I move—

That the Bill be read a third time.

I wish to announce that in terms of Standing Order No. 66, the Third Reading debate will be extended to three hours, excluding the reply of the Minister of Finance.

I do not believe that in the history of South Africa there has ever been a party which has been more torn by confusion, by inner conflicts and self-contradictions than the Nationalist Party. We saw an example of that only a minute ago when the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs told the House that the Government was considering the whole question of lotteries. Is that another indication of a change of policy on the part of the Government? I asked the Minister whether the matter was being considered but he refused to reply. His statement was quite contradictory to the policy the Government had always held in the past, but it might be an improvement if we had a lottery.

This Government has a completely split mind when it comes to matters of national policy, and that is nowhere more clear than when it comes to racial policies. It preaches apartheid, practices integration and believes in neither. A small instance of it is this. When Basutoland was given her new constitution some years ago, the hon. the Prime Minister criticized that constitution for having a multiracial character. A few days ago he praised Basutoland as an example of apartheid. Now I ask the hon. the Prime Minister: What is Basutoland? Does it have apartheid, is it multiracial, or is it multiracial apartheid?

This contradiction is seen in the way in which the Government approaches democracy. They claim they are democratic, but they practice a most esoteric form of it. Why, even in their own ranks, we recently saw that they could not decide what democracy meant. The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) had one idea of what democracy meant in the Transvaal, and apparently, according to him and others, the Cape Nationalists had a different idea of what it meant. I see the hon. member for Ventersdorp is ready to interject, but I will not give him the opportunity of putting a question now. He can speak later on and explain how people in the Transvaal can have another sort of democracy from those in the Cape. I know that the feathers have not yet settled in the Nationalist Party. I should like to hear a new definition from the hon. the Prime Minister of what democracy actually means to that party. The division and the struggle in that party between the north and the south are so strong that they have not even been able to agree on the date on which the 50th Anniversary of the establishment of the Nationalist Party should be celebrated. It is being celebrated in the Cape Province at present, but there has not been a single celebration in the Transvaal or in any other province. They do not even know on what date they were born, and I doubt very much whether they know who their parents are. [Laughter.]

I do not think we have seen a better sign of this confusion in the Nationalist ranks than in regard to three matters I will mention. The first is television, the second is the Press Report, and the third is the radio. There have been certain most interesting developments in regard to television, or the lack of it which we have in this country, during the past few weeks. We had an admission the other day from the Minister of the Interior that the National Film Board was placing advertisements asking for experts in the making of films, but he denied in this House that the making of television films was one of the requirements asked for in those advertisements. Here I have the advertisement placed by the National Film Board in the Rhodesian Herald of 3 February this year, and it reads as follows—

There is a second advertisement for a film director: “for the directing, shooting and editing of documentary and television films.” This word “television” is mentioned no fewer than five times in these advertisements. That is as far as the National Film Board goes, but then we have the S.A.B.C. itself.

When the Transkei Parliament was opened last year, a special television team from the B.B.C. or the N.B.C. requested permission to make a television film of the function, and what was the reply? A senior Government official, Mr. Mills, told the B.B.C. (or the N.B.C.) that they could not take a television film of the opening of that Parliament because the S.A.B.C. itself was going to make a television film of it. What a contradiction in policy! On the one hand we are told about the evils of television, and on the other hand the S.A.B.C. itself makes television films on a large scale. We also have it on the authority of the hon. the Minister of Information that the Department of Information made no fewer than 21 television films last year, including films with such supercolossal titles as “How to Vote”, “The Transkei Parliament”, “The Anatomy of Apartheid” and “Hands across the Border”, etc.

While we have these steps in regard to television, on the one hand, from the National Film Board and the Department of Information and the S.A.B.C., on the other hand we have the official Government policy which is against television, good or bad. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has gone on record as saying that television can cause civil unrest and even a communist revolution, and therefore we must and shall not have television in South Africa. He has gone on record as saying that television will undermine family life in South Africa, and that it will poison the souls of the youth and therefore we shall never have television in South Africa. The Broederbond even sent out a secret circular criticizing television. This is a paragraph from that secret circular. I see the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is not interested; he has read it, of course. It says this—

That is the type of film the S.A.B.C., the Film Board and the Division of Information are making. I wonder what the explanation is for this dichotomy in the mind of the Government in regard to television? I wonder whether the explanation for it is not to be sought in this: Are they not actually manufacturing a secret Nationalist weapon against the rest of the world; are they not trying to find a reply in television to the attacks upon South Africa at the United Nations and in the Security Council? Have they not some special Grand Council of theirs saying, “Next time we are attacked at the Security Council we shall send them a television film of the hon. the Prime Minister addressing a meeting at, say, Wonderboom and thereby we shall corrupt the minds of 25,000,000 American children and we shall poison the minds of so many families?” Is that their secret weapon? Is that what we are creating television for? We should like the Department of Information to tell us.

But, Sir, one wonders how effective this new secret weapon of the Nationalist Party really is. I believe it could be made more effective, so-called, than it is at the present moment. We could, for instance, really shake the rest of the world by having the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs making a special television short which would then be sent to Britain and shown over B.B.C. television network. You will agree with me, Sir, that he is the most telegenic person in the Cabinet, and I think the title of that short should be the following: You will remember the song written by Mr. Noel Coward, “Don’t put your daughter on the stage, Mrs. Worthington.” The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs could appear in a television short with the title, “Don’t send your daughter to an English university, Mrs. Worthington.”

I state this on account of the statement made by the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs with regard to which we have not yet had a satisfactory reply. I should like him in this debate to give us that reply. He spoke at Wonderboom last year and warned the parents of South Africa not to send their children to English-medium universities—this great protagonist of national unity—because he said that “these universities had a disregard of national pride and of the pride of being of White desent, because these universities,” he said, “fostered amongst our future young leaders a disrespect for our community’s customs and even its laws and policies and because these universities permitted the erosion and distraction of the souls of our young people because of liberalistic or Leftist perhaps, even semi-Communistic influences at work in the English-speaking universities.” And then the hon. the Minister asked, “Must every parent not consider whether he dare send his child to university where such influences are at work?” When this speech was brought to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Education he said that he had received protests but that he had passed them on to his colleagues. I know that one of those colleagues was the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and we would like to hear a little more from him on this subject.

Another instance of the utter failure of the policy of this Government, of its frustration, of its uncