of the 90-day clause. I should like to point out to the House that if he is concerned about the picture of South Africa existing overseas …

Then we must get another Government.

… then he must not seek the fault with us. He must blame the Opposition of which he is the leader. I should like to explain only one thing that happens.

The hon. member is concerned about the picture outside. He links together the 90-day clause and the detentions thereunder with the assaults by the police on people who are detained for trial. He pretends that it is one and the same thing. This is a distortion of the worst degree, but just a little. Only the enlightened people know that he has made a false representation. He goes further. He creates the impression that this 90-day clause has been introduced to ascertain whether people are guilty. That is the second lie told here in respect of the meaning of that clause. The measure is not intended to establish whether a person is guilty; it is not intended to extort confessions under pressure. However, the hon. the Leader tries very hard to create that impression. He quotes the magistrate of Cape Town, who refused to accept a confession made by a prisoner detained under that clause. Now he gives the impression that the police detained him for 90 days in order to extort that confession.

Why did the State use it then?

Because it is not for the Attorney-General to decide whether a confession has been made voluntarily, and whether all the other requirements have been complied with. The Judge or the magistrate has to decide that. That point was raised here when we debated the matter and we said that when such a confession is produced, an impartial Judge will decide whether it is a voluntary confession. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Pinelands will get his opportunity. He now tries to create the impression that we would like the magistrate to accept a confession made under those circumstances. It is the same thing with the distortions made by the London Times; it is just a little distorted, but just enough to damage the picture of South Africa overseas. They always just attach a semblance of truth to it. The hon. member says the crisis has passed and therefore all these measures must be abolished. Does he want another crisis to develop so that we must once again pass those measures so that the Opposition may once again slander South Africa overseas?

When did the Opposition slander South Africa?

Every day. The hon. member has just done so again. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has created the impression that the 90-day clause is there to extort confessions. That is a false representation, and in making it he is the alibi of the English journalists who send reports overseas. [Interjections.] But I shall give him the second one too. He created the impression that it was the practice of the police to maltreat prisoners, and he mentioned the Bultfontein case. But he would not have known of it had the newspapers not blazoned it forth, and the newspapers would not have known of it either had the police themselves not taken steps; and that is the irony of the thing, that the police who themselves take the steps to combat the black sheep in their midst—that those steps should give rise to the campaign of slander against themselves. That is my charge, and I tell the hon. member for Yeoville all those are false representations against South Africa. Those reports are transmitted and do you know what else? They say the Leader of the Opposition said so to-day. His reputation and status lend a semblance of truth to the false representations they make out of his mouth. Therefore, if he is concerned, he ought to put those reports and accusations in the proper perspective. [Interjections.]

Let me proceed to the next point. His speech is so interspersed with half-truths …

I challenge you to tell me where I told a half-truth.

The Leader of the Opposition created the impression that the police do not act “according to the accepted rules of fighting crime”. I say that is a lie. The police are acting according to all the accepted rules. It has happened from time to time throughout the years that the police may perhaps be a little over-zealous and overreach themselves; that happens in all the countries of the world. Our police take steps immediately—not like in England where they try to cover up these things—to bring the guilty ones to book. But the hon. member says they are not acting according to the accepted rules; and that remark is sent overseas as a report. I hope to have a further opportunity to participate in this debate, when I shall give examples of how the Opposition’s speeches and reports in this country on the misdeeds of the police are sent overseas, absolutely falsely.

Another Press Commission!

No, it is the report of the Press Commission. It has been tabled and we may use it, but hon. members are laughing at it. The fact of the matter is that they are responsible for the picture painted of South Africa overseas. [Interjections.] I say the language the Opposition uses and those halftruths, such as we had here this afternoon again, are responsible for the bad picture of South Africa. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) is a member of the legal profession, and I am surprised at the things he said here. He says in the first place that we imply that the object of the 90-day clause is to get confessions.

That is the impression you create.

Let me remind the hon. member of what the purpose of this clause is. They can put anyone inside if he is a person whom an officer suspects on reasonable grounds of having committed an offence or who in his opinion is in possession of information relating to the commission of an offence. One of the objects of this clause is to get information from these people. Surely if they get information from the suspected person they will ask him to make a statement to the magistrate to be used as a confession. When the hon. member says it is not the duty of the Attorney-General to find out whether a confession is freely and voluntarily made, I think he must go back to Gardiner and Lans-down, because the first thing one learns in criminal law is that a confession has to be shown by the State to have been freely and voluntarily made. The onus is on the State and not on the accused. When this clause was before the House the hon. member for Pinelands moved an amendment that no confession obtained from any person in such circumstances shall be admissible in evidence, and the Minister refused to accept it. But now the Minister says in an interjection, when my Leader pointed out that this confession was not accepted, that it was to be expected. If it is to be expected, what is the object of this clause? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) is carrying on a running commentary. If she does not stop I will have to take appropriate steps.

But of course this goes further. Quite apart from the confession obtained from a person who was a 90-day detainee, one must not forget that many of these detainees have given evidence because it was discovered during those 90 days that they have information, and they are brought to court to give evidence, and they are the people who have given evidence in a large number of these cases. I want to ask the Minister how he as the Minister of Justice can reconcile his duties as Minister of Justice with his duties as Minister of Police, because here you have a 90-day detainee who is usually an accomplice. He goes to court to give evidence on the information the police have discovered he has through his having been detained. Usually such a witness is given an indemnity by the court that if he gives evidence to the satisfaction of the court he will not be charged with that offence, but what happens to these people? To whose satisfaction are they giving evidence, to the satisfaction of the court or of the police? The police get the information from them when they are incarcerated under the 90-day clause, and then when they give evidence they have to give the evidence which they gave to the police, for whatever reason they gave it to the police, for the same reasons that people make confessions to the police in many cases. I would like the Minister to tell me how he reconciles his conscience as Minister of Justice with his duties as Minister of Police.

In the case my Leader referred to which appeared before Mr. Slabbert in the Regional Court here, the magistrate said he was quite satisfied that they had not been mistreated or assaulted, but nevertheless because of the circumstances in which they were held he could not accept this as a confession made freely and voluntarily. That is the gravamen of what my Leader pointed out.

The Minister wants examples. He said that he was personally responsible for this. He nodded when my Leader asked him whether he personally supervised every case. I hope he will tell us how he can do that. I hope he will tell us how he can determine what happens to every single detainee all over South Africa. It is his duty to tell us what system he has for checking up on this. The Minister asked for examples and I will send him the name of a person in Cape Town who was arrested on 25 June last year under this clause and was released on 3 September, and on 14 November he was arrested, not under the 90-day clause, but he was arrested and charged with being a member of an unlawful organization. Nearly six months later, on 4 May, his case came to trial and the case was withdrawn on that day. This is a scandalous thing, but I want to tell the Minister that it could not have happened but for the existence of this clause.

But Blaar says it is due to the English Press.

Yes. The hon. member first shouted about the English language Press when the Minister was dealing with the motion at the Security Council. I want to tell the hon. member for Vereeniging that I do not know of any English language newspaper that did not have a leading article supporting the attitude of the Government in its reply to the letter from U. Thant. What the Minister and hon. members have forgotten is that this is not just a case of someone going in for a short time; this clause gives indefinite powers of detention. The Minister will remember that there was a case in Durban which came before the late Mr. Justice Warner, and he said (it was obiter dicta) that as far as he could see you could not arrest a man twice in relation to the same offence. The Appellate Division has overruled that, but what the learned Judge said was that otherwise this reference to 90 days would be purely illusory. I believe that is the position; it is purely illusory, because the Appellate Division has said that they may be held for as long as the police like. In other words, the 90 days does not mean a thing.

I want to deal with another matter, the effect that this clause has on the police. My Leader is obviously right. No self-respecting member of the police needs these powers to do his duty. But I want to go a little further and say that the effect this has within the force itself is bad. The Minister says they are all one force, but the Security Police do not obey the normal rules that ordinary policemen have to obey because these are abnormal circumstances and this is an abnormal clause. Their power in relation to suspects and prisoners is something apart from the way in which the other members of the force have to behave. [Time limit.]

The Leader of the Opposition, in his inability to reply to what I have said, made the most destructive admission any South African has ever made. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn)exclaimed indignantly just now: When did the Opposition slander South Africa overseas? I shall give you a flagrant example of that in a minute. But now I should like to ask the hon. member for Yeoville this question: When other people slander South Africa overseas, does he regard it as his duty to defend South Africa? He must answer now. Sir, here we have an example of the patriotism of that hon. member. I ask him this simple question. They are the people who say they are standing by South Africa against the onslaughts from overseas. Now I ask the hon. member for Yeoville: If other people slander South Africa overseas, does he regard it as his duty to defend South Africa, yes or no?

Make your own speech.

He cannot answer, because just before him his Leader in a fit of anger said something which exposes his soul to me, and which exposes the soul of that party so clearly to me. When I said that these things were false he said: “But it is not my job to put it right”. We have the Department of Information and they are doing so with the means at their disposal, but I am putting this to the Leader of the Opposition: Over and above the Department of Information and our diplomats and everything the Government is doing, is it not the bounden duty of every South African to protect the good name of South Africa against its besmirchers? He says: “It is not my job”. Let me ask the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) this question: he has courage; he is the most courageous member on that side. He has much more courage than the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). The hon. member for Yeoville is a “phoney”. He is the greatest political “phoney” in the country, he and lapie Basson. The hon. member for Durban (Point) is a courageous man; he is an exsoldier and I should like to ask him this question: When other people besmirch South Africa, does he regard it as his duty to defend South Africa? [Interjections.] I am asking him a simple question. The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) says “yes”. The least among all the Philistines says “Yes”, but his Leader says “It is not my job”. Mr. Chairman, have you ever had a clearer admission; have you ever seen a more appalling and unpatriotic attitude? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the alternative Prime Minister of South Africa, as the Opposition think, tells the world that when South Africa is besmirched it is the task of the Minister of Information to put the matter right—“it is not my job”.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall not ask you to call the hon. member for Durban (Point) to order; he says: “You can twist as much as you like”.

That is not what I said. I said: “Moet net nie verdraai nie”. (lust do not distort.)

All right, I am willing to accept that challenge. I ask the hon. member where I distorted the facts? I have here quoted certain utterances which appeared in the English language Press on the part of their most senior journalists, and the Leader of the Opposition admitted that those utterances were false, and he then said: “But it is not my job to put it right.” Sir, we have never seen the Opposition more in its nudity than to-day, and now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes along and he says that there is a free Press in South Africa; he says it is not a crime to oppose apartheid, after they have remained silent all these years. Now that the chickens of the English Press and of the Opposition are coming home to roost, now that the dragon’s teeth they have sown are beginning to grow at UN and at the Security Council, now they come here with all these flippancies and the Leader of the Opposition says: “It is not my job to put it right”. [Interjection.]

Order! the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) must please restrain himself.

That is the position we have in South Africa at the present time; one cannot force those hon. members to raise an intelligent argument; one cannot force them to inquire fully into a matter and say what the true position is. What one gets from them continually is superficiality. The Rand Daily Mail said this, and the Cape Times said so too. All one gets from them is superficiality and frivolous laughter. One gets no attempt on their part to meet argument with argument. One gets no attempt on their part to see where our country stands and what we can do to defend the name of South Africa. No, what one gets from the Opposition is an almost incredible superficiality which proves only one thing to me, and that is that when it concerns the safety of South Africa, when it concerns internal order, we can expect absolutely nothing from them. The only reason why they are so obliging to-day is because the Minister of lustice succeeded, in spite of their antipathy, in spite of their opposition, to maintain law and order in South Africa. But I want to warn the Minister of lustice. At the first new outbreak of disorder in South Africa, on the first occasion when those hon. members think that they can get us down through disorder and that kind of thing as they have done in the past, they will play exactly the same role they played in the past.

On a point of order, is the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) entitled to say that the Opposition will try again, as they did in the past, to break the Government with disorder?

That is not what I said.

You did say that.

I ask you to order the hon. member to withdraw it and apologize.

Those hon. members cannot scare a flea; they must not try to scare me. I did not say that.

Order! What did the hon. member say?

I said that as in the past when there were outbreaks of disorder and those hon. members exploited the situation to bring this Government to a fall …

That is untrue; that is not what you said.

I did not charge them with having created disorder; they do not have the courage to do that. Do you think I will flatter the hon. member for Yeoville by saying that he will cause disorder or sabotage? He does not have the courage for that.

Be a man and admit what you said.

I did not say that.

You did.

I shall not flatter him by saying that he will cause disorder; he is too great a coward for that; there are other members whom I shall flatter in that way, but I shall not pay him that compliment. He will hide behind other people. Sir, when Mandella held that conference at Maritzburg, did he utter a word against it? When other people organized disorder in this country, did he say a word against it? No, the attitude he adopted was this: “I want to see how the land lies”; he adopted the attitude: “I want to see how I can exploit the position to bring this Government to a fall.” That is the unpatriotic role he plays in the politics of this country. He must not think he can bluff me with all his guile. He is the most discredited patriot in South Africa. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should at this stage reply to certain questions of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He will realize of course that I am not in a position to reply to all his questions as yet, because I am still waiting for certain information. I shall now give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the information I have at my disposal.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has made three admissions, and of course, from the very nature of things I was very pleased to hear those admissions on his part. He said, in the first place, that in South Africa there is a free Opposition; that was his first admission. In the second place, he said that there is a free Press in South Africa; that was his second admission. His third admission was that it is no crime, and that it has never been a crime in South Africa, to oppose apartheid. Now I should like to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this question in all modesty, as he is making these admissions …

That is not an admission; it is a statement.

If the hon. members prefer the word “statement”, I gladly use the word “statement”. While the Leader of the Opposition has made this statement now where then does the argument used by the Leader of the Opposition and his side so often in this House and outside the House, that South Africa has been converted into a police state, come from? Surely in a police state there is no free Opposition that can do as they like and go where they like and say what they like?

Can you prove where I ever said that South Africa is a police state?

Be a man now, and prove that.

Do not be like Blaar Coetzee.

Is the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) suggesting that he has never yet used this argument?

Never.

Is the hon. member for Yeoville suggesting that in the days when Mr. Harry Lawrence was their most important front-bencher in this House, and made this charge, he did not do so on behalf of the United Party? I cannot lay my hand on it now, and say that the Leader of the Opposition on such and such a day made this utterance, but let me put this question to him: Did the Opposition ever make the accusation that South Africa is a police state?

Now you are completely silent.

Was that argument ever used by the Opposition? I am asking the hon. member for Yeoville who is so fond of interjecting and speaking when he is not spoken to: Has the argument ever been used on the part of the Opposition—it is immaterial which individuals did so—that South Africa has been turned into a police state by this Government?

Will you withdraw the allegation against the Leader of the Opposition like a man?

It is no use the hon. member trying to get out of it now. I have stated very clearly that I cannot at the moment lay my hand on it that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said so. I am asking the hon. member for Yeoville again: Was that argument ever used on the part of the Opposition, yes or no?

During the last war we frequently heard from the Opposition that South Africa was a police state.

That reply is very interesting to me. The hon. member for Yeoville is like a man who is always living in retrospect; he can remember only what happened in the past. I now once again ask the hon. member for Yeoville this question: Since the National Party came into power, have the Opposition used that argument, yes or no?

To my knowledge it was not used by this United Party.

Do not talk nonsense; I used it with you when I was sitting over there.

The member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) says he used it. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please control themselves now.

This is all I wish to say in that connection: In the first place I should like to express my joy. I always knew that the Opposition swallowed their own words, but I did not expect them to swallow their words so soon. In the second place I should like to say, and the hon. member for Yeoville knows it: During all the years we have been occupying the Government benches, the police state argument has been used here time and again and year after year. All of us know it. But I am thankful that at least we have now reached the stage where presumably in future we shall not hear that argument again. It seems one does get somewhere with the Opposition as the years go by.

Are you now withdrawing what you said about the Leader of the Opposition?

But surely I have explained the position already; I shall explain it to the hon. member privately too if he so wishes. While the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made that statement, he came along with a further statement which spoilt everything he had said earlier; he says there are two reasons why the outside world believes these things. He said the first reason is that the Bantu—as I understood him to say— “have no means of political expression”. Did I understand the hon. the Leader of the Opposition correctly. But surely, Mr. Chairman, that is not true. Surely there are Bantu political parties in South Africa, are there not? There is the Democratic Party in which the hon. members of the Opposition take a keen interest.

In the Transkei.

That party has members throughout South Africa, and that applies to another political party too.

But that is in the Transkei.

Wherever there are Xhosas they will be interested in those political parties, and join one of those two political parties of the Transkei.

And the Zulus.

But apart from that, is there any law which forbids the Bantu to organize themselves in political parties?

They have no political representation in Parliament which controls their destiny.

No, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition used the words “political expression”. Is there any law which prohibits Bantu groups from organizing themselves in political groups?

For what purposes?

the purposes for which any political party organizes itself.

To come and sit here?

Is the Transkei then controlling South Africa now?

No, not to come and sit here because the United Party is not in power as yet; if the United Party perhaps comes into power one day, then only will they come and sit here; those hon. members know that. The hon. member for Yeoville surely knows that it is not correct to say that the people have no means of expressing their political views. They may do so in all kinds of ways in South Africa. I shall leave it at that, however.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says it is my fault because I do not give sufficient reasons when I restrict people in their movements. The hon. member surely knows what the practice has been throughout the years in that regard. He knows that people are furnished with the reasons as to why their movements are restricted, in so far as it is in the public interest to do so. What more can one do than to furnish the reasons to the man whose movements one is restricting, save where one cannot do so because it is not in the public interest to furnish the reasons? Surely that has always been so under all Governments in all countries in wartime and in peacetime. That is the position here too. The hon. member asked whether at the present moment there are still some people leaving the country to receive training as saboteurs. The reply is that so far as can be ascertained, and it is not an easy matter to determine—there still are people leaving the country, but I may inform the hon. the Leader of the Opposition furthermore that it is no longer so easy for the people recruiting here to get recruits, firstly because the position has been made more difficult for them, and secondly because the people realize that it does not pay them to do so, and thirdly for the other reasons I have mentioned. The reply is that it is happening to a steadily diminishing degree. But what does happen is that many people are leaving the country, ostensibly as refugees, ostensibly as people who wish to go and take up study bursaries overseas, and who are leaving for no other reason than to go and have a “jolly” time outside. The Williams case is one case which is not a parallel, but which shows how gullible people overseas can be, to receive people there who say that they are fleeing from the Government of South Africa, and that they are fleeing from the suppression of apartheid. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me who is financing these people. They are being financed from Peking and Moscow and Ghana and from certain circles in Britain. Smaller amounts may also be received from some other individuals in other places.

May I ask you a question? Tremendous powers were conferred upon you under the Bill last year in connection with amounts transmitted through the post. Is it possible to limit it?

The last thing these people will do is to transmit this money in such a way that the police can get at it. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will appreciate that it is done through other channels completely. It is sometimes done in an ostensibly innocent manner by way of bank transactions. I am thinking here, e.g. of the transaction in the case of Mr. First, the communist who fled the country, the father-in-law of the communist Joe Slovo. These things are done under cover, surreptitiously, and it is not possible to determine at all times whether it is communist money or not.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, referring to my announcement on the suspension of the 90-day clause, said next that there is no longer any need for the retention of that clause, because, to use his own words “the crisis is past”. I hope I understood him correctly. He said he thinks the crisis is past and therefore it is no longer required. Must I inferfrom that that it was necessary during the crisis when it was in existence?

Honestly I do not understand the position now. The word “crisis” is not my word; I did not use it. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition used the word “crisis” and he said that in his view the crisis is past. In other words, his argument was that there had been a crisis in fact but that that crisis is past now. Yes, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition agrees with me. But how must I understand him now? May I then not even in times of crisis use these powers?

May I explain my attitude?

Yes, I should like to hear his attitude?

My attitude is quite simple. I told you last year that I felt you were not entitled to take these powers, although there was a crisis. The crisis in my view was not of such a serious nature that it justified steps of this nature, and I went further and said that if such a serious emergency were to arise, a state of emergency could be declared and then all of us will know what the position is.

Now we come to this interesting point. When is a crisis a crisis? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition calls it a crisis, but then he says it was not a crisis of such a nature that it justified this measure. But now he goes further and he says that it is immaterial what the crisis is; I may not use such measures; I must proclaim a state of emergency. Do I understand him correctly?

Yes, he did say that.

It is not quite correct.

Then I shall be glad if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will show me the courtesy to explain what he said, for I do not wish to misconstrue his words.

I said that last year, when we were discussing the Bill here, I said that if the position is so bad, why do we not declare a state of emergency. I know that once a state of emergency has been declared, you have the right to make regulations and to take certain tremendous powers; the matter is then discussed in the House of Assembly at once, and when the state of emergency has passed, they fall away.

Yes, I understand now. According to the point of view of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition what happened in the past did not justify abnormal action such as the 90-day provision.

I said I was opposed to it. I voted against it.

The 90days clause is out in any event, whatever the emergency or the crisis might be.

That is not what I said.

I shall come to that now. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s argument was that if the crisis was so great that certain measures had to be applied, then a state of emergency should have been proclaimed. Is that correct?

I do not know why the hon. the Minister is trying to put words in my mouth. He knows very well what I said last year. I am not at the moment putting up a hypothetical argument. I connected my argument with the facts and the facts simply were that in my opinion there was no justification for the 90-day clause and I voted against it. I still think it is wrong and I am still voting against it. I told the Minister that if he did not have sufficient powers to control the position as it was at the time, he should proclaim a state of emergency and take further powers. The position is quite simple. I am not discussing any hypothetical matters with him. I am too experienced a politician to discuss hypothetical matters, for I can see the direction in which this kind of argument always leads.

What the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said is exactly what I said …

No, it is not.

… namely that he is opposed to the 90-day clause at all times. Is that correct? He said to me: “It offends the conscience.” While I am on this subject, I hope the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will forgive me if I digress for a moment. He mentioned that certain professors and certain ministers of religion who speak for millions, condemned this 90-day provision. Of course they went so far as to hold a demonstration of protest against it. They, as they said made a religious occasion of it. “If it offends the conscience,” as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said, and if he lauds the people who registered their protest against this legislation, then I am amazed that the Leader of the Opposition rejected Mr. Hamilton Russell’s invitation to participate in the protest.

That ought not to amaze you.

Is it such a terrible thing then?

What the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said is exactly what I said …

No, it is not.

… namely that he is opposed to the 90-day clause at all times. Is that correct? He said to me: “It offends the conscience.” While I am on this subject, I hope the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will forgive me if I digress for a moment. He mentioned that certain professors and certain ministers of religion who speak for millions, condemned this 90-day provision. Of course they went so far as to hold a demonstration of protest against it. They, as they said made a religious occasion of it. “If it offends the conscience,” as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said, and if he lauds the people who registered their protest against this legislation, then I am amazed that the Leader of the Opposition rejected Mr. Hamilton Russell’s invitation to participate in the protest.

That ought not to amaze you.

Is it such a terrible thing then?

Because you see, according to the Leader of the Opposition it was not a political meeting of the Progressive Party, was it? It was a gathering of people he lauded here, was it not? He charged me with not having taken notice of their protest and immediately putting a stop to the 90-day detentions. They held a meeting in the city hall on a Sunday and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was invited to attend the meeting. I do not blame him for rejecting the invitation of Mr. Hamilton Russell personally; I would not have accepted such an invitation from him either. But that does not provide the answer to the question why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not participate in this protest together with these ministers of religion. I shall tell him why he did not participate. He did not participate because he knew that his own people approve of what was done under these circumstances. He did not see his way clear to participate because he knows that his own people support this action of the Government. If he does not agree with that, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must tell us why he did not join in this city hall business.

[Inaudible.]

I am not talking to that hon. member now. He tried to hold a meeting in my constituency and they would not even listen to him there; why should I now listen to him here?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition—and I thank him for it—referred me to the pamphlet Mr. Russell issued in this connection. I read here that this non-political organization was brought into being at a conference held by Mr. Russell and the retired Chief Justice Centlivres, and the chairman of the organization is Mr. Hamilton Russell. Mr. Russell gives some so-called facts in this pamphlet of his which the Leader of the Opposition brought to my attention, and I gladly take this opportunity to reply to it. Let me now take one of the first facts stated by Mr. Russell in this pamphlet. It amazes one that an ex-Chief Justice can associate himself with it. Without trying to check the facts, it is stated here as a fact—

At what page, please?

It is page 6 of this miserable pamphlet of this miserable man. This pamphlet, as hon. members know, was printed … what is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout saying? If he passes remarks about me, he should make them so that I can hear them.

I can say what I like.

Then the hon. member should just have the courage to say it loudly enough for me to hear it. Sir, this pamphlet was printed and published in May 1964. It is interesting that the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) on 7 February asked me a question in respect of this same boy. This is the 16-year-old boy who, according to Mr. Russell, was detained on 11 June and whose mother was notified on 17 October only. He says I made a promise that I would immediately notify the relatives of people who are detained if any. On 7 February the hon. member for Houghton asked me a question about the same youth. I gave her the facts. The facts I gave her were that when the youth in question was arrested on 10 June 1963 not 11 June as Mr. Russell says here, he furnished a false name and address where his parent or guardian could not be traced. On 14 June he furnished the correct particulars. His mother was informed on 17 June of his arrest and the place of his detention where she frequently visited him. Those are the facts. The Progressive Party asked the question here in this House, and the Progressive Party deliberately lied outside regarding a fact on which they had asked for information in this House. They did so after the reply had been given here. There can be no misunderstanding about this, the questions was put officially by the Progressive Party. It was officially replied to in this House. But in spite of that, these figures are given in the pamphlet.

Let us read on. This Mr. Russell was never a pleasant member, but what else did he do? He refers to the Looksmart case. He says: “Mr. Nuhdle died in gaol and was buried before his wife was advised.” Sir, surely that is not true. At the inquest held after his death, it was revealed—it was in every newspaper—that immediately after his death the police searched for his wife. They eventually found her in the Bantu area. They asked her whether the corpse should be buried there or whether the corpse should be sent to her. She said they must bury him there. The police went further and offered her the necessary ticket to attend the funeral. These are facts which are common knowledge. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is aware too that this is so. But in spite of this, this Hamilton Russell and his co-worker the exChief Justice of South Africa, tell a blatant lie in a paper they advertised at a religious service on a Sunday.

We can go further. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition drew my attention to what Sergeant Card said in this connection. I read Sergeant Card’s evidence. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also read it in the papers at the time. I remember well what was written in the Rand Daily Mail, namely that Sergeant Card gave evidence on what happened in 1962 and during the first half of 1963. Does the Leader of the Opposition remember it?

Yes.

The Leader of the Opposition agrees with me. But the Act was passed in June 1963 only. Sergeant Card referred to circumstances before the 90-day law came into existence. He was referring to 1962 and the first half of 1963. In spite of that, Mr. Russell lies blatantly in connection with these matters. Mr. Russell is very angry with me and he is carrying on a feud with me. He holds me responsible for the fact that he is no longer in Parliament. Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not just a little grateful to me for having relieved him? I honestly think, Mr. Chairman, that after I have dealt with the fellow, when the Leader of the Opposition passes me in the lobbies again, he ought at least to say: “Thank you, John.”

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) is angry with me because I am attacking Mr. Russell. Does he wish to appear for Mr. Russell here?

Now you are talking greater nonsense than before.

The hon. member says I am talking nonsense. I challenge the hon. member for Simonstown to stand up here and repudiate the ex-member for Wynberg.

Order! Hon. members must please control themselves now.

The hon. member must not interject and then adopt this attitude when he is spoken to. I take it, Mr. Chairman—before the hon. member for Simonstown entered the debate the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I are conducting—that the Leader of the Opposition does not desire me to deal with the Russell escapades further?

What about the woman who was detained for 90 days and did not talk?

I am glad the hon. the Leader of the Opposition reminds me of that. I cannot answer him at the moment because I am still awaiting the facts in this connection. As soon as the facts come to hand I shall give them to the Leader of the Opposition. I shall have the facts at my disposal in the course of this debate still.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I could place my hand on my heart and say that I did not liberate one of the people who did not give evidence. My reply is that these people are interrogated; that information is gained from them. In fact, the whole object is to gain information. I told the Leader of the Opposition and the House this when I introduced this Bill. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised the matter of confessions in this connection. The admissibility or inadmissibility of a confession is a matter exclusively for the court. If the court has any doubt whether that person made the confession absolutely voluntarily, the court will not admit that confession. Even if the court thinks it has been made voluntarily, but there is a possible doubt whether it was made voluntarily in fact, that the accused was coerced, the court will not admit it. Therefore I do not find it strange at all that in the case mentioned here by the Leader of the Opposition, where a person was detained under the 90-day clause—I do not know for how many days; I do not have that information before me—and made a confession, the court, although it was satisfied that he had not been maltreated or that he had not been coerced to make it, felt in its discretion that that confession should not be admitted because the possibility exists that he might have been influenced as a result of the fact that he had been detained. The court ruled accordingly in its discretion and I find no fault with it. I do not know what is to be implied from accusing anybody in that connection. This does not apply only in respect of confessions made by 90-day people; it applies also in respect of confessions in general. The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) quite rightly said that the onus rests on one to prove that confession was so made. I do not find it strange at all that the court gave that ruling. If the court had accepted it it would also have been within its discretion, and I find nothing strange in it. I said clearly did I not when I introduced the Act, that it was not our object to force people to make confessions, and then to use those forced confessions.

The hon. member for Durban North referred to the amendment of the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) why did I reject that amendment? The hon. member surely knows that the amendment was rejected by me because it is not necessary; I said the Court would in any event not admit a forced confession. Does the hon. member remember that? Does he remember that we argued that point? Surely it was not necessary to write into the Act what already was part of the Act.

There was no ill-treatment in this case, yet it was rejected.

Yes, because it is within the discretion of the Court.

Should there in any other case have been ill-treatment?

No, Sir. The Court may find that the circumstances were such that the pressure of the arrest on the accused could have swayed him to make a confession he would otherwise not have made. Surely there is nothing strange in that.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition charged me with being unable to maintain peace without these extra powers. He said it really is due to the weakness of the Government and in particular, the weakness of the Minister, they cannot maintain the peace without these powers. Mr. Chairman, surely that is no argument. Then you might as well blame a soldier for not fighting without ammunition. What is the position? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is surely aware of the fact that, apart from the communist agitation within South Africa there was pressure from outside. The Leader of the Opposition is aware, is he not, not only of the pressure from outside, but he is aware also of the cold war conditions under which we are living. I do not find it a disgrace when under those circumstances one asks for extra powers to deal with a situation, powers one does not have in peace-time. I merely find it very foolish and irresponsible to oppose those powers which are required to keep South Africa the calm and peaceful place it is.

He wants a state of emergency.

The hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter) now mentions the point I am coming to. Let me tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now why he takes it amiss of me in my opinion. Just now when we wandered away from the point, we were dealing with that point. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition blames me because I met a situation, which really was a state of emergency, without declaring a state of emergency. Had I declared a state of emergency, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition realizes very well what an economic shock it would have been for South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition not only appreciates what economic shock it would have been, but he also realizes how many people I would have had to inconvenience in that state of emergency. Note, I am criticizing the argument of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in this respect: He does not mind me using these powers, for when I declare a state of emergency I may take much more drastic powers than I now have. I may then take unlimited powers, and I need not even account for my actions. I infer therefore from the standpoint of the Leader of the Opposition that he has no objection to me proclaiming a state of emergency when there is a state of emergency; then he has no objection to me using those powers. But the Leader of the Opposition now takes it amiss of me because the Government managed to meet a state of emergency without proclaiming a state of emergency and using emergency measures for it. That is my charge against the Opposite side of the House. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will be glad to see people being angry with us, and people being estranged from us as a result of the inconvenience they have to endure during a state of emergency. Some people in South Africa would also have liked to see us suffering damage economically in the process that followed.

I should like to say this to the Leader of the Opposition—I told him this on a previous occasion—and on that note I wish to conclude for the time being. Unless it is absolutely necessary, this Government will not proclaim a state of emergency in South Africa. If it is possible to combat the terrorist activities, the communists’ activities, with other measures the Government will apply those other measures. It is not necessary at all to inconvenience the whole of South Africa, because a small handful of people are trying to do something in South Africa. I rather take steps against that little handful of people than to inconvenience the whole of South Africa by doing it by way of a state of emergency. Whether or not the hon. the Leader of the Opposition agrees, that will be the way the Government will act. It has not only been its action in the past, but it will be the action of the Government in the future.

The hon. the Minister has adopted the usual tactic of attacking two or three inaccuracies in a pamphlet while completely ignoring all the other serious charges. I refer to the pamphlet issued by Mr. Hamilton Russell, a pamphlet which, incidentally, was issued by Mr. Russell and his Committee personally and not on behalf of the Progressive Party as the hon. the Minister said. This is simply to place that fact on record. Practically every fact mentioned in this pamphlet is one which the hon. the Minister cannot in fact deny. The Minister picked on two or three of the more minor accusations on which to base his whole attack on the pamphlet.

I can go through the whole pamphlet.

I hope the Minister will because I do not believe he can find any statements which are false. What is more, in one particular regard I dispute what the hon. the Minister has said, i.e., the particular allegation about the use of the 90-day clause by Detective Sergeant Card for purposes other than those for which it was intended. The Minister’s case is based on the fact that the Detective Sergeant stated that he had used this clause at a time when it was not even being applied. Has the hon. Minister looked at the court record? Or is he going just by the newspaper report? Will the hon. Minister answer that question, please?

I have looked at the court record.

Will he then say that Sergeant Card—he was not a lieutenant; another complaint is that a sergeant used these powers —actually stated that he used this particular clause for other purposes? In fact, Sir, the period covered was January 1963 to August 1963. As far as I know this 90-day clause was in fact in operation in June, 1963. Therefore it can well be that the period he was referring to was a period when the 90-day clause was already in operation. That is certainly the information which I have from the court record. That argument of the hon. Minister, as far as I am concerned, has no foundation whatsoever.

The hon. the Minister has given us a sample of his mail bag this morning. I want to say that some of the letters are clearly exaggerated in their charges and it is absurd of us, of course, to say that people are under sentence of death simply because they went on strike or because they indulged in trade union activities or just because they opposed apartheid. But it is equally untrue to say, as the Minister has said, that nobody is restricted at all because they oppose apartheid, that nobody is banned because they oppose apartheid. Is it really true to say that there is no person in South Africa who is restricted in movement because he or she happens to be an opponent of apartheid?

Name one.

suggest to the hon. member that these persons be brought before a proper court of law instead of being banned under a broad banning order under the Suppression of Communism Act.

Name one.

There are many I can name —members of the Liberal Party and other people who have been placed under bans and restrictions because they opposed apartheid and not for any other reason. As to the ability of Africans to join political parties easily, I also dispute that. In a multi-racial party like my own we have very good reason to know that that is so. They are intimidated if they come to multi-racial political meetings. Their names are taken; the numbers of their passes are taken. If apologies are given afterwards by the police the intimidation has in fact been exercised. Apart from the African parties in the Transkei, what African political parties have an easy existence in South Africa? What African political party exists without constant police supervision and constant police intimidation?

I come to the statement by the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) about “fighting according to the rules”. Whether or not the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made that statement is, as far as I am concerned, beside the point. But I certainly believe that the police in this country do not fight according to accepted rules, i.e., the accepted rules in any normal democratic country where the rule of law obtains, where habeas corpus is respected, where there are no such powers as banishment without recourse to the courts, banishment without trial, house arrests without trial, where 90-day laws do not exist and where Proclamation 400 has never been heard of. Of course, we do not fight according to accepted rules. When the sort of laws which are passed in this country are not in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the population, because the Government does not have the support of the majority of the population for the apartheid laws that it passes, the rule of law has to disappear, pari passu, with these laws coming on to the Statute Book.

I do not share the optimism of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he states he believes the Minister dislikes the 90-day clause. I do not think he dislikes it at all. I believe power is an addiction and I believe the hon. the Minister is now addicted to the power of the 90-day clause. I felt that originally when this clause was passed. That was why I opposed it in principle from the beginning. That is why I believe the Official Opposition should never have given the Government the green light last year. I knew that once this power had been given to the Minister and his police (a) it would lend itself to the grossest form of abuse and (b) it would be most difficult to get the hon. the Minister or his police to relinquish that mighty weapon. I regret to say that I still hold that view. I am cynical enough to doubt whether the hon. the Minister will in fact lift this clause in the recess, although I sincerely hope that I am wrong. I sincerely hope that I am absolutely wrong in this respect but I have strong doubts because we have had other examples of so-called temporary laws in this country, laws which have eventually been put on the Statute Book permanently, such as the banning of the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. They were legitimate organizations, at that time, of the African people, but they no longer exist. Then there is, of course, also the gaol without bail law.

I never believed that we were really in a state of emergency last year and I said so. The time that elapsed between the actual issuing of Judge Snyman’s first interim report, which was the reason for the introduction of this so-called emergency measure, and the actual passing of that measure was many weeks. I think it was five weeks before this law was introduced. There was no state of emergency in the country then, as there is no state of emergency in the country to-day. The hon. the Minister says he is quite prepared to take powers which in fact only a democratic country would ever take if there were a declared state of emergency. The hon. Minister thinks he has done a good thing for South Africa by taking these powers without declaring such a state of emergency. I say by so doing he has put himself beyond the pale of democratic countries throughout the world.

The hon. the Minister says there will be mopping-up operations still and that if these are successfully concluded he will withdraw this clause. As I have said, Sir, I sincerely hope he is going to do that. My fears are that there will always be an incipient emergency which will prevent the hon. the Minister from so doing, and I use that word, of course, in a cynical sense because, as I have said, I did not believe we were in a state of emergency when this law was passed originally.

The Minister himself has stated in the Digest, not in the lying English Press, but in the Digest that the law was there to meet “a potential rather than an existing emergency.” I put it that there is always a potential emergency in every country. Therefore, as I am concerned, ministerial intentions are quite clear. In less controlled circumstances than this House, in the heat of a political meeting not long ago, the hon. the Minister said, on 1 May, at De Wetsdorp, that he was not prepared “under any circumstances to revoke the 90-day detention clause and in this way chop off the hands of the police”.

At that time.

At that time; that was last month. Can the hon. Minister tell me what has changed since 1 May 1964 till 10 June 1964? Was there an emergency on 1 May? Had he not mopped up all the puddles yet? What was the difference then and now? This report was issued not only by the English Press but also by the Transvaler, so I assume that it is a verbatim report. He said the removal of the clause would be tantamount to a vote of no confidence in the police. What did the hon. Minister mean by that? Cannot his police function without these extraordinary powers? “This is the weapon” he says, “which I have given my men to keep the country safe”. Well, Sir, what an impression to create in the outside world, namely, that unless his men have this vast ower they are unable to keep the country safe! It does not seem to me that the Minister has any intentions of carrying out his promise to remove the clause, although, as I have said, I sincerely hope he will do so.

Let us examine how the clause has worked and whether all one hears have indeed been justified. As I said right at the beginning last year when I opposed the principle and the giving of the green light by the Opposition to the Government, which is something I believe they will not ever live down although I am delighted that they are at last really opposing this, this is a clause which lends itself to abuse. Its very operation means that it cannot be properly supervised—everything is in secret in police stations and prisons; scattered throughout the country there are no proper regulations which anybody has ever been able to examine in public. I say again, Sir, that I believe allegations of ill treatment are well-founded. Solitary confinement in itself is the most gross ill-treatment of prisoners, especially for the length of time that the hon. the Minister imposes it. [Time limit.]

I find it very interesting that the Opposition and the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) are really concerned about this 90-day clause. It is the typical policy of the leftists right throughout the world to attack the police when they want to cause disturbances in any country. They undermine the morale of the police because they think that in that way they can paralyse the administration of the country. The hon. member for Houghton and, I think, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, are both willing spokesmen for those leftists.

That is untrue.

The kindest way I can perhaps put it is that they are the unwilling spokesmen. But let us just examine what happens in practice: We know very well that the Minister of Justice has done his duty so well because he could deal with these people, and not because they have changed their minds. When I look at the hon. member for Houghton, with her pink tendencies, she has not deviated from her attitude by a hair’s breadth. All I can say is that she perhaps turned a little more towards the left, just as the Leader of the Opposition and the whole of the Opposition have moved more towards the left. What has happened now? Recently the hon. the Minister of Justice, in his policy motion in the Senate, delivered a report, and at page 1981 of the Senate Hansard he pointed out that there were 203 cases of sabotage, and of those two or three cases 182 took place before the 90-day clause came into operation, and thereafter there were only 21 cases to date. Does anyone now want to tell me that those people who commit sabotage have had a change of heart in the meantime, as the hon. member for Houghton wants to pretend? They still have the same objects, and they are still busy with the same “war” against South Africa, but the spirit overseas where they are busy with the cold war is still precisely the same, and if we repeal this 90-day clause it will just mean that the Minister of Justice will not have the weapon to deal with those people who have the same spirit that they had before 30 June last year.

Where else is this type of power used?

Where else does one have the position where an Opposition is the willing fifth column of people overseas who fight against one?

Hon. members opposite are concerned about the image existing overseas, but when we discuss the police it is always said that the police misbehave themselves and that they act cruelly against the non-Whites. The hon. member for Houghton is one of the most guilty persons in this regard. And those speeches, including hers, are reported overseas. I have read some of them and I should like to give an example of how incidents in this House and arguments advanced here are sent overseas. I have before me the report of the Press Commission, and one of the methods adopted by the leftists is to use against us the information emanating from this country. Here I have a report of 20 October 1952, when I had not yet become a member of this House, which was sent by a journalist called Mapleson. He was not a member of the United Party, but just listen to the parallel between what is said there and what is said here to-day. The Opposition gives the im­ pression that the Government uses the police to maintain its own authority, the authority of the Government, and not the authority of the State, in this country. This is the report contained in a cable sent by Mapleson to the Daily Express, and it reads as follows—

That is how the cable begins. And the next cable reads as follows—

What are you reading from?

From the report of the Press Commission, page 598, Annexure 22.

The Press Commission?

As soon as one gets under the skin of the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell)—and in fact that applies to all the members opposite— they begin to sneer. They simply do not have the decency to listen to the gravamen of our charge against them. I say it is the method adopted by the leftists to undermine the Police Force. Here I have a long cable about the so-called Security Branch, in regard to which the hon. member opposite also had much to say to-day, and it reads as follows, at page 591 of the report—

That almost sounds like the hon. member for Houghton, who complained a moment ago that these people attend the meetings of opponents of the Government. Those are the tactics of all the leftists in the world, and the Leader of the Opposition and the whole of the Opposition are the willing instruments in the hands of those leftists.

To do what?

To feed the cold war against South Africa, to supply the people who fight the cold war against us with arguments, so that they can libel South Africa at UNO and take the resolutions they took last night, to which the Minister referred. But surely the hon. member for Transkeian Territories is a well-informed man. Can he not draw these conclusions for himself?

Do you really believe the nonsense you are talking here?

I say that hon. member is one of the people who make analyses of this Government and its policy which are not supported by the facts at all, as in connection with the 90-day clause, as the hon. members for Pinelands and Durban (North) have done.

The hon. member has read out to me from the Act the object for which the 90-day clause was adopted. He says that the Act provides that a man can be detained if there is a suspicion that he has committed an offence or if he has information. Of course that is what the Act says, and nothing more, but the hon. member creates the impression that the police are using that clause to terrorize people who oppose the Government, and that it is used to force detainees to make confessions, and when the magistrate or the Judge reject confessions because they do not comply with the conditions prescribed for the making of a confession, the hon. member uses it as an allegation against the police. He ought to use it as a testimonial of the impartiality and justice of the Bench. But do not think that he tries to put in the correct perspective this news which is sent abroad in regard to what was said here to-day by hon. members. No, his object, and the object of the hon. member for Houghton, is still further to distort that wrong picture. [Time limit.]

I do not intend to follow the hon. member who has just sat down, save to say that it is surprising after what the hon. Minister has said, and this hon. member has implied, that if as they say we have no support in the attitude we take in regard to the 90-day clause and that the people in South Africa are all in favour of the attitude of this hon. Minister in relation to this clause, that the Government benches should have spent hours of this debate keeping well off the merits of the 90-day clause. The one thing that we have heard very little about so far from the hon. Minister (who said something about it) and hon. members opposite is a justification for the retention of the 90-day clause. We have pages from the Press Commission of the hon. member for Standerton, and we have had shoals of red-herrings from the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) which, however diverting.

You cannot reply, that is your difficulty.

Coming back to the 90-day clause, I should like to deal with it on the basis upon which the hon. Minister introduced that provision in 1963 in this House. The hon. the Minister described the measure as “unusual”, “far-reaching”, “not proper in peacetime” and he introduced the measure “with reluctance” for those reasons. “Not proper in peace-time.” It is quite clear that he was correct in describing it in those words, although there may be an understatement of the position because the measure gives power to the Executive, as the Leader of the Opposition said earlier to detain a person for an indefinite period, albeit for 90 days at a time, on mere suspicion and hold that person incommunicado from anybody outside. Sir, this is a situation which political systems in Europe and in South Africa have sought to prevent for hundreds of years. The whole trend has been to prevent that sort of situation arising, and it can be justified only if three criteria are complied with: (1) Very exceptional circumstances, together with (2) it being used as a last resort and (3) only being used as a temporary expedient. I think those criteria will be accepted by everybody, including the hon. Minister.

Now the hon. Minister has said that he will consider at some later stage in the recess advising the Cabinet to advise the State President that this clause should be done away with, that the powers taken under this clause should be got rid of. I would like to urge on the hon. Minister that he takes that decision now in the light of what will be said in this debate, and what has been said already. Last year the hon. Minister tried to justify the introduction of this clause principally on the basis of what he said during the Committee Stage, and he said this (I am quoting from Hansard)—

Then he dealt with his experience and said this—

Earlier in that very debate, contrary to what the hon. Minister said to-day he described the situation as a crisis, saying that America was in the same state of crisis, with this difference that its enemies are sitting on its borders and they do not have so many people in their midst who are dangerous. The hon. Minister denied it, but in fact he used that word.

What column are you quoting from?

Col. 4688. The hon. Minister to-day, and on previous occasions outside this House, and also the hon. the Prime Minister on many occasions, both in and out of this House, have said that as a result of the arrest of the Rivonia group principally and others, the position in the country is peaceful and under control. This has been said over and over again, and assurances have been given in that regard over and over again, also in this debate. It has been said that the leaders of the subversive elements are under arrest and have been brought to trial. If that is so, and I accept that that is so, then applying his own criteria, the very criteria which he expressed when introducing this clause, the criteria have been fulfilled, and the necessity for this clause falls away. Sir, what we require if we are to be convinced that this measure should be continued is that those criteria have not been fulfilled, and the hon. Minister and hon. members opposite are not able to do that because the Minister has already stated that everything is under control and that there is merely some mopping-up to be done. Now if the 90-day clause is to be continued, and up to the present we are to understand that it is, then it means that the hon. Minister and the Government cannot govern without it. It amounts to a confession of failure, it amounts to an inability to govern by normal means, it amounts to an inability to govern save by means which the hon. Minister himself described as improper— it means an inability to keep control save by the use of improper means. Or as an alternative, and I hope the alternative is not the one to be applied in this case, it means that the standards of constitutional government which we have always accepted and which have been built up by our forebares in South Africa are being abandoned and that a new political philosophy is being adopted, that is to say an acceptance by this Government and by this Minister of government by means which he himself describes as improper in peacetime. I hope that that is not the case. It is no use the hon. Minister saying over and over again, as he does, that we cannot point to any abuse. It would be monstrous if we could point to any abuse of these powers by the hon. Minister. But the mere existence of the 90-day clause is a threat which constitutes an abuse of our philosophy of government, its mere existence constitutes an abuse of proper government. One need merely point to the case of a mere error of judgment to illustrate that point, a mere error of judgment made bona fide by a junior police officer in arresting and detaining a person in gaol for 90 days when in fact that person had no information to give. That is a grave infringement of rights and constitutes an abuse.

It is not an abuse in the sense in which the hon. Minister uses that word, but it is an abuse in the proper use of that word. Yet such an error of judgment can easily take place and bona fide, and without the knowledge of the hon. Minister, or any senior police officer. The fact that it was a wrongful detention is unlikely ever to be made known. The detained person can complain, but who will listen to him. I have no doubt that they all complain that they have been wrongly detained. The officer detaining the person is not going to run to the Minister and say that he wrongfully detained the man. He is not going to report to his senior officer that he wrongfully detained the man, and the only way in which that information can be made available to those in charge of that person is through the report to the senior officer and he is not going to confess to an offence which the Minister has described as one which would break him and the Government and would constitute the sort of abuse which the hon. Minister described. So it would be very surprising indeed if there were to be any evidence available of a misuse of the powers of arrest, even at the highest level of a bona fide error of judgment. That is why we can only deal with this problem on the basis of politcal philosophies and why we must rely so heavily on the wisdom of our forebears in Europe and in South Africa, who have set their faces resolutely against powers of this kind, save under the circumstances which I described at the beginning of my speech, which were exceptional circumstances as a temporary expedient and as a last resort. That, Sir, has not been justified by the hon. the Minister, or by the only member of the justice group of the Government side who has spoken in this debate.

After having listened to the speeches of hon. members of the Opposition, including that of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman), I can only say that the saboteurs of South Africa in our country and elsewhere will be very pleased at these speeches which have been made. The. hon. member for Zululand told us that we had not justified the 90-day provision. But the fact that peace reigns in this country and that we have freedom and quiet in South Africa is more than enough justification for this clause. It is said that a new political philosophy has arisen in South Africa. It is easy to talk about a new political philosophy. But this new political philosophy has not come from the Government; it has come from those persons who want to overthrow our South African State. That is the new political philosophy. And then they talk of democratic principles! May I ask whether those people are playing the game of democracy? Are the people who want to do harm to South Africa and who want to sabotage South Africa prepared to play the game of democracy? Are they prepared to listen to the “rule of law”? The “rule of law” can only exist in a state whose people are prepared to respect the “rule of law”. Is Sobukwe willing to subject himself to a democratic system? Are a Mandela, a Goldreich and a Wolpe prepared to subject themselves to a democratic system? If they were prepared to do, these measures would not be necessary. This “rule of law” and the principles of democracy was applied in Northern Rhodesia by the British Government. What became of Northern Rhodesia? Democratic principles were applied in Tanganyika, Nyasaland and Ghana. The “rule of law” was applied there by England. What became of those countries? It is easy to talk of democratic principles when everyone is pepared to abide by them but that is not the case here.

I just want to ask the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) whether she now repudiates Mr. Russell?

Of course not.

She admitted that Mr. Russell was wrong. She said that Mr. Russell was completely wrong in those two cases. Does the hon. member then not accept what the hon. the Minister has said?

I challenged the hon. the Minister in regard to the one case and the other two were of less importance.

She admits that Mr. Russell was wrong in two cases.

According to her, one is permitted to lie a little.

The hon. member for Houghton said that this pamphlet was issued by Mr. Russell and his committee and that the Progressive Party had nothing to do with it. There is only one member of the Progressive Party here in this House. I have here an envelope with the parliamentary post office stamp upon it. The stamp on the envelope inwhich Mr. Russell’s pamphlet was sent, is the stamp of the Houses of Parliament. I should like to know who posted Mr. Russell’s pamphlet in this parliamentary building? There is only one member of the Progressive Party in this House and that is the hon. member for Houghton.

I did not post it.

Then there are people here who want to make use of the parliamentary post office for the distribution of pamphlets of this nature. There is only one member who has the right to do so and that is the hon. member for Houghton.

But I go further and I come now to what was said by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He said that they would not move an amendment to reduce the salary of the hon. the Minister if the hon. the Minister did not say the wrong thing here in the House. What right has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to say that? Here we have a proposal to reduce a Minister’s salary because he has not done his work during this 12-month period and not because of what he happened to say in a debate. In other words, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is satisfied that the hon. the Minister of Justice has done his work over the past 12 months. It is not only the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who is satisfied in this regard. The entire country is satisfied in this respect.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke of clergymen who say that they represent 5,000,000 Christians in South Africa. We only have 3,000,000 Whites in South Africa. Do they want to tell us that these clergymen represent all the Whites in South Africa as well? Sir, they do not even represent half the people supporting the Opposition in South Africa to-day. If a referendum were to be held to-day on this one point alone we would find that most people would support the National Party. As far as this one point alone is concerned, the 90-day provision, the Nationalist Government will receive overwhelming support.

I come now to a point mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) in connection with confessions. He has the idea that these confessions which were made before the magistrate in Cape Town were rejected because of the possibility that those accused persons were assaulted. But that was not the only reason why the confessions were rejected. If the magistrate considers that a promise has been held out to an accused person to the effect that if he says this or that, he will receive a lighter sentence or be discharged, then a confession of that nature is also rejected. There are many grounds on which a confession can be rejected. But the hon. member stood up here with only one thought and that was that the magistrate had rejected these confessions because the accused persons had possibly been assaulted. That was the attitude adopted by the hon. member.

What did the magistrate say?

The magistrate rejected the confession but for no other reason than that he was not sure of the circumstances surrounding the making of that confession. That is the position and the onus of proof rests on the State. This onus of proof on the State is a very heavy one. That onus has been placed on the State in order to prevent this sort of thing. But the hon. member has suggested that this is something which only happens under these circumstances. Why has this provision been included in our laws over the years, since 1918? Why has it been included in British law for more than a century? It is because this possibility existed not as a result of the 90-day provision but as a result of other circumstances which were perhaps prevailing at the time. The hon. member has now given us to understand that it is a terrible thing for a magistrate to reject a confession of a detainee.

We have also been asked here why a state of emergency was not declared. I agree with the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other people would have liked a state of emergency to have been declared because then the outside world would immediately have taken fright. This would have affected our exports and imports; it would have affected our internal economic position and it may have resulted in the fact that people who supported the National Party would have turned against the National Party. That is actually what the Opposition want. [Time limit.]

I have been greatly struck by the aggressive mood in which several hon. members who have so far spoken on the Government side, are finding themselves. Personally I think that the reason for that is that they are trying to hide what they believe will be understood in the country as weakness when the Minister announced that he might be able to withdraw this provision. One would have thought that one would hear from hon. members opposite how glad they were to be able to get back to the situation which existed before this provision was introduced. But we have had none of that. Instead we have heard them trying to recreate the atmosphere which existed at the time the provision was introduced. And I rather suspect that the hon. the Minister has not discouraged that approach.

Let me repeat what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said, namely that we are extremely glad that the Minister was able to report that Umkonto has also been broken; and that we are very glad at the prospect of the withdrawal of this clause. We are extremely glad of that because we feel it will enable us to hold our heads higher again, something we always want. We want to pay a special tribute to the police for the great work they have done in causing this state of affairs to be brought about. They have been in our front line and have done a great job. We are backing them and we shall continue to back them to the full. We shall do them a greater service, however, if we ensure and insist upon the very highest standards in the service, as we are doing, and have done during previous debates this Session.

We also believe that our police are more than capable of coping with the situation. In fact, we believe they were so, before the 90-days clause was introduced. The Minister attempted to attribute the new situation very largely to the passage of the General Law Amendment Act, 1963, and in particular the 90-day provision. He said—

Now, I can understand that the hon. the Minister who was caught napping by the events in 1963, reacted rather too violently. He went so far as to introduce this 90-day provision. But we welcome the fact that he has regained his balance in full, even if the change has come about in the last month as appears from a speech at De Wetsdorp. It is quite natural that he should want to justify his past actions; but we say, as we said then, that the 90-day provision was not needed, nor is it needed now, even more so since the State President can at any time reintroduce it, should it be necessary.

I should like to place before hon. members for their consideration, as judges, some of the evidence which shows that our police were dealing completely satisfactorily with the serious situation of last year, long before the 90-day provision was introduced. They had Poqo virtually beaten and if they could do that, I for one have no fear that they could also have beaten Umkonto. Let me give the facts. The General Law Amendment Act was introduced on 2 May last year but as early as April last year the position was that most of the leaders of Poqo had been arrested to such an extent that it could be said that that movement had been paralysed or even perhaps destroyed. The hon. the Minister himself when he introduced the Bill said exactly that. Amongst other things he said—

Wat ek wel die reg het om te se, is dat hierdie beweging in ’n baie groot mate lamgelê is, indien dit dan nie uitgeroei is nie.

That then was the situation in April last year when the Minister came to this House for these extra powers. One has only to look at the report of the commissioner for the half-yearly period ending 30 June 1963, to see that this is in every way a correct statement. On page 4 of the report the situation is set out from which it is absolutely clear that the police had broken the entire movement by the time the report was made, or in any case by the time the Minister took the extra powers. At that stage, i.e. at the time the hon. the Minister spoke last year, 2,294 people had already been arrested and accused, 344 of murder of whom 124 were already found guilty while 17 were found guilty of attempted murder. Many other cases were still pending.

That then was the position last year when these powers were being sought. And I say that if our police were capable of tracking down those people, as they did, without these extra powers, and to get the necessary evidence to bring them before the courts, I have no doubt, neither then nor now, that they could have dealt with the situation created by any other movement that might have come. I am pleased to say that apparently they feel that they are able to do that now.

We conceded that there was a serious situation and we were prepared to help to a large extent, something for which we were criticized in many quarters. We were, however, quite prepared to endure that. We said, however, that this particular 90-day clause was not necessary. I have already given proof to show that our police were coping perfectly confidently without it.

has that power been abused?

There are allegations that that power has been abused. I did not wish to deal with this but as the hon. member raises it, I want to remind the Minister that allegations were published in the New York Times, the London Observer and I think the Manchester Guardian where it was said that they had affidavits of serious abuse. I simply state this because I have been provoked by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North.

Do you accept those allegations?

I do not know. Will the hon. the Minister please tell me what truth there is in them? [Interruptions.]

The hon. the Minister has given reasons for not immediately abandoning this power. He might do it at an early stage. I hope he does so immediately. I urge him, sitting in the position perhaps of a Judge, to see whether the facts do not justify such a course. He said certain admissions had been made in court cases. If I got his words down correctly, he said that these admissions amounted to the fact that these people admitted that they had been prevented from doing certain deeds. Now, that is a very much new reason for this clause. The hon. the Minister has always maintained, indeed, the argument so far in this debate has proceeded on the basis that it was for interrogation that that provision was required. But now the Minister said that it had prevented people from committing certain crimes. I shall be glad if he could explain what seems to me to be a contradiction.

Did you not read in the newspapers?

As far as that is concerned, it is well-known that if there is suspicion that a crime has been or is about to be committed, the police have the right to arrest, thereby preventing any such thing. The hon. the Minister has certain powers to detain, without bringing to trial, for 12 days, as well as various other powers. Indeed, we were prepared to help him last year with the clause which made it possible to take evidence from people where there is suspicion of a crime. He well knows that we were prepared to give greater powers under the normal code of criminal law in this respect.

Another reason the hon. the Minister gave, was that although Poqo had been broken there was “doodnoodsaaklike opruimingswerk”. But this is the same reason he used last time when he asked for these powers. When he came in April last year he said he had broken Poqo but certain cases were pending and for that he still needed the power. I suggest that with the ordinary powers of the police and their very excellent detection and bringing to book of so many criminals, they can cope without this extra power. [Time limit.]

It is not my intention to discuss the 90-day provision any further except to say that I believe that the person who is by far the best qualified to judge when this provision should be suspended is certainly the hon. the Minister of Justice. He asked for this provision for certain reasons and he is also in the best position to judge when it should be suspended. For us to argue here to-day about the continuation or suspension of this provision will not get us very far. I believe therefore that we can leave matters in his hands with the utmost confidence. I also believe that this House and the people outside owe a very great debt of gratitude to the hon. the Minister for having taken this timely step at the right time and in this way saved South Africa from a possible revolution and bloodshed. South Africa will certainly not forget this. On the contrary; South Africa will remember that this was a measure of this Government and, in particular, of this hon. Minister of Justice, assisted by a very capable Police Force. We who are here to-day and who have been spared a possibility of this nature are very grateful indeed to those who dealt with this matter. I believe that the situation was far more serious than we who sit here and are not able to see what is happening behind the scenes ever realized.

There is another matter that worries me. Indeed, it has been worrying me now for some time. I want to discuss this matter to-day— the activities of the student body Nusas. I believe that in this regard I am dealing with a matter in which we will and must have the full support of the Opposition because one of its leaders, or should I say, its deputyleader, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), has already discussed this matter. I have here the speech which he made in Durban, a speech in which he made certain attacks upon this student body. We must remember that the State makes a big contribution towards the education of students at university. Every student who leaves university costs South Africa a very large sum of money indeed. If we bear this in mind, then I believe that this House has every right to know what goes on at those universities. If I may come back for a moment to this 90-day provision, I want to say that I find it strange that lecturers and professors are at the head of a movement, of a great campaign which is aimed precisely at this provision; in other words, these are people who are employed at those universities where your youth, the leaders of to-morrow, are being trained. Because I have a very large question mark at the back of my mind in regard to the training which these people receive at the universities, in regard to the influence to which the student is subjected, I want to raise this matter here.

When the hon. member for Yeoville discussed this matter in his speech at Durban he found it necessary to bring certain matters to the serious attention of Nusas, a student body at certain universities, more particularly the Universities of Cape Town and Johannesburg. It is the members of these two universities who make up the executive council and it is these two universities who have given political guidance to Nusas. Nusas thought fit, through the medium of its present, Mr. Driver, to hold a seminar at Botha’s Hill in Durban. The president of the body addressed them there and said certain things. At a later stage he denied having said certain of these things, half denied others and readily admitted having said others. Taken as a whole, I think that this matter is a very serious one for this House, for the universities concerned and more particularly for the student body itself.

Last year the hon. the Minister of Justice thought fit to make an appeal to this student body to review its organization and to review the ideals which they advocate and for which they stand. The reaction on the part of the Press to this was one of ridicule and contempt. Nusas at a certain university was everything that could be expected. But what happened after this bore out completely what the hon. the Minister had warned against at the time. I do not have the time now to quote the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville here. Sufficient to say that he found it necessary to issue a very serious warning to this student body.

I want to mention the fact here that the University of Cape Town receives R1,352,078 per annum from the Treasury. I only want to mention the figures which are particularly interesting to my mind. What is more, the University of the Witwatersrand receives R1,614,210 per annum. These are large sums of money, but we need these students. There is no question of their being Afrikaans or English speaking. There are many students belonging to both population groups at both of these universities. Race, therefore, plays nopart in what I have to say here this afternoon. After the attack of the hon. member for Yeoville in Durban, the leader of the students’ council replied to the hon. member. I have that reply here but I do not want to quote it because it will take up too much time. Amongst other things, he acted as though the attack of the hon. member for Yeoville was something trivial and petty. He said that the minutes of Nusas were available to every student meeting and that they were the people who had to approve or reject those minutes. He said that they were available to everyone and that there was nothing secret either about the composition of Nusas or about its policy and the implementation of that policy. That was his reply. After this he made a second statement in which he said that he feared the repercussions that would follow. Amongst other things he said: “I have made certain foolish declarations.” He admitted that he had made certain stupid statements, but the fact remains that when he reported to the students at the Universiy of Cape Town, some hundreds of them still accepted his point of view. It is those statements to which I want to lodge objection here this afternoon.

I do not think that there can be any doubt that there is a sinister and revolutionary attitude being adopted at these two universities. An appeal has now been made by certain students within those universities and I on my part want to say immediately that I am very grateful that conservative ideas are still to be found at those universities. I may say that I have often visited the University of Cape Town to make speeches in connection with the question of political life in South Africa to-day. Let me say at the same time that the student being what he is, a young person who sees the opportunity of reforming the world and so forth, feels that he wants to make changes. I can understand that this is so but when a leader of an organization like Nusas openly admits that he is in favour of certain lines of action, lines of action which are not propounded in this House and which are not advocated in the rest of the country, lines of action which must lead to the overthrow of our existing State and the setting up of a brand-new régime … [Time limit.]

I wish to deal first of all with the allegations made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) about this pamphlet. Let me make it quite clear that I do not disagree with what is said in this pamphlet. All I said was that it was not issued by the Progressive Party. Wherever it was posted is no concern of mine or the Progressive Party. But I agree with the sentiment and the statement issued in this pamphlet and, as I say, I have already queried the hon. the Minister’s accusation that one major statement herein is incorrect and I have quoted from the actual evidence given under oath by Detective Sergeant Card. I believe that the hon. the Minister is wrong in that regard and that Card, when he referred to using the 90-day clause, was referring to the persons he kept under that clause from June 1963 until August 1963 which covers the period that he talked about, although he also included the previous year’s arrests in his evidence.

Now, the other two points which the hon. the Minister queried was the question of not giving relatives information. Now, Sir, these two cases may well be as the hon. the Minister pointed out. I asked a question on this and the reply was that the wrong name had been given in the one case. But there are other cases that have been brought to my notice where people have had to go from police station to police station to try and find out where their relatives were being kept.

Why did you not bring them to my notice?

Well, Sir, I did bring some of them to the hon. the Minister’s notice, and always the answer comes back that the wrong names are given. That may be so, but I can only tell the hon. the Minister that relatives have indeed complained about this, and, therefore, from the ordinary evidence which the compilers of this pamphlet had, they believed that to be so.

Now, Sir, I want to ask the hon. the Minister about some of his major undertakings which are tackled in this pamphlet and about which he has made no mention whatsoever. The one, for instance, is that he would not hold people for longer than 90 days …

I never gave that undertaking whatsoever and you know it.

Well, Sir, here is Hansard of last year and here is Col. 4874 of Hansard Vol. VI of last year, and this is what the hon. the Minister said. He was discussing with the hon. member for Zululand the terrible time that he and other people had unde-gone, of confinement without trial, etc., and solitary confinement in some cases during the war years. He said this when having an argument with the hon. member for Zululand—

What assumption can any reasonable person draw from that statement, viz: “Note well, I am limiting the period to 90 days.” Did the hon. the Minister at that time not wish to imply that he had, in fact, introduced a limitation to the period of confinement without trial?

How can you say that?

Otherwise, why put in 90 days at all? If it was not his intention to have a limitation on this clause, why did he ever put in 90 days? Perhaps he will tell us that. Did he like the sound of “90 days”? Does it have a nice, round, ringing tone to it? Or what was the reason? Any person reading the law, even without reading that statement made by the hon. the Minister in this House, can only assume one thing, and one thing only, and that is it was the intention of the law and the hon. the Minister’s intention to limit this to 90 days.

What did the courts say? There is a decision on that point!

Yes, the court said…

What did I say in the House?

I have just quoted what the hon. the Minister said in the House. Now, did the Minister want to imply that he was going to let people out for five minutes and then rearrest them at once? Because that is, in fact, precisely what has happened, in case after case. People have been let out, shown the light of day for five minutes and clapped in again immediately after that. Is that what the Minister meant? There are other references as well. The hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) has just directed my attention to another reference in Hansard—Col. 4657 where the Minister said “but in no case for longer than 90 days”. That is when he said that he appreciated that it was not a provision which was proper in peacetime. There is also a reference in the Hansard of the Other Place which gives the same impression. Now, what has happened in fact? And what has happened forms the important accusations in this pamplet and not the one about Mrs. Ngudle’s husband having been dead before she was informed, although as a matter of fact, everybody is under that impression, not the fact that a youngster gave the wrong name and because of that his mother was not informed, and things of that nature. I dispute the hon. the Minister’s questioning this statement of Detective-Sergeant Card. I dispute it. But let me come to the major accusations. Let us see what has actually happened under this clause. According to the information given to me by the hon. the Minister earlier this Session something like 712 people, it might be more now, have already been taken in under this provision since its inception. Of those 61 have been detained for more than 90 days, eight for more than two lots of 90 days, amongst them being two or perhaps three women, and according to the very latest figures 39 people are still being held under this law, of whom two have been in for more than six months and, note well, in solitary confinement, seven for over five months, six for over four months and five for over three months. These are the Minister’s own figures.

Now, this is a major accusation against the abuses under this 90-days provision. These then are the things the hon. the Minister should be answering instead of trying to shield behind a couple of minor, and I repeat “minor”, inaccuracies in this pamphlet, a pamphlet which I endorse although I had nothing to do with its publication. There is the Minister’s statement that no one need stay one day longer than necessary, because he said that too. He said that a person need only tell the police what he knows and he need not be detained any further. Well, there are other reports, and perhaps the Minister could tell us whether these are true or not, for instance by a witness in the Rivonia trial who said that he was kept in custody for 65 days before the police took a statement from him and thereafter he was kept for a further period because the police were busy with other things. This was a witness who gave evidence for the State in the Rivonia trial. Then there is the statement of lieutenant Swanepoel, also during the same trial, who stated that the African housemaid belonging to the Arthur Goldreich household had apparently told all she knew within a short time after her arrest. Despite that she was detained for the full 90 days because it was felt that more information could be got out of her. But apparently she told all she knew at an early stage. This clause is in itself repulsive to all the normal interpretation of the rule of law and these are the ways in which it has been abused.

Now I want to know from the hon. the Minister what happens to all these wretched people who are finally released, against many of whom no charges were laid because, as the hon. member for Heilbron rightly pointed out, the idea behind the clause was not to obtain confessions but to get information. A large number of people have in fact been charged as well after having made confessions. They may then be charged with various crimes. But what happens to these people after their release. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has any idea about what has happened to those families in the three, six or ninth months periods of detention? Jobs are lost and when Africans come out of 90-days detention, irrespective of whether they have told all they know, or whether the police have decided that they have been detained innocently originally and that they have in fact no information to give, they are endorsed out. Many cases have been brought to my notice where they have been endorsed out of the urban areas. [Time limit.]

I am surprised that the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has again advanced the ridiculous argument that I gave an undertaking that no person would be detained for more than one period of 90 days. I have often argued this matter in the Other Place but if the hon. member wants us to argue it here again I shall do so gladly.

Send her to the Other Place.

I want to ask the hon. member when she made the discovery that I had given such an undertaking?

When you introduced the legislation.

I find that very strange. The hon. member accuses me of having given an undertaking and of not having carried out that undertaking. What is very interesting is that this is the first time that the hon. member makes that accustation against me.

No, it is not.

Yes, it is, because in the debate which we conducted here in 1963 the hon. member attacked me on the ground that I could detain people for more than one period of 90 days. The hon. member attacked me in that debate, and I want to quote what she said on that occasion (col. 4673)—

That was after I had spoken and after I had given the assurance, according to the hon. member, that I would not detain any person for more than one period of 90 days. The hon. member went on to say—

That is the charge which the hon. member made against me, and she was quite correct.

You gave us an assurance that that would not happen.

No; let the hon. member remain silent now for a moment. Immediately before I introduced the Bill—and I want to ask the hon. member whether she remembers this—I held a Press conference and I specifically told the Press that people could be detained for more than one period. And there was no misunderstanding on the part of the hon. member; that was why she attacked me. But the hon. member was not the only person who attacked me in that regard. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition attacked me because people could be detained for more than one period—and there he confirms that is correct; the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) attacked me on the same ground and the former member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) also attacked me on the ground that people be detained for more than one period.

But that was after the second reading.

No, what the hon. member has in mind is the fact that when I replied to the hon. member for Zululand I contrasted the detention provision which was in operation under their regime, during the war period, with the present provision. I said at the time that whilst the period of detention was indefinite under United Party regime, it was limited to 90 days under my provisions. True, it would have been better if I had said “90 days at a time”, but that is what the Act provides for. That was how I explained the Bill and that was how hon. members understood it and that was why they attacked me.

I want to go further. The hon. member came to see me in my office in Pretoria and I asked her what her complaints were; she came to see me in Pretoria but it was headline news in the Press as early as August that the first detainees were being detained for the second period of 90 days. The hon. member came to see me in October and she complained about the food given to detainees and goodness knows what else. Why did she not say to me, “You said in Parliament that no person would be detained for a second period and yet you are detaining them now for a second period?”

We did not know about it.

No, that is not true. It was headline news in the newspapers on 5, 6, and 7 August that persons were beine detained for a second period. Does the hon. member want to suggest that she did not know about it? I corlld go and fetch my papers during the lunch-hour and read them out here after the luncheon adjournment, but I want to say here unequivocally that the statement contained in this pamphlet to the effect that I gave an undertaking that no person would be detained for a second period is an infamous lie and that any person who repeats it will be telling a lie well knowing that it is a lie.

On a point of order, must I assume that the hon. the Minister is calling me a liar?

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

As far as that is concerned, if any hon. member wishes to pursue this matter I am quite prepared to argue it out. The hon. member is unhappybecause I exposed the lies told by her party colleague, Mr. Hamilton Russell, in connection with other matters, She challenges me to take this matter further and I propose to do so.

In this pamphlet Mr. Russell alleges that—

I say that that is a lie. No such thing ever happened. The hon. member has access to Mr. Russell; she must not shelter behind anonymous allegations, because the name of the person concerned is not mentioned here; Mr. Russell simply says that “one man” was detained three times in succession. I challenge her to produce an affidavit, signed by the person concerned, to support the allegation “that he was detained three times in succession under the 90-day clause and when brought to trial was discharged.” But Mr. Russell goes on to say—

Note well, Sir, he gives a figure here but again he mentions no names—Thirteen persons after the 90-day treatment were brought to trial and discharged but were rearrested as they left court.

Helen, not only do you people lie but you cannot even count. [Laughter.]

I go further. I want to deal with another lie contained in this pamphlet—and so I could go on ad infinitum once I start analysing this pamphlet. The pamphlet says—

After this man had been detained for such a terribly long period, it is now stated that all that happened is that he was charged with having issued a certain pamphlet. But, Sir, that is an infamous lie and Mr. Russell ought to know that if he had any information in connection with this case. What are the facts? The fact of the matter is that this person was detained for 180 days—and that is all that is correct—but at the end of his period of detention he was not charged with having issued a pamphlet only. Incidentally on that charge he was sentenced to nine months, six of which were suspended, but he was then charged with a very serious crime and at this moment he is still serving a sentence of four years’ imprisonment for that crime. That fact, however, is suppressed and it is stated that he was charged because he had issued a little pamphlet. Are these people not ashamed of themselves? Sir, I gave certain advice at the time to the Leader of the Opposition and I want to give the same advice now to the Leader of the Progressive Party. Mr. Russell should be kicked out of the party; and the hon. member would be doing a very wise thing in kicking him out.

But what would she have left then?

She would still have many supporters left because—and I make this charge against the hon. member who made personal attacks here upon me— she associates with many queer people.

Sometimes I have no option.

I do not propose to reply to the personal attacks made upon me by the hon. member because I have often replied outside this House to the same sort of arguments when I have been attacked by communists. I do not think therefore that it is necessary to do so again, but I want to read out something to the hon. member, from which she may perhaps learn something, and that is from the annual report of the Liberal Party. The hon. member sits here as the representative of the Progressive Party, and I want to quote to her what appeared in the annual report of the Liberal Party. We all know with whom the Liberal Party associates. They say here that they do have a little problem as far as the Progressive Party is concerned, generally speaking, but then they go on to say this—

[Laughter.] And then the hon. member advises Mr. Hamilton Russell again! In these circumstances one can understand the statements made in this pamphlet. Sir, I rose immediately to reply to that aspect of the matter as far as the hon. member for Houghton is concerned.

As far as the case of Sergeant Card is concerned, I read the record of the proceedings of the court case as well as the newspaper reports, as I told her. Surely the hon. member knows that Sergeant Card had no power to arrest people; only officers may do so. The whole thing makes no sense therefore, and the hon. member ought to appreciate that. But while I am dealing with that aspect, there are one or two matters that I must take a little further, and I say this particularly to the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman). The hon. member has asked whether the fact that the person who makes the arrest will not tell his superior officer when he has made a mistake, will not lead to misuse. I have explained this before and I shall do so again. Such a thing simply cannot happen for the simple reason that no arrest is made or may be made without authorization from headquarters. I have explained before that in order to be able to exercise control instructions were given—and those instructions are carried out strictly in every case—to the effect that no person may arrest and detain a person on his own initiative under the 90-day clause until such time as he has discussed the case with headquarters.

Can the Minister say that more than one person is present on every occasion when the questioning takes place?

No, I cannot say that at the moment but I shall make inquiries and let the hon. member know after the luncheon adjournment. I believe that that is the case; I believe that that is how the police acted, but at this moment I do not have that information. However, I shall get it and give it to the hon. member. But that is not what we are dealing with at the moment; we are dealing with the arrest of this person, and my argument is that no person can be arrested without the prior approval of headquarters.This is perhaps the appropriate stage to give the House the following information in respect of the people who were detained for 90 days. The position up to date is that 737 persons have been detained under that clause. Of those, 397 have been charged, 301 have been released, and at the moment 39 are still being detained. If hon. members ask me why I do not suspend this provision, then I can only say with all due deference that they do not know what is going on. All I want to say to the hon. member for Pinelands is that he should exercise a little patience and wait a few weeks and see what happens; let him see what cases come before the court and what happens in those cases. Why does he not accept my word in this connection? Surely he knows I was correct in every respect in the past, because I had the information at my disposal and hon. members did not have it.

I ask for an assurance that this particular power is necessary.

We argued that last year. Must I repeat all the arguments of last year? Let me refresh the hon. member’s memory. Does the hon. member remember that when we debated this Bill last year, the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gavi —I hope he does not become angry now again because I have mentioned his name—appealed to me to withdraw Clause 17, for then we would have a Bill all of us could support. He then said: Include it in a separate Bill next year if you still want it Does he remember that I told the hon. member I did hot want those powers this year, but I required them at present? And I said now, because I knew what was happening. I mentioned how a prominent accused in connection with these underground activities said that had it not been for the 90-day clause, certain things would have happened in South Africa, and had those things happened, much suffering and grief and even homicide would have occurred? Why does the hon. member not accept that I know better, because I have the information at my disposal?

But what about the arrests that occurred before this happened?

Can the hon. member not remember that in the one case we had to deal with Poqo which was a great, extensive organization which did certain things by brute force? Does he not remember that I went out of my way to explain the difference between Poqo and Umkonto we Sizwe? Does he not remember that I explained that one was based on pure violence, while the other was perpetrating well-planned sabotage with finesse behind the scenes? Does he not remember how I explained the d’fference and said that while we could deal effectively with Poqo without those powers, we required them here because we were dealing with shrewd White communists who were behind these people? Does he not remember that I said the police had expressly asked for this measure and that I supported them in it? Why does the hon. member not wait and see what happens and what court cases are still going to come, and then judge? Of these detainees, 180 have been used as witnesses in the courts, and the evidence of many of them has been accepted. I shall not be surprised if the evidence of some of them has been rejected, but the evidence of the majority of them has been accepted.

But now I should like to make an announcement. Hon. members have from time to time charged me with being indifferent regarding the statements made in respect of the treatment of detainees. I wish to address the Leader of the Opposition in particular. Hon. members asked for a judicial inquiry and I gave my reasons why I could not accede to that request, but I want to tell hon. members what I have done. I have asked the International Red Cross to send a representative from Geneva to come and inspect the prisons and places of detention in South Africa, and I may tell hon. members that the representative has been here, and that I permitted him to go to Robben Island. I said he could take his time and remain as long as he wished. Apart from the fact that he again visited Sobukwe as he did before, I told him that at Robben Island there are dozens of people who have been convicted and also had been detained under the 90-day provision. I told him he was at liberty to talk privately to any of those people, and I made facilities available to him. He made that inquiry. I told him furthermore that I would show him the farm prisons. I did so. I showed him Switzerland, the new lay-out between Paarl and Fransch Hoek, and I opened up the prison at Kroonstad for him, as well as that of Pretoria and Johannesburg. I permitted him to have access to every detainee under the 90-day clause for private discussions with them on any subject he wished and for as long as he wished. I did not withhold anything or anybody from him. He had a free hand to make an inquiry. He made a report to me in person as regards the Cape Town area: in respect of the northern areas he reported to my officials. I do not wish to say now what he told me personally or my officials, because it is their custom that he must send his report to Geneva, and then they again send me a report. Unfortunately I have not received that report as yet. I do not know whether it will be favourable or unfavourable. But I am mentioning this to show I have nothing to hide.

What are the dates of the visit?

It was a few weeks ago. I shall furnish the dates later on. I do not know whether the report is going to be favourable to me, but I took the liberty, and there was no obligation upon me to do so, to throw open everything to the representative of the Red Cross. I am saying this because I want to say very clearly once again, that I am satisfied with the manner in which things have gone. Because we are human, mistakes are made, but I am satisfied with the way things have been done, and I have nothing to hide from anyone. I trust that after my analysis of the Russell pamphlet, after the discussion we have had in that connection, this anonymous agitation which is always being set afoot—we always hear of this and that case, but no person ever comes forward with any proof. May I give the Leader of the Opposition another case now. He will recall that he gave me certain documents, copies of which were given to me by the hon. member for Houghton too. The leader will recall that one of them was sworn, and the others were unsworn, not even signed. Those are complaints I have received. What is the position there? Those persons were detained. The magistrate saw them from time to time. They never complained that they had been assaulted. When they appeared in court, after legal representation had been arranged for them by Defence and Aid, they for the first time complained in the court that they had been assaulted. Now the hon. the Leader will understand why I told him this thing had been inspired. These people then complained that they had been assaulted, in court for the first time, after they had consulted the legal representative of Defence and Aid. Having heard about this, a police officer immediately went to these people to take statements from them on where they had been assaulted and who assaulted them, and what did they tell him? They said they refused to make a statement, because their attorney had told them not to make a statement on that. Can the hon. member understand now why he gave me unsigned documents? That attorney, incidentally, is one of the leaders of the Liberal Party. Now the Leader of the Opposition can understand what one endured in that connection and why it is so difficult to investigate these matters. Sir, let me give you another case. One hardly wishes to mention it, but I wish to remind hon. members of what appeared in the newspapers in regard to what was supposed to have happened to the man who was supposed to have been buried up to his neck. The name of that person was mentioned in that article. We approached that person and took an affidavit from him. We wanted to investigate the matter. He said he knew nothing at all about it. We sent impartial people to him who had nothing to do with the whole matter. He told them he knew nothing about it. And what happened then? When he said he knew nothing about it, and when we made it known that the man knew nothing about it, they mentioned another name.

Who are “they”?

The defamers of South Africa overseas, the people who wrote the article overseas. Another name was then mentioned. This name was mentioned after we had allowed certain people to visit Robben Island. One cannot refuse these requests to visit detainees. After certain persons had visited Robben Island, another name was suddenly mentioned as the person to whom this is supposed to have happened, and not the name of the other person whose name was first mentioned. But the difficulty is that there was no opportunity to lie so well, for when we investigated the matter, various places were pointed out as the place where it was supposed to have happened, and at least three people were pointed out, a convict and two warders, as the people who were supposed to have perpetrated this act. You see, Sir, that is my difficulty. The people are not concerned with the truth. If people here in South Africa, people like Mr. Hamilton Russell, do not mind how they lie in order to bring discredit upon South Africa, what can one expect from people outside? The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) asked me the other day whether we furnish these people with the facts; we give them the facts but people prefer to believe the lies, and once they believe a lie, it is very difficult indeed to convince them of the truth.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me when Dr. Hoffman was here. He was here from Friday, 1 May to 4 May and the following week he was in the Transvaal. Unfortunately I am unable to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition how long he remained in the Transvaal.

Did he interview any detainees under the 90-day clause here in Cape Town?

At that stage there were no 90-day detainees locally whom he could interview. The detainees he could interview were all in Johannesburg and in Pretoria. He saw them all, or in any event all of them were at his disposal if he wished to see them, and to the best of my knowledge he saw all of them. My information is that he saw each and every one of them and that he interviewed each and every one privately.

My hon. leader also raised the question of the 11 warders. Will the hon. the Minister please indicate what the position is in that connection?

No, I did not raise it. (Laughter.)

May I then ask the Minister, while he is on this subject, whether he will deal with the question of the 11 warders on Robben Island who were discharged from the service on the ground of unsuitability.

The position on Robben Island is a very difficult one, for the place does not suit all people; the place is isolated; you do not come to town frequently; you do not have the facilities you have on land, and unfortunately there are some people who cannot adapt themselves to conditions there and who cannot make themselves at home there, but we do have to have warders there. That is one of the reasons why some of the people leave the service and some have had to leave the service. As in any other industry or profession, it is sometimes found, after a man has been appointed as a warder, that he does not fit into that position. There are many Members of Parliament here, but we do not all fit in here.

There are many of you who do not fit in; that is quite correct.

There are many who do not fit in and then they become members of the Opposition. There are people also who are not fit for this particular kind of work. It is unfortunate that this is so, but we cannot argue it away. When we come across such cases, we act realistically and then we rather put an end to the bond existing between the Department and the person in question. That is all I have to say at this stage. If there are other points to which I have not yet replied, I shall do so after the dinner break.

Will you reply to the allegations made in connection with Vigne?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I had refused to give Vigne the necessary consent; I refused; I did so on principle for once you permit yourself to be involved in controversy on persons who have been restricted in their movements for very good reasons, you simply have to continue. No charges have been made against Vigne; in fact he says so in his statement too. All that has been said, is that he went to see a person, and within a day or two, whatever the case may be, the person was assaulted. He does not deny this. He says he went to see the person and that he went to see him to try to persuade him to leave Matanzima and join Poto—and that is the man now who said that he had never interfered in these matters. He says that in his statement; I shall see whether I can get hold of the statement and then I shall give it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition after the dinner break.

Does he admit that that is the reason why the person was assaulted?

No, but nobody ever accused him of having assaulted the person.

That was the excuse.

No, the facts were simply given. I did so on a previous occasion and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development did so. We said it is a strange thing that one thing happened and immediately thereafter another thing happened. Judge Snyman said the same thing in his report. But I accept full responsibility for having refused to have Vigne’s lengthy story in this regard published for the reasons I have given the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Judge Snyman subsequently withdrew that allegation.

As far as Sobukwe is concerned, the position is that he applied for leave to leave the country. Had I wished to be funny I could immediately have said “no”, but I had to investigate the matter; I had to go into the connection between organizations and persons; we had to make a very thorough study of what could possibly happen if we were to permit him to go overseas. There were an enormous number of facets of the case that had to be considered. I considered the matter for a long time and I decided that in the interests of South Africa I could not permit him to go overseas. I informed his attorney last week, unless I am mistaken, that I could not do it. The Bill of which I gave notice the other day,the Omnibus Bill, will contain a provision which will authorize me to detain Sobukwe on Robben Island for the ensuing year.

For how long are you going to lock him up there?

Just as many lies have been spread about him; I have seen articles which says that he has to live in a cell where he has to stand in cold water up to his knees. Hon. members have seen how it was alleged how hard he had to work and what discomforts he had to endure. The representatives of the Red Cross have seen him; they gave me a written report and in that report it is said that his accommodation is equivalent to “that of a high-ranking officer in time of war”. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will know what that means. Those are the words of Dr. Hoffman. It has been found that his state of health is splendid and that there is nothing wrong with him. Mention is made of all the hardships he has to endure. He has a radio there and he receives the newspaper every day.

But he is in gaol nevertheless.

But of course he is. Did the hon. member think he is in a hotel? Sir, I do not know whether there are further questions the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wishes to ask me.

When the report of the International Red Cross comes to hand, are you prepared to make it available to the Opposition?

Yes, I am prepared to show it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and several speakers on this side of the House have, during the course of to-day, asked the hon. the Minister to explain why in his opinion he requires the 90-day clause.

Did you not listen to the Minister?

Sir, this is the question which we on this side of the House ask the hon. the Minister …

You do not understand Afrikaans.

If the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) would keep quiet for a few moments I might be able to get on a little better. I do not require his assistance.

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

Sir, I was saying that we on this side of the House have during the course of to-day asked the hon. the Minister to explain why in his opinion he requires this 90-day clause. His attitude to-day has been precisely the same as his attitude was when he first introduced this clause in the General Law Amendment Bill last year, and it virtually amounts to this: “I need this clause because it is necessary for the purpose of maintaining the security of the State.”

What is wrong with that?

What is wrong with it is that this is a statement; what we want him to do is to substantiate that statement by explaining to us why it is necessary for the purpose of maintaining the security of the State to have this clause and why the existing laws, other than that clause, are not sufficient to maintain the security of the State. Sir, despite considerable prompting the hon. the Minister has failed to do this to-day just as he failed to do it last year when he introduced the Bill. It is very easy for a Minister simply to say that he needs certain powers and that without those powers he could not have achieved what he did achieve. I go further. I suggest that what this House wants from the Minister, indeed what this House is entitled to from an hon. Minister who claims that he must continue with a vicious clause of this nature, a clause which the hon. the Minister himself described …

Order! The hon. member cannot refer to that clause as a “vicious clause” because that is a reflection upon an Act of Parliament. The hon. member must withdraw the remark.

I withdraw it and in place of it I say that it is a section, the consequences of which are vicious. This is a clause which the hon. the Minister …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order to say that is the effect of a clause is also a reflection on legislation which is already on the Statute Book.

The hon. member may continue.

I point out again that this is the clause about which the Minister had these words to say when he introduced it—

In those circumstances I repeat that this House is entitled to have an explanation from the Minister as to why he requires this clause and why the provisions which exist in the law, other than this, are insufficient.

I am sorry the hon. the Minister is not in the House at the moment because I wish to refer to another matter and to put certain questions to the Minister arising from this. I am glad to see that the hon. the Minister is back in his seat. Sir, on 16 April of this year, according to a newspaper report, the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) who unfortunately is not in the House at the moment, when addressing a meeting of the Institute of Citizenship in the Cathedral Hall in Cape Town, dealt with a subject which he entitled: “The 90-day clause: a defensible necessity.” The hon. member gave certain reasons for the existence of this 90-day clause. I am going to read some of these reasons and I am going to make the allegation that every single one of the reasons which I am about to read would, if the clause were used in this way, constitute an illegal use of the clause. I would like to have the hon. the Minister’s comments on that. First of all the hon. member said—

The second reason was to prevent people from persuading others to commit an unlawful act Thirdly, to prevent people from fleeing pending completion of investigations. Fourthly, to protect informers previously engaged in unlawful acts. Then, Sir, this very quaint reason: “It could be employed usefully to cause doubt among revolutionaries by detaining police investigating officers.” Mr. Chairman, I make this allegation that every single one of those so-called reasons that I have just read out constitutes an illegal use of this clause. Would the hon. the Minister deny that that is so? When the hon. the Minister introduced the clause he emphasized that the sole purpose of this clause was to interrogate people. In fact. Sir, there is no doubt whatsoever that that is the sole purpose of it. The marginal note reads—

It is perfectly clear that the persons who can be detained are those whom the police suspect, upon reasonable grounds, of having committed or having intended to commit certain offences …

Order! Will the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) please observe the rules?

Mr. Chairman, I have had to swim through rather rough seas just lately; I hope I can claim a little injury time. [Time limit.]

When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made such a friendly gesture to South Africa by saying that South Africa was not a police state and that there was freedom of the Press in South Africa, I wondered to whom the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was saying this. Was he saying it to us? We did not say that South Africa was a police state. It is obvious that he did not say it to us. If he did not say it to us, to whom did he say it? Did he say it to the Opposition? He has told us that the Opposition have never said that South Africa is a police state. To whom did he say it, Mr. Chairman? I wonder why he said it. When one considers this matter for a moment one realizes only too well why he said it and to whom he said it.

You were not listening.

To whom did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say it?

I said it for the record.

Why is it necessary for the record?

I placed it on record so that South Africa and the whole world could read it and so that Government members could read it and not make that accusation against us again.

I know that it was meant for the record. I am very grateful that he has said that. It was intended for the record as a condition for the things that came after it. He wanted to tell the outside world and South Africa: “I, the Leader of the Opposition, say South Africa is not a police state; there is freedom of the Press in South Africa.” By this he wanted to give the impression, that he, the Leader of the Opposition, was telling the world the true facts about South Africa and that he was being patriotic towards South Africa. But what did he say after that—this is of importance—and why did he say it?

At the moment the accusation of the outside world against South Africa is not that we are a police state. That is not the propaganda that is being made against us in the world to-day. The hostile attack which is being made against us in the outside world to-day, and we find its echo at UNO, is that the administration of justice in South Africa is suspect. We find this in the discussion which has taken place; we find it in the publicity which is given to the Rivonia case; we find it in the publicity which is given to the three people who were condemned to death and in regard to whom the resolution was taken. We know that the judgment in the Rivonia case will be given soon. Only a fool would not expect a very hostile reaction to South Africa after that judgment, a hostile reaction to the administration of justice in South Africa. That is why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition gives us to understand to-day that he is being very friendly towards South Africa and that he is being very objective towards South Africa. What did he say? He said: “Suspend that 90-day provision and tell the police that they can fight according to the rules of civilized countries.” This is a very clear insinuation that South Africa is to-day not a civilized country. He said: “Tell the police they need no longer offend their conscience.” His accusation against the hon. the Minister in this regard is that he has compelled the police to offend their consciences. That is the propaganda that is being made against us in the outside world to-day. That was the reason why at the start he gave us to understand that he was also patriotic towards South Africa and that he was objective in regard to conditions here. He did this to create the position in which he could say precisely what the outside world wanted to hear from South Africa and from somebody like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. That is my accusation against him. Mr. Chairman, when one listens to what the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) has had to say and what has just been said by the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) then one realizes that they a-e following precisely the same pattern. The hon. member for Zululand spoke of the inability to govern by normal means; Government by means which are improper … [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) can make his point. I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that I reject that sweet and friendly gesture on the part of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition; I reject it because he is trying to bluff the people here in South Africa and because he is trying to make the outside world find his other accusations to be worthy of praise. That is what it is and nothing more.

Answer the question.

Did the hon. member ask a question?

No, Mr. Chairman.

I ask because the hon. member has just said that the hon. member for Innesdal (Mr. J. A. Marais) should answer his question. The hon. member may continue.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said: “The crisis is past.” The hon. the Minister has already dealt with the matter which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition considered to be a crisis. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said: “The crisis is past according to my information.” We should like to know what his information in regard to these matters is. Last year in June, in this House, during the debate on the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Justice, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was the person who stood up here and said: “The Minister of Justice has just given us information about Poqo but what of the A.N.C.?” He asked whether the A.N.C. was communistically inspired or whether it was African nationalistic. I told him at the time that it had already been found at the high treason trial that the A.N.C. was in favour of a communist state in South Africa. That high treason trial took place two years previously. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said then that he had no information in regard to the A.N.C. He said this after the Supreme Court had already given that information in a finding. I wonder whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will be friendly enough to tell us what information it was he referred to when he said just now: “The crisis is past according to my information.” Will he tell us on what information be bases that statement? Will he be so friendly as to give us that information so that we can pass judgment on it? We want to discover whether that information of his is not perhaps just as poor as his information last year was. It will help us a great deal if he will give us that information.

I want to come back now to the hon. member for Zululand. He asked why we did not advocate the retention of the 90-day clause. He followed this up by saying that no member of the Government had advanced any justification for retaining that provision. But he also said that we say that we have the support of the public in this regard. Of course that is true. That is why it is not necessary for us to ask the public to ensure that this provision be retained. The people want it. They have proved that they want it. We have those powers now; why should we ask for them?

Why do you not want to discuss it?

The hon. member first asked why we did not justify it and now he asks why we do not want to discuss it. Why should we discuss it? We discussed it in very great detail last year. Does the hon. member want to tell me that he thinks that South Africa’s position in relation to Africa and the rest of the world has changed considerably? Does he want to say that he believes that what we have to contend with in South Africa is not the communistic method of destroying law and order? [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down is a great simplifier of rather complex political and social problems to suit his own prejudices. To just give you an example: His great simplification at the moment is that as far as the outside world is concerned there is “’n vyandige aanslag van die buitewêreld om ons regspleging onder verdenking te bring”. I say that if there is one thing that the responsible outside world as far as South Africa is concerned, still holds in high esteem, it is our courts of justice. One only has to see the attitude that was taken up in the Security Council a day ago when powers like the United States, the United Kingdom and France, because the Rivonia case and other cases are sub judice, would not vote for the motions moved by the Afro-Asians. The implacable people, of course, are the Afro-Asians. They are just as implacable against South Africa as the hon. member seems to be against this side of the House. He tried to make out some obscure case that the Leader of the Opposition was trying indirectly to harm South Africa’s reputation in the outside world. I would have thought that he would have been much closer to the point if he had listened to the speech of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel), because what was the case that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) made out? The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) said that we always talked about the rule of law, but what does Mandela know about the rule of law and what does Sobukwe know about the rule of law and you have got to fight these people, and there was a lot of acclamation on the other side. So that seems to be the general sentiment that we must not adhere to the rule of law because Sobukwe and Mandela and all the terrorists do not adhere to the rule of law. Let us see what the implications of this philosophy are as the outside world will see it. The outside world will certainly see that if this is the philosophy of the other side, and I hope the hon. Minister will refute it at the first occasion, that we must fight terrorism by adopting their moral and legal codes, that we must defend Western civilization by letting go basic and moral principles that distinguish a country as being a country belonging to the great circle of Western nations, then we do not really belong to the great family of the Western world because we do not uphold the rule of law. The fact that we still adhere to the rule of law makes us still part of the great community of nations of the Western world.

Mr. Chairman, there is an old saying that you have to set a thief to catch a thief. I certainly hope that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) does not want to elevate this to a principle of government as far as the Nationalists are concerned, because that really seems to be the only principle that I could find in his whole speech.

We on this side realize of course that in a democratic society the freedom of the individual is not all. We realize of course that you cannot have complete freedom for the individual, irrespective of what is happening in your society. We are only too well aware of that. We are aware that there are times when the security of the state demands that the freedom of the individual must be temporarily restricted. But our attitude here is that under a democratic Government, it should alwavs be the aim that it must be as temporary as possible if restrictions are necessary; and that the freedom of the individual must be balanced against the security of the state is obvious from the experience of the greatest democracy in the world, the United States of America. There despite the fact that the constitution guarantees freedom of speech, inter alia, the courts have not hesitated to uphold measures where this freedom has been taken away if they thought that the security of the state was threatened. The test that they applied there should interest this Minister. In one of the leading cases Judge Learned Hand (and what a wonderful name for a Judge) applied the following test which I think is rather basic for America—

There are your three elements, the gravity of the evil, discounted by improbability, justifies such invasion. As I have said already, this was a case of freedom of speech. The same surely applies to the freedom of the individual. If we apply it to the present circumstances, the Minister can use this test: Whether the gravity of the evils, discounted by their improbability, justifies such invasion of the freedom of the individual as is necessary to avoid the danger. If the hon. Minister agrees with this test and he applies it to the present situation in South Africa—let us forget what happened a year ago, we do not want to reargue that—can the hon. Minister on the basis of this test really ask for the repromulgation of these powers in terms of Clause 17? On his own admission, law and order have been restored; the danger of an uprising has been avoided. Why maintain these powers then? This fundamental inroad into the freedom of every citizen?

But I told you.

I accept the hon. Minister’s explanation, but I would like to commend to him the thoughts of one Benjamin Franklin when he expresesd himself on this selfsame point as follows—

Surely that is the answer to the hon. Minister. If the hon. Minister would say to this House that he does not require the 90-day powers anymore and let them lapse, he would be doing South Africa a great service. It would be the first time that there would be an ebb in the whole nationalist tide of the diminution of personal freedom. It would be perhaps the first time that such a thing has happened on the African Continent in the past ten years. I really think this would be quite a revolutionary step to restore and enlarge the sphere of personal freedoms again, and such a move towards the restoration of the rule of law, would as I say distinguish the Republic from all other African countries. It would bring us nearer again to the family of Western democratic nations, to which all South Africans instinctively feel that we belong. We justly claim that we are the most stable country in Africa. This would be proof of it. Such action can only bring a response of goodwill from the democracies of the world. It would show that the White man can still govern within the rule of law. That is what it would indicate. Look what a wonderful opportunity the Minister has. By an act of not doing something, by not repromulgating Clause 17 this Minister can do more for the image of South Africa abroad than his colleague, the Minister of Information can achieve in 10 years time. It is surely the duty of the hon. Minister of Justice in a democratic society, if he is committed to civil liberties, to jealously guard the freedom of the individual. Apart from the fact that he must see to it that there is law and order and security, he is also the person who is primarily charged to see to it that the civil liberties of all the citizens are protected. He is the one Minister who should constantly strike a balance between freedom and security.

That is exactly what I am doing.

We do not in any way distrust the hon. Minister’s motives, we distrust his judgment.

Tell me where I have been wrong?

I have so much confidence in the stability of South Africa and the power of the Western civilization here that I would like to say categorically that if he did not have these powers, South Africa would not have had a revolution.

Tell me where I was wrong?

I think you were wrong in the first place in taking these powers. The hon. Minister will still have plenty of powers without the powers under this section. I would like to put it once again to the hon. Minister: We do not mistrust his motives, we mistrust his judgment, and we think that this is a case in which he could take a little gamble for the sake of South Africa.

The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) had a great deal to say about the “rule of law” and about what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) had to say in that regard. I want to tell the House immediately what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) meant. He said that the members of the Opposition always hold up the “rule of law” to us, as the hon. member for Jeppes has again done. He said that when they fight for the “rule of law” they do not fight for the “rule of law” as such but in fact for the scoundrels, for the Mandelas and the Sobukwes. All the agitation which we have had here this afternoon has not actually been in regard to the “rule of law” but in regard to the way in which these scoundrels are dealt with, these criminals. The “rule of law” is now associated by them with this group of criminals and they are fighting for these criminals and not for the “rule of law”. All the instances which they have mentioned here this afternoon and the cases which they have dealt with and quoted to us have not been in favour of the maintenance of the “rule of law” but have dealt with the freedom of criminals and the way in which these criminals are apparently treated. This to their way of thinking is the “rule of law”.

I think that we must have a better understanding of the “rule of law”. The fact that this Section 17 included in the General Law Amendment Act, makes it part of the “rule of law” of South Africa. It is part of the law of South Africa and as long as it remains part of the law of South Africa and as long as action is taken in terms of that section, the “rule of law” is respected in South Africa. The “rule of law” is maintained in terms of the law. It is also completely wrong to suggest that this part of our law in South Africa does not form part of the law. I deny that. Any action that is taken by the hon. the Minister in terms of the laws of South Africa is lawfully the “rule of law” of South Africa. These ideas that are propounded are propounded from the point of view of the Liberals. They want to force us to believe that these ideas constitute the “rule of law”. Because these ideas sound so fine when they are called the “rule of law”, they want us to subscribe to their liberalistic philosophy.

May I ask you a question?

No. I shall deal with the hon. member. He said here that the hon. the Minister only made a “statement” to the effect that he needed this provision. He said that it was easy for a Minister simply to make a statement to the effect that he needed it. He said that the hon. the Minister should have motivated his statement. Mr. Chairman, this is a matter which deals with the security of the State. The hon. the Minister cannot make that information available in the interests of the safety of the State because if he does, he will be strengthening the case of the friends of that hon. member or the supporters of the Liberal Party and of the Communist Party. A statement of this nature would arm them in advance if these confidential facts were revealed to them. This will enable them to take further action aeainst the State. That is why the hon. the Minister cannot reveal the knowledge which he has. He cannot do so in the interests of the safety of the State and the hon. member ought to know this very well. It would be very wrong of the hon. the Minister to reveal facts of that nature here. The hon. member also said that this legislation was not proper in peace time. But we are not living in peace time because we know that we are involved in a cold war. It is a warm war to some extent as far as the saboteurs are concerned, and that is why these extraordinary powers are required. I think that all the agitation against the hon. the Minister this afternoon in regard to the 90-day provision has gone for nothing. While that provision remains on the Statute Book it must be obeyed. What is the purpose of these arguments? I want in this regard to associate myself with the hon. member for Innesdal (Mr. J. A. Marais) who said that the statement of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that he had said these things for the record was not true. He said them for the record so that he could hide behind that fact and to enable him to make this sort of agitation against our legislation and our Bench and our police and our prisons in order to bring them into disfavour. He made one accusation after the other in order to prove how wrongly they had apparently acted. That statement of his for the record is merely a facade. He still accuses us of being a police state. All the accusations that he has made will still be used against us abroad. The image that will be formed there will not be formed from his first few sentences but from what he said later, remarks which were more in line with those made by Mr. Hamilton Russell.

I myself would not choose to be guided by the hon. member who has just sat down in regard to his concepts of the rule of law. May I say however that the Western Powers have great respect for the rule of law, and if we want to retain their respect it is obligatory on South Africa to restore the rule of law to its political philosophy. I treat with contempt the remarks of the hon. member when he says that this side of the House is not concerned with the rule jf law, but really with the protection of criminals. I think that was a reprehensible statement to make. Under this vote I may discuss not the external interpretation, but the internal interpretation being placed on the actions of the Minister under the law, and that I intend to do.

But having regard to the introductory remarks of the Minister, and also to what is in effect a plea from the other side of the House that there should be no mitigation of the severity of the law as it stands to-day, perhaps it would be as well to place on record again that there was a time, not so long ago, when South Africa could count on such widely spread friendships abroad and when its adherence to the rule of law was so highly respected in international circles that no one even thought that the country would be in danger, whether internally or externally, from hostilities. Now we are told by the Minister that it is an open secret that hostile threats against South Africa, from both internal and external quarters, are rapidly drawing to a climax. Speaking at Rustenburg towards the end of last month, the Minister is reported to have predicted that the next two or three years would decide the issue whether South Africa, as presently ruled, would survive. I hope the Minister will take us into his confidence and explain why at this precise moment he felt it necessary to make such a prediction. He has not repeated it here.

I have discussed it on many occasions.

I think the Minister should take the House into his confidence and tell us why he made such an alarming statement at this juncture. Was it to prepare the public for this debate? But whatever hostility the e is, it arises of course from the actions of the Government, and the Minister must take responsibility for his part in formulating and implementing some of the existing harsh laws such as the 90-day detention provision. It no longer requires the wisdom of an Edmund Burke to establish the truth that “bad laws are the worst form of tyranny”. The Minister himself last session indicated his dislike for the 90-day provision, and the very fact that it is on our Statute Book is, of course, an abuse, as the hon. member for Zululand said, of the philosophy of the law in South Africa. But the sad reality is that under this Minister’s regime the administration of justice and the rule of law in South Africa have become badly tarnished. He does not remove those stains by saying, as he does, that only the lawless and the subversive elements suffer under those harsh laws. To argue that way is to say that a bad excuse is better than no excuse at all.

The legal world used to believe that star chamber methods had gone out in the early sixteen-hundreds, but to condone the 90-day provisions in any event but particularly under the prevailing circumstances is, of course, to do something no better than to condone the star chamber injustices of those days. I say that because unless the truth is quite free to emerge at all stages of judicial proceedings, justice cannot be done. [Interjections.] We have had evidence of complaints and suspicion that all is not well and that the truth does not necessarily emerge when use has to be made of such drastic provisions as the 90-day detention. I hope the Minister will not be deflected f-om what he has expressed here, that during the recess he will go into the matte-, and I the efore hope that he will find it expedient and necessary and right to withd aw those provisions. One of the grave dangers is that the law itself will be seen by the masses as a heavy upper crust … [Time limit.]

Earlier in the debate I referred to certain matters in connection with Nusas and I want to complete my remarks. I want to avoid any misunderstanding. When I mentioned the amounts that a e made available to the Cape Town and other universities by the State by way of subsidies I d d not want to give the impression that because of th s fact the universities were compelled to implement Government policy.

Order! The hon. member is now going too far.

The point that I want to make in connection with this student organization is that it shows one face to the world as an ordinary student organization which is working for the welfare of the student, his bursaries and so forth, but that it has a second face, and this is the matter I want to discuss. I have already mentioned the sinister and revolutionary principle that is upheld, particularly at the University of Cape Town. It is that aspect which is hidden from the public. When a student enrolls at the university, his subscriptions to Nusas are automatically deducted. He becomes a member of Nusas automatically and this fact gives the organization a great deal of power because it gives the organization a large number of members. Those members are then under the authority of the executive committee of Nusas. It is my contention that this is the camouflage which is shown to the public. I have already said that we rely on the assistance of the Opposition in this case because the hon. member for Yeoville had this to say at Durban—

It is those secret activities that I want to discuss because I think that they are dangerous in an institution like a university. The direction in which these students are being led is completely wrong and a danger to the State. Let me say immediately that I do not believe for one moment that all the students are even aware of the activities of the leaders of Nusas. In the case of Mr. Jonty Driver, its president, I see leadership which will be fatal not only for the university itself but also for South Africa. The hon. the Minister made an appeal to the effect that membership of Nusas at the university should not be automatic and that the members of that organization should be recruited, just as is the case at other universities. Nusas has opposed this suggestion. They have said that they will then have to go to a great deal of trouble to recruit members. Mr. Driver openly admits to these two faces of Nusas, the one working for the welfare of the students and the other working for a “change in South Africa”. I have no objection to a change in South Africa but in this case they want to hand over the reins of leadership to the Black man, to hand over the power in South Africa to the Black man. That was what was openly advocated at the seminar at Botha’s Hill. That is a dangerous statement and I do not think that there is anyone in this House who will support it.

I want to go further. This leader of Nusas goes even further. He says that it must not be said that the Whites want to lead the Blacks at the university. He says that we must tell them: “If you are prepared to lead us, we are prepared to follow”. Full leadership at the university of Cape Town must be handed over to the non-Whites. Let me give hon. members an idea of the number of these students. There are only 409 Bantu at the university as against thousands of White students. Now the leadership must be taken over by the Bantu. I cannot imagine anything more dangerous than for young men to work actively in the direction of the establishment of a liberation front. The liberation front we knew was that of the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. We find here that precisely the same thing is being advocated in secret at one of our oldest universities in the country.

I want to speak to the hon. member for Pretoria (District) about the matter which he has raised on two occasions this afternoon. By way of introduction, I want to refer to one of the speeches made by the hon. the Minister this afternoon. We on this side of the House are very anxious that the Minister should get rid of the 90-day clause, a clause which we have opposed all along. We are keen that he should get rid of it as quickly as possible. We have given many reasons for wanting this, each one of them convincing. The one that appeals to me most, and I think will appeal to all South Africans most, is that this Minister can then do more than the whole Cabinet has done during the last 16 years to improve the image of South Africa.

You will gain nothing by trying to play me off against my colleagues.

No, I am not trying to play the Minister off against his colleagues. All that I am asking is that he should help his colleagues. I am one of those naive people who believe that the Cabinet itself does not like the p"esent image of South Af’ica in the world and what I suggest is that the Minister can do something for his Government, for his Prime Minister and for his party. But the Minister should not lead me astray to his own disadvantage. I listened to the dramatic interpretation by the Minister of his policy and to his a-gument for retaining the 90-day clause. He sa’d Leballo was in Basutoland, making bombs and planning revolution and that he, the M’n’ster, could not control that situation in Basutoland. Not knowing what could emerge from Basutoland, he had to have the 90-day provision. That is about the only argument he used with which I have some sympathy. But this same Minister supports the policy of separate development. He told us that in the course of his speech. Now, this policy of separate development will mean the creation of another seven or eight Bantustans, anothe" seven o" eight Basutolands, because each of these Bantustans, for all we know, might become places like Basutoland where action is planned and things are brewed up against South Africa. But how can the Minister use that argument? The Minister is a supporter of the policy of separate development; he is that after the Prime Minister has told us that what Britain was doing in Basutoland was also his policy! The Minister should say that the main reason why he will not need the 90-day clause is because Basutoland is becoming independent. But the Minister uses exactly the opposite argument. If the Minister wants to be consistent, he should say that with the Prime Minister’s eight Bantustans coming into being, he must warn South Africa that he will not need a 90-day clause, but a 720-day clause, i.e. eight times 90! Because he is multiplying the danger by eight.

I feel it is essential that South Africa should realize the essential inconsistency, the essential contradiction in the attitude of the present Government. They should realize the essential incompetence of the present Government to deal with a situation which faces us to-day.

We have had a similar attitude in the two little speeches made by the hon. member for Pretoria (District) this afternoon about Nusas. It seems to have given the hon. member great satisfaction that I in Durban recently put the point of view, not of myself but of that of my party, about Nusas. The point of view of my party about Nusas I think I should restate in this House, because I would hate to have it abused, because people will read in it only what suits them. We of the United Party, Sir, think that Nusas is a fine and noble institution. We of the United Party believe that there should be points of contact between the various races—White, Coloured and Black—in South Africa, and we cannot think of better places for those points of contact to be developed than at academic level in the institutions for higher education in South Africa.

We think that certain attacks have been made upon Nusas that are stupid. [Interjections.]

Order!

We think, for example, Sir, of the attack upon Nusas, based upon a speech made by a certain Mr. Jonty Driver who is president of the organization at Botha’s Hill about a month ago, an attack made by what is called the C.S.O., the Conservative Students’ Organization, who, according to a report in the paper this afternoon, are supporters of separate development like the hon. the Minister. They attacked the soeech by Mr. Jonty Driver and attributed to him quotations he made from speeches expressing the sentiments of other people; thereby destroying their case. The hon. the Minister himself made an attack upon Nusas in which he tried to brand them with the com- the general charge. Here I see an act of munist brush and he could not substantiate McCarthyism on the part of the hon. the Minister. That, Sir, is not the attitude of the United Party.

We want to see Nusas remain a multiracial organization and a demonstration to the people of South Africa that multi-racial organizations can exist and can work in South Africa. But we were worried, and we said so. I was the mouthpiece of our party in this regard in Durban. We said we were worried about the attitude taken up and the things done by some of the leaders of Nusas. But, in saying that, I want also to say at once that I too was a student and so was the hon. the Minister. I certainly was as a student more irresponsible than I am to-day. The Minister, too, could have been more irresponsible only when he was a student. So I do not want to attach too much importance to the silly things that are being done by these young leaders of Nusas, but we are worried that some of these silly things done by these young leaders of Nusas may give the McCarthys of South Africa an opportunity to attack the organization of Nusas. That is why I said at Durban to the students of South Africa, especially those at the English speaking universities, to check up on the leaders of their organization. If they could explain the things of which we disapprove and of which any sensible South African would disapprove in their statements and policy, then let them explain it; but if they cannot explain it, then they should be got rid of as leaders.

Now, let me state some of the things to which we objected. One of these is that Nusas has a public and a secret front; and as we do not like the Broederbond so we dislike any other organization with a secret front. We have had statements from the leaders of Nusas—I cannot now go into details because I do not have the time for that —trying to explain this secret front; but we are not satisfied with these explanations, because they, in so far as they concern their secret front, all reveal an obsession with aspects of the racial situation in South Africa from the political point of view. On other occasions Nusas insist that it is non-political. In the reply of the leaders of Nusas to the attack upon them by the Minister himself, they evaded certain very pertinent questions which the Minister put to them by saying that they were not a political organisation and that they, therefore, need not make up their minds about those questions. But yet the secret organization which has been revealed as a result of our charges against the leaders of Nusas, reveals an obsession purely with politics. What we cannot understand, for example, is why the leaders of Nusas have created a political freedom fund to support the dependants of students found guilty of political crimes. That we cannot understand. It is shocking. I could have understood if they said that they wanted to create a political fund for the dependants of students held without trial. That we could have understood although we would not have agreed with it. But here they said that they wanted to create a fund to support the dependants of students found guilty of political crimes, hy should Nusas do this? If they want to create a fund to support the dependants of people found guilty of crimes, and not only political crimes, I would have had a lot of sympathy with them … [Time limit.]

It is obvious that the hon. member is not yet finished with his argument. It is very seldom that the hon. member and I fight on the same side and therefore I gladly allow him to proceed with his argument.

I am most grateful to the Minister, although I do not agree with the jibe he used in order to give me this opportunity. Nevertheless I am grateful to him for this opportunity.

Now, the other thing that worries me about the present leadership of Nusas, and that worries all of us, is that Mr. Driver, the president of Nusas, speaking at Botha’s Hill said that Nusas had an important part to play in the liberation movement in South Africa. That can, of course, be innocent, because I want to be liberated from the Nationalist Party as much as everybody else. But, Mr. Driver—I am not quoting the other gentleman Mr. Driver mentioned in his speech— defined the liberation movement in his speech by saying that it was all the forces working for a change to what he called the greater democratization of South Africa, including the banned organizations and he added that obviously the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. would have to play an important part in the liberation movement. We all know, in fact it is common cause in South Africa, that the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. have degenerated into organizations on the one had using, through Poqo, murder as a political weapon and on the other hand, through the Spear of the Nation, sabotage as a political weapon. And what worries me is why the leaders of Nusas have explained their attitude as far as their secret front is concerned; yet have made no attempt to explain this reference to participation in the liberation movement as defined. It would be a tragedy if irresponsible leaders could open the door for attacks, even legal attacks, by the authorities upon Nusas because of ridiculous and stupid statements like this, which may or may not have any significance. It might just be due to student irresponsibility for which I have a lot of resnect because the day the students of South Africa become responsible, it will be the end to any hope for progress. But while students may be irresponsible, they should not associate themselves with criminality. That is the point we make.

Another thing that worries me is a statement made by Mr. Jonty Driver at Botha’s Hill, which he has made no attempt to explain, namely that the leadershiD of Nusas has been transferred from the universities at Cape Town and in Johannesburg to the University of Fort Hare. Now, it might be that in days to come the leaders might be transferred to Fort Hare and that such a transfer could then be justified. But now this cannot be justified having regard both to numbers and to democratic principles. Therefore, I cannot explain the transfer. In fact, I do not think there is an explanation.

The other thing which was not explained is that at Botha’s Hill, Mr. Driver, and not any other speakers, announced that Nusas would extend its membership to high school students and that in extending membership to high school students there would be an age limit—in other words, no one under a certain age would be allowed to become such a member. He also said that the purpose of this extension of membership would be to get Bantu scholars to become members of Nusas and the age limit would exclude White students. Since this statement we have had an announcement from the leadership of Nusas that they were going to extend Nusas membership to high schools but there was then no indication that the age limit would be used for this purpose. Why be dishonest with the body of students? If they want to do that, it is their affair; but surely the students at universities of South Africa are entitled to judge the position by having before them full information on the motives and intentions of their leaders. I have no doubt as to what the students’ judgment will be. Many of us have children at these universities and we can speak not like hon. members opposite who speak of these universities as “foreign institutions”. They are part of our lives. We have our children there.

You are ridiculous.

It is not ridiculous. I listened to the hon. member of Pretoria (District) and he spoke of these English-speaking universities as if they were something outside South Africa!

So many of us were students at Cape Town University. What you say is ridiculous. It is untrue.

I say these universities are part of South Africa. They are responsible universities. This then was the motive of the United Party in bringing these facts about Nusas to the attention of the general body of students. Let the young people be informed fully and they will take just and responsible decisions for South Africa. That is why I ended my statement on behalf of my party at Pietermaritzburg by asking the students to remember that they have a conference of this organization in July when they must clean up their own house.

Why did you not talk last year?

Now, I find there are people—some of their motives I can understand, while others I cannot understand like that of my friend Scotty Hague of the Sunday Tribune— who say that we attack Nusas; what we really want to do is to prevent an attack upon a multi-racial organization by this Government who is looking for excuses for charges against such organizations. That is the difference and that is what these people do not realize.

No, Sir. The hon. the Minister must never suggest and the hon. member for Pretoria (District) must never suggest that we are in agreement on this, because we a.e not. If we were in agreement, to-night would be the happiest evening in my life. But if the Minister can get up and say that in the interests of the country and for the sake of the future of the country he shares the views of the United Party that we should eliminate from a multiracial organization things that are wrong because South Africa needs experiments in multi-racialism—if he does that, then he will agree with me. But, does the hon. the Minister agree with me? The Minister has been asking me questions all day long. Now it is my turn. The hon. the Minister said we agreed, but does he agree that we should protect multiracial organizations in this country against wrong leadership and wrong influences, because both of us believe in a multi-racial South Africa?

I certainly do not believe in it.

But then the Minister must not say that I agree with him. He must not spread this canard. He knows better. Our motives are different. The Minister wants to get hold and destroy any experiment in multi-racialism in South Africa. That is true, is it not? The Minister thinks such experiments are wrong. The Prime Minister tells us that it cannot exist, or does the Minister not agree with the Prime Minister?

What is the Minister’s reply?

I rather like his silence. I approve of it. We of the United Party say that multi-racial organizations are necessary for the future of this country but then they should not fall into the hands of people who abuse them and do wrong things.

Do you favour multi-racial political parties too?

But the United Party is a multi-racial political party! And the Nationalist Party was a multi-racial political party until 1933! [Interjections.] Wait a minute. The Nationalist Party was a multiracial party until 1933! I take it that the hon. the Minister was a Dominionite, or something like that at the time, because I cannot believe that he ever belonged to a multi-racial party or supported a multi-racial party. Sir, let us discuss these things seriously, but let us avoid nonsense. The simple fact is that South Africa is multi-racial, and let me say this because of the challenge of the hon. the Minister: The Minister would not be defending the powers he has taken, nor the things he did, nor would he have said that he was a defender of separate development if he did not know that South Africa was a multi-racial state. And if he denies that we are a multi-racial state, let him, if I may quote my hon. friend, the member for Sea Point, come with me and let us walk down Adderley Street any time of the day. Let us then come back and let him repeat here that we are not a multi-racial state, or that Cape Town is not a multi-racial city.

That, Sir, is the trouble we have with the Minister and with the Government—they will not see facts. They create out of their prejudice a fictitious dream of South Africa and try to fit the facts into that dream. Life is not like that, Sir. I am not here to attack Nusas for the delectation of the hon. the Minister and therefore I want to repeat that we from this side of the House make a strong appeal to the students of South Africa to protect their universities and to protect also their own good name by putting the house of Nusas in order. There are things which require explanation. I shall not put it stronger than that. There are things which do require explanation and they will have an opportunity in July to clarify the air and to make it perfectly clear that Nusas is the organization we would like to see. If they do not, I want to repeat what I said in Durban: we on this side of the House will then not find it possible to defend Nusas.

It is very clear to me that after the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) had made his speech in Natal and his statements about Nusas, he found himself in trouble, and he has had to stand up in this House this evening in order to discuss this particular subject. He has now told us that the point of view which he put there was not his own but that of his party.

Of course it was.

The hon. member raised two very important points. Firstly, he warned Nusas to put its house in order …

Have you any objection to that?

No, I have no objection to it; none at all. Let me now, while that interjection has been made, say that I appreciate what the hon. member for Yeoville had to say about Nusas in Natal. But I want to urge him to assist in putting the House of the United Party in order before he discusses matters of this natu_e. [Interjections.] The hon. member dissociated himself from that point of view by saying that it was not his point of view but that of his party …

It is my point of view as well.

… and he said that for the simple reason that we are on the threshhold of a provincial election. We know the hon. member for Yeoville and we know the United Party. We know what their attitude is and we know the way in which they can change that attitude, particularly when they they are on the threshhold of an election. The hon. member dealt with the efforts of student organizations to f ee South Africa from this Government. In pursuance of this statement of his I have one question to put to the hon. member: Once South Africa has been freed from a National Government, what then?

Then South Africa will live!

The hon. member must be careful what he says because he also had a great deal to say about multiracialism. Actually, that hon. member is the apostle of multi-racialism, the apostle of a federal Parliament in South Africa and therefore, of a multi-racial Parliament in South Africa. We all know that we are living in a multi-racial country but the cardinal difference in this respect between the National Party and the Opposition is in regard to Parliament.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself more closely to the Vote under discussion.

I thank you for your guidance, Mr. Chairman. I have just tried to reply to specific a"guments used by the hon. member for Yeoville. Mr. Chairman, I deny the allegation of the hon. member for Yeoville which was to the effect that up to 1933 the National Party was a multi-racial party.

Neither the United Party nor the Progressive Party has succeeded in this debate in advancing convincing arguments as to why the 90-day provision should be suspended. We are also in touch with the voters in the country and that is why I want to say that this provision is supported throughout the country not only by supporters of the National Pa ty but also by every peace-loving citizen in the country. The Opposition is just as aware of this fact as I am. That is why they cannot advance strong arguments to prove that this provision should be suspended.

Actually, I rise to say …

Sit down!

Mr. Chairman, that hon. member will not distract me. The last time I heard him was in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal when he fractured the Afrikaans language! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) must not make so many interjections.

Make your speech in English!

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I rise to direct a few words to the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman). While we were discussing the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister on a previous occasion, the hon. member made a remark after the hon. the Minister of Justice had participated in the debate. It dealt with the Bultfontein case which was then being discussed. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was also over hasty in seizing the opportunity to discuss this matter. I had hoped that the hon. member for Zululand would have done this House and the country the courtesy of standing up on the first occasion that presented itself and apologizing for the remark which he made during that discussion.

What did I say?

The hon. member asks me what he said! He looked towards this side of the House and said to the hon. the Minister of Justice: “There we have the Minister of Justice with his hundred members of the Nationalist Party who find it very funny—murder by torture.”

That was not what I said.

The hon. member said that death by torture was considered by the hon. the Minister of Justice to be something amusing, that death by torture was the funniest thing the hundred Government members had ever heard in their lives! [Interjections.] That was what the hon. member said and I think that it was the most reckless and shameful statement that any hon. member in this House could make. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has stood up here this afternoon and asked us what members of the Opposition do to blacken South Affica’s name abroad! But what does the world think of a remark of this nature? What was the background to that debate? One and all, including the hon. the Minister of Justice, deprecated the methods used at Bultfontein and expressed their sorrow in that regard. The court pronounced judgment in that regard, passed sentence and imposed a suitable punishment. It was after this that the hon. member for Zululand stood up and made this shocking and shameful remark and, moreover, here in this House where he enjoys protect’on and where he has a Press at his disposal to make these words of his known to the world.

I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he agrees with the hon. member for Zululand that the hon. the Minister of Justice and the hundred members of the National Party sitting here consider murder by torture to be very funny? Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition agree with that or does he repudiate that statement made by the hon. member? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must not shout across the floor of the House.

The question is not whether people were laughing at that stage or not. [Interjections.]

May I ask you a question?

I first want an answer from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member may then ask me a question. At the moment I am putting a very pertinent question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I want to know whether he agrees with the hon. member for Zululand, or whether he will repudiate that statement that he made. [Time limit.]

I was most interested in the speech of the hon. member for Wolmaranstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) and that for a variety of reasons. I was interested in that speech first of all because he denied that the Nationalist Party had ever been a multi-racialist party. I suppose he is too young to remember Bruckner de Villiers being carried up the steps of the House of Assembly by his Coloured supporters. [Interjections.] The hon. member also attempted to defend the 90-day provision, but the furthest he seemed to get was to indicate that he thought the clause was right although he did not quite know why. He then proceeded to put a question to me concerning certain things said by the hon. member for Zululand. Now, let me say to him and to the hon. member for Vereeniging who tried to question me on this matter on the last occasion I spoke about it that I have never been more disgusted by anything in my life than by the behaviour of this hon. Minister when he replied to me in respect of my allegations on the Bultfontein case. [Interjections.] Secondly, let me say that I have never been so shocked by anything as by the behaviour of that side of the House on that occasion and one is entitled to draw whatever conclusions one likes from that from this time forth. I have never believed that a Minister or that members opposite could be as irresponsible as they were that night …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw his statement that the Minister and members were irresponsible.

But they were irresponsible.

If that is your ruling, Sir, I accept it at once, but shall we say that they were hilarious on a most serious occasion.

Of what were we hilarious? Do not be so untruthful.

Sir, I do not propose to try to reply to the hon. member for Innesdal (Mr. J. A. Marais). The hon. member seems to have a chip on his shoulder. He always seems to try to put meanings which were not intended. But I do want to say a word to the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). It amazes me that this hon. gentleman could try to suggest for one moment that this Opposition has not done its best to defend South Africa inside and outside South Africa. In fact, the primary responsibility for that lies with this Government and its Ministers. They are paid to do the job and we have to try to help them. That hon. member knows better than many others that on every occasion that South Africa has been in trouble it has been members on this side of the House who have been prepared to offer their lives for the sake of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity of making his speech.

I would go further, Sir, and I would say that nobody knows better than the hon. member for Vereeniging that this side of the House was prepared to offer its life for South Africa.

May I return to the hon. the Minister. I would commend the hon. the Minister on having invited a member of the International Red Cross Society to South Africa to investigate the position in respect of detainees and our own prisons. But, Sir, would it not have been better, if the Minister had appointed a judicial commission of South African judges to do just that? That was what we invited him to do. Why is it necessary to get somebody from outside? Surely the one thing that has never been called in question is our judiciary. Surely, Sir, if he had appointed South African judges to hold an inquiry into these allegations made by detainees, allegations made overseas for propaganda purposes, how strong would his position not have been! Instead of that what do we find? We find ourselves in the position that a solitary representative of the International Red Cross Society has interviewed these people—I commend the Minister on the fact that this individual saw these people privately. That individual will deliver a report which the hon. the Minister will make available to me. Whether it will be made public or not I do not know. But would it not have been much better for the whole public of South Africa if there could have been an inquiry by our own people? Would it not have been better for the whole public of South Africa. If they could have seen that there was no charge that could be levelled against us? Sir, it defeats me that an horn. Minister, representing a party who always claims to consist of great South African patriots, should have taken a step of this kind. He refused the suggestion I made to him. It could have cleared him here in South Africa and it could have cleared him overseas. What a pity, Mr. Chairman; what a tremendous pity.

We spent the first part of this debate on dealing with the question of the 90-day clause and the justification, if any, for its continued existence. The hon. the Minister has advanced his reasons to justify it. We on our side of the House have, I think, advanced our reasons why we believe, more especially as the Minister has in contemplation the suspension of that clause, he should do so right away and not renew it on 30 June. I believe very sincerely, and I think the public believes very sincerely, that the Minister would be wiser if he did so. The benefits to South Africa would be on his side if he were to decide to suspend that clause on 30 June.

We must direct this debate in other directions and I want to mention to the hon. the Minister our surprise … [Interjections.]

Order!

Must we have that sort of interjection, Mr. Chairman? I want to direct the debate in the direction of the administration of our prisons and the control of those who have been arrested to await trial or, have been convicted. I want to express the very great surprise of this side of the House to find that during the past year 1,275 convicted persons escaped from custody and to find that 902 awaiting trial prisoners escaped from custody. We were very upset when the hon. the Minister lost his two star detainees, Goldreich and Wolpe. We now find that escapes are taking place at a rate of this kind and we find that of his prison staff 579 had had disciplinary action taken against them because of escapes. [Time limit.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not have the courage to reply to the challenge of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg), namely to repudiate what the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) had said, viz. that this side of the House and the Minister were light-hearted about murder by torture. I hope the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will take his seat. It is his habit, when he knows he is going to be driven into a corner, to go and talk to other people. Now he is talking to the Secretary of the House. I think he is absolutely rude. I shall stand here until the Leader of the Opposition takes his seat.

On a point of order…

Order! What did the hon. member for Veeeniging say?

I said I think the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely rude…

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw that, Mr. Chairman, and I say he is not a good “Bishop’s Boy”. I think Bishops will be ashamed of him.

[Inaudible.]

I shall come to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) just now; he had better be quiet. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says they were shocked by the light-hearted attitude of the Minister of Justice. The Leader of the Opposition knows what we laughed about at the time. We laughed because the Minister of Justice made a fool of him.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member says I said the Minister was cowardly (“lafhartig”) …

Not “lafhartig”; I said “lighartig”.

You cannot understand Afrikaans.

The trouble with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition …

Order! What did the hon. member say?

Sir, I said “lighartig” (light-hearted).

I also heard “lafhartig”.

That is not true.

The word “lafhartig” does not fit in …

You lie.

On a point of order, is the hon. the Deputy Minister entitled to say that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) is telling lies?

Order! What did the hon. the Deputy Minister say?

I shall explain what I said, Sir. If you say I must withdraw it I shall do so. The hon. member for Vereeniging used the word “lighartig”. I am sitting twice as close to him as the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Vereeniging repeated that he used the word “lighartig” and then the hon. member for Yeoville said he heard “lafhartig”. I then said “you are telling a lie”.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw the word “lie”, Sir.

If I say to the hon. member now … [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville could not have heard me say “lafhartig”, because the whole question of “lafhartigheid (cowardice) does not fit in here. The only possible word I could have used was “lighartig”. But that is the type of politician he is. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows why we laughed at the time when the Bultfontein case was raised. We laughed because the hon. the Minister of Justice made a fool of him. We laughed when the hon. the Minister of Justice spoke and the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) …

Were you in the House that day?

You were not here.

I was not here but I acquainted myself with the facts …

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member persists in making interjections. Will the hon. member for Orange Grove please leave the Chamber.

Whereupon Mr. E. G. Malan withdrew.

On a point of order …

Order! The hon. member for Vereeniging may proceed.

This type of conduct of theirs will take them no further. I shall expose them again. When there was an interjection on the part of the hon. member for Drakensberg the Minister of Justice said his mother had taught him not to reply to elderly women. That was the cause of the laughter. Then the hon. member for Zululand came along and said we laughed, the Minister laughed, and that we were light-hearted about murder by torture. Now I should like to issue a challenge to the hon. member for Zululand. I issue this challenge to him: Go outside the precincts of this Chamber and say in public that Blaar Coetzee laughs at murder by torture. I challenge him to do that. I defy the hon. member to do that to-morrow morning or to do it this evening, and he will then have the biggest defamation case against him he has ever had. [Interjections.] I ask the hon. member for Zululand whether he is willing to say outside the precincts of this House that Blaar Coetzee laughs at murder by torture …

He now becomes pale.

Let us have clarity. If he has the courage to say that we shall know how to dispose of the matter. Now I ask the hon. member for Zululand: Is he willing to say that outside?

[Inaudible.]

I ask the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) whether she is willing to go and say it outside?

[Inaudible.]

You see, Mr. Chairman, that is the kind of attitude one gets on that side. I now tell the hon. member for Zululand he is too much of a coward to go and say that outside this House.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw, Mr. Chairman, and I say he is not enough of a hero to say it. He will not dare to go and say that.

On a point of order, did the hon. member for Vereeniging withdraw the allegation?

Yes, I did withdraw it, and I say he is not enough of a hero to go and say that. He will not dare to say that outside this House.

Now I come to the hon. member for Yeoville. [Interjections.] Be quiet for a while and take vour medicine. When the hon. the Minister of Justice accused the Opposition of having called South Africa a police state, the hon. member for Yeoville denied that the Leader of the Opposition had called South Africa a police state. The Minister then told him members on their side had called South Africa a police state. Now I ask the hon. member for Yeoville, has he ever in his life said South Africa is a police state? [Interjections.]

Make your speech.

Make your speech! He will not answer. I have here the Hansard where during one debate three prominent members of that party said South Africa is a police state, equivalent to a police state or like …

Quote.

I am not going to quote now. But you do not know who those three members are. Now I ask the hon. member for Yeoville: Will he deny that he ever called South Africa a police state? Come on, Marais Steyn, answer! Has the hon. member for Yeoville never said South Africa is a police state?

“Courage” Marais!

Mr. Chairman, if he had a little bit of courage now, he would have said “no” because I want to tell him he is not one of the three members.

Now I come to the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). Has he ever said South Africa is a police state? [Time limit.]

Order! I must call upon hon. members on both sides of the House to assist me in maintaining order. Hon. members cannot go on in this manner and I shall not allow any further interjections.

I was most amazed at the remarks of the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) who is now posing as an authority as to what happened on the occasion when I raised the question of Bultfontein in this House. What has interested me most is that when I made an accusation against him—he was responsible for a lot of noise in that corner on that occasion—he denied that he was present in this House.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition entitled to accuse the hon. member for Vereeniging of having been responsible for a lot of noise in this corner when he, the Leader of the Opposition, made a certain accusation against him?

The hon. Leader of the Opposition may continue.

The hon. member denied that he was in this House.

was here when you made those accusations.

Sir, I am placed in a very difficult position. I have to accept the hon. member’s word as to what he said. He was here when I accused him of having been responsible for a lot of the noise coming from that corner. He then denied that he was in this House at the time when I attacked the hon. the Minister.

I did not deny that.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid we are going to have to rewrite Hansard.

May I explain?

No, Sir, I am sorry. I am afraid we are going to have to rewrite Hansard if we go on in this way. I want to say this that as far as I was concerned it was a most regrettable episode. I think it was a mistake of judgment on the part of the hon. the Minister; it was most unfortunate that it ever happened. I think it is understandable that as a result of what happened, strong words were used on both sides of this House.

Can you tell me exactly to what you took exception?

I told you what I took exception to. I told you in the debate that I took exception to the levity with which you attempted to deal with so serious a matter, your attempts—if I may say so, Sir— your cheap attempts at humour when I raised a matter as serious as that. I shouted across the floor of the House to you: Are you going to try to play politics with this, John Vorster? I cannot remember ever being so shocked. Sir, at any time in this House.

Perhaps we could come back to the Justice Vote. I was dealing with the escapes of prisoners both from our prisons and the escapes of prisoners awaiting trial. I had mentioned that 579 of the staff had had disciplinary action taken against them as a result of the escapes which had taken place. I also note that over 177 prison officials were convicted over four years for irregular treatment of prisoners. I want to draw these matters to the attention of the hon. gentleman and to ask him what he is doing about them and what he is doing to avoid a recurrence of what I regard as an extremely serious state of affairs. [Interjections.] You were going to be strict, Sir.

It goes on all the time.

Order!

I am grateful to hear from the hon. the Minister that he has dealt with the allegations made in overseas papers about what was happening in the Robben Island gaol because I have had sent me cuttings from overseas newspapers as to affidavits made by friends of South Africa asking me to get an explanation in this House of the sort of situation which was developing. I hope that when the hon. the Minister speaks of the fact that certain wardens have been removed does not mean that those wardens have been removed because they were guilty of any of the offences which are suggested in those allegations.

I want to raise one other very important matter with the hon. gentleman and that is South Africa’s civil defence plans at the present time. We are spending enormous sums— far more money than we ever spent in wartime—on defence in South Africa. That defence will be useless if our civil defence plans are not up to date, are not modernized, are not properly synchronized with the defence plans of the Republic. I am well aware that R80,000 appears on the Vote for matters of this kind in terms of Section 82 of the Defence Act. I am well aware that plans have been formulated for civilian protective services and that this is regarded as the third service responsible for the safety of the Republic. What worries many of us is that so far the public has been completely unaware of the plans made in regard to organization and of what is expected of them. It is all very well to have plans. I am not even sure that we have the right plans. We do not yet know what those plans are, although a certain amount has been revealed through the newspapers. We have seen some rather disturbing articles indicating that, even on our present plans, 80 per cent of the population might be wiped out in the event of a nuclear attack. We know the Minister is responsible for this side of our defence. What is being done about it? What is the situation? What attempts are being made to co-ordinate the activities of the key services? You see, Sir, it seems to us that we are proceeding in a rather haphazard manner. It seems to us that we are relying upon volunteers in civil defence, volunteers who may be called up, in the event of trouble, for the Commandos, the Active Citizen Force and other things and that as a result our civil defence may tend to break down. We believe this is due to the fact that the public has not been properly informed as to what the situation is. I think that, when the steps are taken in regard to defence which are being taken at the present time, we have the right to ask the hon. the Minister what his plans are, what he is doing to synchronize civil defence with military defence, how he is tying in with the various civilian services, how he is tying in with the plans which the Red Cross seems to have and to what extent we can rely on some central direction in dealing with this very important aspect of South Africa’s defence system. I think we all realize that in the event of trouble in the future every citizen is going to be in the front line. There is no question of just the soldier being in the front line. Far more than ever in the last war every single citizen is going to be in the front line, is going to have to know what his responsibilities are, is going to have to know what role he has to play. That is why I raise this matter in the hope of a statement from the hon. the Minister whose Department is responsible for this particular aspect of our defence preparations.

I hope the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) is not going to leave the Chamber. I appreciate the moderate tone of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but he said this afternoon South Africa is not a police state and that South Africa has a free Press. Now I should like to prove to him that under his leadership some of his most responsible members stated in the past that South Africa is a police state in fact.

It was said hundreds of times.

Yes, it has been said hundreds of times. The hon. member for Yeoville denied it this afternoon. It is not always so very easy to put your hand on the utterances they made to the effect that South Africa is a police state. To-night I have the perfect way of testing whether they ever said South Africa is a police state or not. Here I have three quotations from three of their prominent members during a certain debate in which those members said South Africa was in fact a police state. Now I say that not only those three members said it, but that the majority of the members on that side said South Africa was a police state. I am going to test the position by asking those members to deny that they ever said South Africa was a police state. If they deny it, they must be very sure of themselves. If they do not deny it, then they are afraid their names are among those of these three members.

I now ask the hon. member for Durban (Point): Have you ever said in this House that South Africa is a police state?

How big a fool do you think I am, Blaar?

I did not think the hon. member will be such a “coon” as to make either an admission or a denial because he knows he has already said in this House that South Africa was a police state. Does he deny this?

Can you quote me?

I ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson)— he is the most important man in this House, is he not?—whether he has ever said in this House that South Africa was a police state?

You are an optimist if you think I will play your little game.

It is not a matter of playing a little game. It is not my little game they are playing; it is the game of the hon. member for Yeoville they are playing, because the hon. member for Yeoville has said that no member on that side has ever said that South Africa was a police state.

But you yourself said it.

I did say it; there are many other things I said. The disaster is not that I said it at the time, but the disaster is that you are saying it to this day still.

I have never said that, but you said it.

Order! I am warning the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) for the last time now.

They deny …

May I ask the hon. member a question.

No. Now for the first time the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says South Africa is not a police state, and that we have a free Press here. I wish to congratulate him on that. I want to congratulate him on the utterance he made at Paarl recently; I wish to congratulate him on the statements he made at Krugersdorp recently. I do not take it amiss of him; I wish to congratulate him on that.

You must never return to us.

Order! I am giving the hon. member for Yeoville a final warning.

Do I seem to be completely mad to the hon. member for Yeoville? I am not like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who had heart water fever twice.

Order! The hon. member really must be a little less provocative.

Mr. Chairman, now you really are asking me to do a very difficult thing, but I shall try not to be provocative again. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout entitled to call the hon. member for Vereeni-ging a swine (“smeerlap”).

Order! Did the hon. member for Bezuidenhout say that?

I said the hon. member is really very dirty (“baie smerig”).

Will the hon. member leave the Chamber.

Whereupon Mr. J. D. du P. Basson withdrew from the Chamber.

As I said this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, the chickens of these people are coming home to roost.

On a point of order, Sir, I realize your difficulties, but it seems to me, with respect, that we are wandering from the Vote somewhat. I have done my best to keep the debate within the framework of what I believe to be the Minister’s policy and things of that nature …

That is not a point of order.

Arising from what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has just said, I should like to point out that hon. members really must try to remain within this Vote.

I am remaining within the Vote, Sir; and I adhere to the Vote that they are charging this country and this Government with having a police state. What can be worse than that? Now they want to run away from it, and I shall not permit them to run away from it. [Interjections.] Let them walk out; let the whole lot of them walk out, because they have said it is a police state.

They do not wish to be in your company.

Nor do I wish to be in your company, so it will be better if you also walk out.

On a point of order …

Will the hon. member for Vereeniging please resume his seat. The hon. member for Turffontein wishes to raise a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, is it parliamentary on the part of the hon. member for Vereeniging to refer to this side of the House repeatedly as “they”. Is it not parliamentary to refer to “hon. members”? He never refers to “hon. members”.

I say those hon. members said South Africa was a police state, and I now come to the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) and I shall quote what he said—

Does he deny that? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon that this country was not a police state. I now come to the hon. member for Hospital. He said this—

i.e. the members on this side of the House—

Then he continues—

In other words, the hon. member for Hospital says that under the 90-day clause of the Minister of Justice South Africa is a police state. We have now had the hon. member there who said we are a police state, and the hon. member in the other corner who said we are a police state, and here is what was said by the former member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) when he was a member of the United Party, when he was one of the senior members of the United Party, a front-bencher. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon, and we are grateful for it, that South Africa is not a police state. But Mr. Hamilton Russell, as a senior member of the Opposition, said this—

That was his criticism of the 90-day clause: “South Africa will be a police state, as indeed it will be if this clause is accepted. [Time limit.]

I am sure the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) will forgive me if I do not take part in his feud with the United Party.

I want to come back to the whole question of Nusas which was raised earlier this evening by the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee), and which was also commented on by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). Well, Sir, I do not know what all the fuss and bother is about Nusas and their activities. The leaders of Nusas have quite often said things of which I do not happen to approve. Indeed some of the views which they have expressed are quite a far cry from my own. But that does not persuade me to join in any hue and cry against this perfectly legal student organization. Not one of the so-called secret front organizations mentioned by the hon. member for Yeoville in fact is in any way illegal. He mentioned the question of the provision of a political fund to provide defence for students accused of political activities, or to provide aid for the dependants of students who happen to be convicted of political crimes. There is nothing illegal about this. There are other organizations providing defence for people who are accused, and that has always been one of the legitimate activities in any normal democratic country to see that people who are accused are in fact provided with defence. Every lowly criminal in the country is entitled to defence. There is nothing wrong in providing a defence fund. Indeed, the hon. Minister himself will remember that many years ago when the Ossewa-brandwag members were being prosecuted, there was a defence fund set up to provide legal defence for those people. And as for providing aid for people actually convicted of crimes, well our Social Welfare Department does that if it comes to that. There is nothing illegal about this. The other activities are also not illegal. They may be held in a certain degree of secrecy. I put that down to youthful exuberance and liking for mystery, but there is nothing indeed that was not reflected in the Nusas proceedings, and quite a number of these organizations are well known to the Government. For instance, there is a scheme for providing education for political prisoners, people already in gaol, within the knowledge of the prison authorities. Then there is the question of providing higher education for African students and other students by means of correspondence courses. That is not a secret organization, and I am sure the hon. Minister knows of that. There is a college for adult education which the students were attempting to set up, and there was a literary campaign which was to be carried on in the Transkei. I see nothing wrong in these projects whatsoever. The scheme mentioned by the hon. member for Yeoville, to my knowledge had not been adopted. It was simply tabled for discussion purposes—that is the idea of extending membership of Nusas to high school students. To the best of my knowledge that was not adopted, but was simply brought forward for discussion. But the main point that I want to make is: What is wrong with students indulging in political activities? It would surely be absolute abnormal if students did not indulge in political activities. I know of no university worth its salt in the entire world where students do not indulge in political activities. Some of their tactics may be wrong, but I did not notice hon. members opposite kicking up an awful fuss, Sir, when young men attired in Pretoria University blazers went along and threw eggs and tomatoes at the women of the Black Sash two years ago when they were standing at the City Hall steps in Johannesburg. So I say that political activities of student bodies are perfectly normal and indeed it would be surprising if students particularly at our open universities in this country, which have been provoked by this Government in the steps that it has taken to close those universities, were not engaged in political activities. It would be surprising if they did not do so considering that the academic staff of those universities also joined in protests against the closing of open universities. Therefore I consider the whole hue and cry about Nusas completely exaggerated and out of proportion. I believe in fact that there is very real need for an organization like Nusas. I do not just consider it a multiracial experiment, as the hon. member for Yeoville referred to it. It is much more than an experiment. Nusas has been run for many years as a multi-racial body, and I believe that it is a vital and important part of student activities in this country. It is the only student body that can be called truly national because it is the only student body that admits students of all races in South Africa, and perhaps it is just because of this, and not because of any so-called subversive activities which have not been proved at all, that the Government and the Minister of Justice in particular have expressed their disapproval of Nusas.

Having said that about Nusas, I want to get back to the Minister’s Vote in particular and to discuss with him the whole question of prisons’ organizations. I was very much heartened when I read a couple of years ago, in November 1962 that the Commissioner of Police (but this also refers to prison warders) had issued a statement to the effect that discipline in the police should be tightened and that there would be no second chance for members guilty of misbehaviour, and a senior officer was quoted as saying that steps were taken in order to build up the prestige of the force and to attract only the very best type of recruit to the police. “In the past it had happened,” said this senior officer, “that sometimes men with convictions were allowed to remain on in the force, but this would not be tolerated in future. One wrong step and a man is out.” That is what the Commissioner of Police and the senior officer concerned stated two years ago. With this statement in mind, I assured somebody who asked me not very long ago that if I was sure that people who had been convicted in the Police Force of any offences would not be retained. But to my surprise when I tried to get official information from the Minister, I found on asking him a question—not on behalf of the Liberal Party, but on behalf of myself; indeed I cannot think of a single question incidentally that I have put on behalf of the Liberal Party this year—that the hon. Minister told me that the services of 35 policemen found guilty of assaults on prisoners or witnesses had been in fact retained. I think this is something that the hon. Minister should take into account …

Will you not say something good about the Police Force for once?

Oh, yes. In fact I put a question asking whether a policeman who had acted very bravely would not be awarded as a result of his bravery. But where the police deserve criticism, I criticize them, and I believe that that is a legitimate function in this House when the Minister’s Vote is under discussion, and I am quite sure that the hon. Minister would be the first to agree with that. I must remind the hon. member that the whole purpose of the Committee of Supply is that redress of grievances precedes Supply. That is why we examine one ministerial Vote after the other, so that we can put our grievances to the hon. Minister concerned before we vote the money that he has asked this House to give him under his Vote.

If one examines the latest report of the Commissioner of Police, one finds that a large number of police in fact have been dismissed from the force for bad behaviour, and that many of these people in fact had behaved in such a way that it necessitated their dismissal. What worries me is the whole calibre of persons who are recruited for the Police Force. I do not believe that the standard of education is high enough and I do not believe that the pay is high enough to make sure that the very best type of recruits is taken on by the police. I realize that the hon. Minister has difficulties in keeping his force up to strength, and I must say that if the police did not have to occupy themselves so much with pass offences, it might very well be that they could spend very much more time in seeking the real criminals in this country. But as far as I can see the standard of education and the pay are not sufficiently high to attract a sufficiently high standard of recruit to the Police Force. This I believe is one reason why we have these cases of young men who behave irresponsibly in the Police Force, who find themselves up on charges, who use weapons which really should not have been issued to them—young men of 16 and 17 who are recruited are using weapons and in fact using them most irresponsibly. I think it is time that the hon. Minister started to carry out in practice what his Commissioner of Police said indeed was going to be the practice in the S.A. Police Force, and that it was only the highest standard of recruit that was going to be engaged by the police. In order to do that the conditions of service will have to be improved greatly. [Time limit.]

The hon. the Minister in his introductory speech this afternoon referred to the report which appeared in the Cape Times in connection with the resolution of the Security Council of UNO in regard to the offenders who have been charged and convicted because they are alleged to have resisted apartheid, and that then gave rise to discussions to and fro on both sides of this House. When the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) was speaking, and exposed those blatant lies sent out into the world about South Africa, the Leader of the Opposition, inter alia, told him: “It is your duty to put that right.” The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not here at present. I cannot expect him to be here always, but he was at, the spearpoint of the attack launched here against the Minister of Justice to-day.

Do you think it was an attack?

I probably overestimated, Mr. Chairman, and I should like to say something about that now. I think when the hon. the Minister spoke right at the beginning he virtually extended an invitation to the Opposition to stand by the Government, and to make it clear to the world at large that nobody is charged or detained in South Africa purely and simply because he is opposed to apartheid. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition admitted it subsequently, but in the first place I now wish to ask him, and I ask hon. members on that side of the House too, whether they have never before thought of denying it, of denying openly to the world that such a thing is true. To-day, after the invitation had been extended to the Leader of the Opposition, he denied it for the first time. I as a backbencher—f have thegreatest respect for him as Leader of that party and as frontbencher in this Housewant to say to him as man to man in all modesty: What is our duty as citizens of South Africa in respect of such attacks launched against South Africa? What is our duty in respect of such false statements made in respect of South Africa? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said to the hon. member for Vereeniging: “It is your duty to put that right.” Now I put this, with respect, to hon. members opposite: Is it our duty alone? Are we not all citizens of South Africa?

It is your duty in the first place.

If hon. members agree with me that we possibly have a greater duty to South Africa than they because we support the Government of the day, then there may be something to be said for that point of view. It was not I but the Leader of the Opposition who said: “It is your duty to put that right.” Now I should like to ask hon. members opposite with respect whether they agree with that statement? Do they consider that only we on this side of the House have to put right lies about our country, lies in connection with our Department of Justice, in connection with police matters, lies which cast a slur on the good name of South Africa? Are we the only ones who have to put that right? Is it not the duty of every citizen of South Africa to put it right? I see the hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hughes) agrees with me,, but how can his own Leader then say that it is our duty alone to put it right?

The laws must be altered.

The hon. member for Vereeniging asked what the Opposition were doing about it, and whether they were prepared to rectify it. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said: No, but it is your duty to put it right. Surely that is not true. I think we are adults in this House, and it is time we realized our obligations to our own country. I think we must stop saying: “Only you on the Government side have a duty to maintain the good name of South Africa and we are not under that obligation.” Right at the beginning the hon. the Minister gave us an account of what has been done under his administration during the past year, how many of the enemies of South Africa have been called to account and have been convicted. Instead of a word of thanks and appreciation from that side of the House, what have we had? Let us forget the legal aspect of the matter, let us forget the 90-days clause, but as regards the administration of this Department, it has been administered as well as anybody in South Africa could ever expect it to be under the control of that Minister and the competent men in the police and in his Department. It is true there has been a measure of recognition, and they have heard with joy that it is so, but they ought really to have shown some thanks and appreciation, apart from the fact that we may perhaps argue about the 90-day legislation. But we will never get anything of that nature from them.

Before the discussion of this Vote began here to-day, the newspapers once more, as usually happened in the past, inflated the Opposition and they foreshadowed a great attack on the Minister of Justice in the discussions of his Vote in advance. The lead was taken once again by the English-language newspapers here in Cape Town. We knew a long time in advance that the Leader of the Opposition was going to take the lead in this attack. But what has become of it? I think we are fully justified in saying that an attempted attack on this Vote has never yet fallen so flat as this attack which fell flat today. All the allegations made here (hon. members may rise and deny this if it is not correct) by any one of them have been replied to in this House. The only thing that remains is the argument on the 90-day provision. May I now say a word or two on the 90-day provision. Hon. members opposite, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself admitted it this afternoon, conceded that there may have been a crisis last year, but the Leader of the Opposition said his information was that the crisis was past. So we must accept that there was a crisis. The fact of the matter is that the hon. the Minister explained to us that although we have overcome great problems, we are living to-day in the realization that we are living in a difficult world we are living in a world in which we as White people, not because we are sitting on this side of the House on the Government side or on that side on the Opposition side, but because all of us, South Africa, because we are here as White people, are being attacked by subversive activities to a greater extent than has ever been the case before. I do not wish to elaborate upon the particulars, but one thing all of us may accept, and that is namely even if those subversive activities were to be dead tonight, they are not dead for good. The fact is that they are continuing and they will try time and again to undermine South Africa and us as Whites in this country. The first thing the people outside expect from us is that there should be security for the individual and for the State. The hon. the Minister has explained what a great success the 90-days provision has been. The hon. member for Transkei will be the first to agree with me that the aim of the police is not to wait until trouble arises, but the aim is to go and meet trouble and to prevent it wherever it can be prevented. In that respect the 90-day provision plays such a tremendous role in the dangerous conditions in which we are living, because by means of the 90-day provision we are able as it were to nip developing trouble in the bud. The hon. the Minister has explained here that there are several people still being detained for good reasons. So I accept that as long as there are good grounds, it is desirable that the 90-day provision should remain in force. The hon. the Minister has also foreshadowed that he hopes to recommend to the Cabinet during the recess that it be suspended. But I should like to say that what happened in this House to-day, in view of the various questions put here, the degree of criticism levelled here and the manner in which it has been answered, has fully satisfied us that the Department of Justice is well administered. The violent attack which was supposed to have been launched to-day, and which was announced weeks in advance—what has remained of that? If hon. members opposite want to be honest and fair, they will have to admit that nothing has remained of the so-called attack. What does that prove to us? That this Department is being administered properly, and I feel that we in this House, if we wish to be fair and sober, should rather say: Forget about the hon. the Minister; we are on political ground here as far as he is concerned, but we must say that this Department is administered well and that we can have nothing but thanks and appreciation for the men who are responsible for the administration of this Department.

To-night’s debate, I think, illustrates very aptly the truth of that French axiom, which says “the more things change, the more they are the same”. More than a year after the day on which we discussed the same matter—the 90-day clause in the General Law Amendment Bill—we have had the same performance in general from the Government side as we had last year; and, in particular, we had the same performance from the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) that we had last year. I want to give an example: He goes out of his way to refer to three or four of us on this side in order to prove that those persons said “South Africa is a police state”. That is what he said, and he quoted from Hansard, Sir, which is almost a holy book in this part of the world. But what he did—again proving that the more things change, the more they are the same—what he did in effect was to show that he was once again, as before, the master of suppression and diminution of the truth. In other words, he takes a statement, cuts off its head and cuts off its tail, and what is left he presents as the fact of the matter! I have not had time to check all the references which he gave the Committee from Hansard in regard to the persons to whom he referred as being reported as having alleged that South Africa was a police state, but I did in the limited time check two, and I will give you those examples. He referred to the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) as one of those who had said—according to the hon. member, categorically—“South Africa is a police state”. Now this is what the hon. member for Durban (North) said, according to my version of Hansard (Col. 4861)—

What the hon. member for Vereeniging thinks the hon. member for Yeoville and what the hon. member for Yeoville in fact said, may as far as I am concerned be two completely different things. But I am not going to enter into a discussion about something else. I am talking about this clause. The hon. Minister of Justice has said that he is not going to talk about this clause. The powers herein contained, without an explanation, can lead all reasonable men to no other conclusion but that South Africa has become in effect a police state.

And there the hon. member for Vereeniging stopped. But do you know, Sir, what the next few words were? He continued—

Why did the hon. member not quote that? Furthermore … [Interjections.]

Order! The debate has been going along very smoothly now, during the last half-hour and I hope the previous state of affairs is not going to arise all over again. If hon. members do not stop being so noisy, I shall again have to apply the same measures.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I submit that the passage that the hon. member for Hospital has read out shows perfectly clearly that the hon. member for Vereeniging …

On a point of order…

Order! The hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Hourquebie) has taken a point of order.

I submit …

That is not a point of order. He is bluffing you, Sir.

Order! The hon. member for Vereeniging must withdraw from the House for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

Chairman, on a point of order …

The hon. member may not cast a reflection on the Chair.

I did not cast a reflection on the Chair.

I have asked the hon. member to leave the Chamber and he must obey my orders.

I will leave the Chamber whilst my conduct is under discussion, and I hope that is very fair.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Vereeniging rose to say that it was not a point of order that the hon. member raised and that he was trying to bluff you. He did not say that you have been bluffed.

The hon. member must resume his seat. I do not intend to allow a discussion of the matter.

I am sorry, Sir, that apparently I am the cause of ruffling the calm atmosphere of this Committee, but you will agree with me, I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that that is hardly my fault. I would like to ask whether the time which has been taken up by this disturbance comes off my time, because that is very important to me.

The point I was making was that here was a clear case of the hon. member for Vereeniging, whose absence I sadly deplore for all sorts of reasons, stopped exactly where it suited him in quoting another hon. member, and stopped at the point where he should in fact have shown, as he could have shown, that the hon. member for Durban (North) averred very clearly that he did not believe that South Africa was a police state. And if that was not sufficient, the hon. Minister of Information, who may not remember this incident, immediately came to the rescue of his colleague, the hon. member for Vereeniging, and when the hon. member for Durban (North) had said “Are we a police state. I do not believe it?”, the Minister of Information said: “But you said so last year”, whereupon Mr. M. L. Mitchell said—

And to this day, neither that hon. Minister, or any other hon. member, has been able to show where or when the hon. member for Durban (North) said “South Africa is a police state”.

Now, Sir, take my case. The hon. member for Vereeniging, whose absence I deplore even more now, said about me that I said that South Africa was a police state, although the very sentences he read out showed that I asked a question. Now let me read more of what I said so that you, Mr. Chairman, will get the context and the meaning of what I said. And what I said then, I will say again now. Again the position is that “the more things change, the more they are the same”. I said (Col. 4877)—

You are reading a lot of nonsense.

hon. member does not like the truth. I continued—

Then there were interjections, as there are again to-night. I continued—

and this was the quotation, this is where the hon. member for Vereeniging started my so-called statement—

Surely that is a very plain statement, but the hon. member said that I said it was a police state—

Now I ask the same question of the same hon. Minister and of the hon. member for Vereeniging, and the hon. Minister of Information and any hon. member on that side. I am not saying South Africa is a police state, anymore than I did last year, but I am still waiting for the difference to be explained to the outside world, which believes that this is a police state, thanks to the actions of this Government. Then somebody interjected—

I want on—

And this is where the hon. member for Vereeniging saw fit to stop—

Once again, dead silence! I hope the hon. Minister, who once promised that he will never address himself to me, will at least answer this question this year, for the benefit of South Africa’s good name in the outside world—if not for my benefit. As I said last year—

[Time limit.]

I merely wish to refer to the speeches of the hon. members for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) and Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). The hon. member for Houghton said at the outset that it was normal for students to participate in political activities. “What is wrong with students indulging in political activities?” She says the Pretoria students hurled tomatoes at the Black Sash, She says it is a perfectly normal phenomenon, as if we are concerned here, as regards Nusas, with purely normal political activities. I do not know whether she has read the Botha’s Hill document of Mr. Jonty Driver, because I think that is a basis on which one may judge Nusas without quoting statements made not by Jonty Driver but by other people. The document I have here, I believe, resembles the original document, and you will see that from page 9 to page 11 there is reflected what Mr. Gunther and Mr. Legassick’s viewpoints are, but in the rest of the document Mr. Johnny Driver, president of Nusas, is speaking. I should like to read this to the hon. member for Houghton. She says it is normal for students to participate in political activities. I should like to read to her what Driver says on page 14—

It must be well understood that he is not referring to the academic education of students. He says—

He says clearly that they are training White students for political revolution in South Africa, a revolution which, as he himself says, will not be brought about by changing the hearts and minds of the Whites. But the revolution will come and the consequence of it will be “an African majority Government”. The hon. member can tell me just now whether these are normal political activities which she compares with the hurling of tomatoes at a meeting of the Black Sash. I should like to read another quotation from page 5 of this document.

Is the hon. member reading Mr. Driver’s words, or the quotations made by him from the remarks of a certain Mr. Legassick or a certain Mr. Gunther? It is very important for us to distinguish.

If the hon. member had only listened he would not have wasted my time, because I clearly said that pages 9 to 11 contain the utterances of Gunther and Legassic, and the rest of the document consists of everything Driver himself said. I should like to quote what Driver said at page 5 under the heading “Revolution”—

When he used the term “revolution” as above, he uses it in the double sense of violent, armed revolt, as well as in the other sense of reform, revolution. He is using it, according to his own evidence, in both senses. I should like to read a further quotation from page 16 of the same document. The hon. member for Houghton who is very proficient in the Leftist jargon, will be able to tell me what it means. He says this—

Now we know what “radical” means in terms of leftist politics. Now I ask the hon. member for Houghton, what does “radical-in-practice” mean? Does it not mean the active act of revolution?

No.

“Radical in theory” and “radical in principle” I can understand. It is an intellectual attitude or a political philosophy, but he distinguishes this from “radical-in-practice”, and that means only one thing: it is revolutionary action; it is suiting the deed to the word. I should like to ask the hon. member for Yeoville who glowed so on the “multi-racial” nature of Nusas, whether he has read this document.

Do not ask childish questions.

If he says that, I should like to ask him whether he is childish, because in this document Nusas refers to itself not as a “multi-racial” society, but as a “non-racial” society. What I should like to say now is that although Nusas is such a multi-racial society as the hon. member has said, and that it is such a “noble institution”, the conclusion to which Driver comes in this document is that if Nusas really wants to be a multi-racial society, then they must say to the non-Whites what he says on page 15—

He says this is the requirement of “non-racialism”, which the hon. member for Yeoville calls “multi-racialism”. Does he stand for that kind of “multi-racialism”?

But I attacked Driver on that.

But then he tells us that the “multi-racialism” of Nusas is one of its great virtues.

But not that of Driver.

But how is he going to distinguish between Nusas about which the president of Nusas surely can talk with the greatest authority, and the president of Nusas? With due respect to the hon. member I accept Driver as a greater authority on Nusas than he is, and I do not think I am doing the hon. member an injustice. But on Driver’s definition of “non-racialism”, the hon. member for Yeoville eulogized Nusas. He said that is the great virtue of Nusas and for that reason it must be maintained.

Untrue. Are you not ashamed of yourself?

What other construction can one place on it? What other “multiracialism” than this is there in Nusas? The hon. member surely said it is stated in this document that Fort Hare has already assumed the leadership of Nusas, not so? That is what Driver said, and the hon. member for Yeoville quoted it. Surely that is the “multi-racialism” referred to by Driver and to which the hon. member for Yeoville referred when he eulogized this “multi-racialism” so much. [Time limit.]

Earlier in the evening the Minister asked me to reply to two questions he put to me dealing with the statements made in the pamphlet issued by Mr. Hamilton Russell. He stated that he regarded me as a spiritual comrade of Hamilton Russell, and he asked me to dissociate myself with Russell’s statements. I knew the Minister could be fairly reckless at times, but I never thought he would be foolish enough to try to link me up with the policies and activities of Hamilton Russell. I have no hesitation at all in completely dissociating myself from any statement he made. I believe there is only one party and one policy capable of bringing this country back to sanity and leading it out of the mess in which this Government has landed it, and that is the United Party under Sir De Villiers Graaff, and that is the party and the policy I unswervingly stand by. The Minister must not be deceived and misled, because all my life I have stood, as I still stand, for complete justice and fairplay towards all races in this country, irrespective of their colour. That has been my policy throughout my life, to try and apply the Christian principles we are taught to believe in in my treatment of the other population groups, and to try to put into practical effect the text of the prayer with which we open this House every day, the ordinary humanity of man to man. Those are the principles I stand for and I am proud of it and do not retract anything in that regard. I want to tell the Minister that after this statement, any person who accuses me of being linked up with Hamilton Russell’s activities or his views will be guilty of knowingly telling a deliberate lie.

I want to return to the Minister’s Vote and to take up certain of the issues raised by my Leader with regard to the prisons service and the police. Let me say that I have the greatest respect for the general personnel of both services who have been carrying out the most difficult task under conditions not made any easier sometimes by utterances of the Cabinet. They must necessarily find among their numbers certain weak links who let down the force as a whole, and that applies to both prisons and the police. I want to deal particularly with the Minister’s administration of that particular section of his Department, because it is one of the most important Departments of State to-day. When we take the cost to the country—and after all we are dealing here with the money voted for those Departments—the Police and the Prisons Service between them cost the taxpayer R61.750,000 annually. Prisons alone cost about R12,500,000 a year and the police R49,000,000. When you take the cost in manpower to the country, a country which is suffering in all spheres from a shortage of manpower, we find that these two Departments between them absorb 35,500 men. That gives us some idea of the magnitude and the responsibilities they have to face, and it gives us an idea of the tremendous expansion in those two Departments which has been found necessary as the result of the various activities of this Government. When we deal with things like that and we take the figures of the escapes from the prisons which my Leader gave, 1,275 who escaped from custody after having been convicted, i.e. after having been handed over into the custody of the Prisons Service, or in the course of being handed over to them that is not all. The total number of escapees, including prisoners who were arrested and in some cases had not been convicted, the total number is 2,177 for the 12 months ended last December. Let us just consider what has happened.

Those people had to be apprehended and as the result of that activity, the whole of this vast Police Force, or a very large section of it, had to be alerted and put to a vast amount of effort in order to apprehend these offenders, which they did. The brought them before the courts, and at fairly heavy cost the Department of Justice dealt with them and they were sentenced, so the taxpayer has to foot quite a big bill for that. But what happens then? Having been arrested and sentenced, they are permitted to escape through some neglect or other, and what takes place then? You have to re-alert the whole of the Police Force in those areas affected and denude certain areas of police protection, which is already spread fairly thin, and so you reopen the door to crimes of violence which take place so often on elderly and unprotected people, while you try to recapture the men who have been previously captured and were then allowed to escape.

I want to deal particularly with the Minister’s administration of his Department. This Minister is not a bashful type. In the Other House, in dealing with the same matter, when he wanted to draw a comparison between his own régime and that of a former Minister, Mr. Harry Lawrence, he made no bones about saying that he was now the Minister and he knew what was going on in his Department and that he was the boss and that nothing happened in that Department that he did not agree with. Well, if he was the boss and knew what was happening, he must also shoulder the blame for whatever slip-up or lack of organization resulted in this vast escape of prisoners. Otherwise he should have taken precautions to avoid it. Because it has not stopped even now. We still pick up the papers day after day and see the same sort of thing happening. Only this last week dangerous prisoners escaped from prison in Pretoria. Two of them were apprehended by youngsters of 14or 15 years of age, and the other four are still at large. [Time limit.]

I am very glad the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) is present in the House, because I should like to say something about Nusas too. It is clear to us what the motives of Nusas are, but before proceeding to say something about that, I first wish to say that I think we have never yet had such an ungrateful Opposition as this. Instead of thanking the Minister for the good work he has done, to safeguard the security of South Africa during the past year, they come along here with all kinds of frivolous attacks and things which really shocked us this evening. I think the whole of South Africa should thank the Minister for what he and his Department have done.

A short while ago I discussed Nusas, and it is very clear to us, after the Minister exposed the activities of this organization last year, what is going on and I should like to quote a few extracts from Mr. Jonty Driver’s speech at Botha’s Hill to show what Nusas does. It says clearly—

Then they continue and say what their motives are, namely that the Black man should take over. They say this—

The last quotation I wish to make is this—

Those are the things they are striving for, and now I should like to charge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Yeoville with something this evening. According to Dagbreek, of 16 February, Nusas asked the Leader of the Opposition to become their president, and he cannot deny that.

That never happened.

Subsequently he was asked specifically whether he accepted it, yes or no, and he said he could not reply. When somebody insisted that he should Say yes or no, he said he did not reply because it is an academic question.

May I ask a question?

No, I am sorry, I have little time. Last year the Minister exposed Nusas fully. The Leader of the Opposition ought to know what is going on in Nusas, and I say he knows, but he would not react because according to these leaders of Nusas they want to do one of two things, hand over the leadership to the “Africans”, or they want to use Whites for the sake of appearances and operate underground. I want to know from the Leader of the Opposition: Was he prepared to have himself used for the sake of appearances, yes or no? When the matter was raised, the hon. member for Yeoville suddenly rushed off to Durban and there he said the following.

I did not rush to Durban suddenly.

The hon. member told the Nusas people—

“Friends”, and he is one of those who were disturbed. He also says he is one of their “friends”. He continues—

Now the question is, who are these conservatives? It is not the National Party, but also United Party supporters at that university. Three leftists in Nusas who aim at sabotage to some extent and desire revolution, and this Nusas which links up with communistic organizations overseas, say that in Dar-es-Sa-laam the Africa States are not opposed to the policy of Nusas but only to the membership of Nusas. Everything Nusas now aims at is underground and aimed at the security of South Africa. Now I say the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Yeoville link up with those “friends”. The Leader of the Opposition knew what these people were doing and if he is a responsible leader, why did he not warn against it a long time ago already? But we have seen in this House this evening how irresponsible he can be. When the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) was called to order on the utterance made by him, the Leader of the Opposition, instead of accepting responsibility and saying that an irresponsible back-bencher had said it, he associated himself with it. Had he not done that I would have had respect for him as an opposition leader, but he shocked me.

The hon. member cannot expect a front-bencher to refer to a backbencher as an irresponsible member.

No. I mean it was an irresponsible utterance by an irresponsible back-bencher.

The hon. member cannot say that.

I withdraw that. I should have expected the Leader of the Opposition, if I as an irresponsible back-bencher had made such an utterance which would have prompted that member to say something like that, to have disapproved of it, and he should have attacked the person in question. But I shall content myself with that until the hon. Leader explains to us why he did not expose these things of Nusas to us in the past. Why did he remain silent on it? Does a responsible leader do such a thing? What does the United Party aim at with this leftist wing of Nusas? Are they going to repudiate them in public to-night, or are they going to link up with them further in future as they have done up to this stage? We recently discussed this matter under the Vote of the Minister of Education too, and the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) then told me to keep my hands off Nusas, because it is a student organization and there is nothing wrong with them. That is how the United Party protects Nusas. Why will the United Party not support the conservative organization which now exists among the students, and which is well disposed to South Africa and desires to maintain the status quo of the Republic? I should like to know that from the hon. member for Yeoville. He ranted against this conservative organization. To my regret there is no national organization, but they are conservative at least; however, I cannot justify the attitude adopted here by the Opposition in respect of Nusas.

In reply to the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. van Zyl), I think it is necessary to say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was never asked to be president of Nusas.

Dagbreek, 16 February.

I doubt whether the Leader of the Opposition has been very interested in that body until the present leadership of Nusas began making fools of themselves, whereupon the hon. member for Yeoville, being booked to speak at a meeting in Durban, my Leader asked him to put the point of view of the United Party, which he did. I hope that disposes of the matter once and for all.

I wish to deal with the report of the Commissioner of Police for the year ended 30 June 1963. It is gratifying to see that there has been a number of 1,534 White recruits joining the police during that six months’ period, whilst those leaving the force were only 534. But if one looks at the figures of the authorized establishment as against the actual establishment of the police, one finds that there is a shortage of policemen in every single grade below that of major, with a shortage of nearly 2,000 constables and a shortage of nearly 500 sergeants. Now, sergeants and constables are those who bear the brunt of the work, and shortages in those two categories means that there are more arduous tasks for those people, and consequently it is more difficult to find recruits. When you get to the stage of being seriously under-staffed, it is very difficult indeed to get past it unless something drastic is done and measures are taken in other directions to improve the conditions of service of those categories of policemen. Now, there are changes which can be made to remedy the position and I propose to deal with some of them to-night. The first and most important is the question of housing. I have no doubt at all that the tremendous shortage of police housing, particularly in the country areas, is a major factor in the inability of the Police Force to bring itself up to establishment, up to strength. In almost every sector of my constituency, which is a rural one, there is a chronic shortage of housing. There are no houses in most of these centres for young married policemen. We have only to look at the figures set out on page 3 of the report to find that Government-owned houses for the police in 1961 were 1,241, and in 1962 there were 1,300, and in 1963 there were 1,309. So in a whole period of 12 months, for the whole of the Republic, nine houses were built for married policemen. When it comes to hired houses, the figures are 264, 263 and 263. That means that actually there was a decline in the number of houses for married policemen at a time when the over-all strength of the Police Force was tremendously increased.

The result of this is that young married policemen have either to live miles out of town, and I have instances of this of which the Minister is aware, and I shall deal with that category shortly, and incur considerable travelling expenses in order to get to their work, or else they have to rent premises in the town at high rates in competition with people in commerce and industry who can afford to pay more. I have given the Minister examples of just one centre in my constituency where there was a shortage of six houses. The Minister has been good enough to give me the assurance that these houses will be built by the end of the year. But we are already in the month of June, and the Minister said that they would be built by the end of the year, but a start has not been made yet, and I hope that something will be done to see that these houses which are desperately required are built by the end of the year. I quote this example from my constituency, but it is not unique. At almost every centre in my constituency this is the case, and I have no doubt that at almost every centre in the rural constituencies represented by members on both sides this is a chronic matter. Unless the shortage of housing for married policemen is met there will be this chronic shortage in the establishment, because they will go elsewhere where they will either get more pay or will get houses given, to them. It is particularly in the rural areas where one needs the married policemen, because one wants an experienced man, and in nine cases out of ten he is a married man who requires a house.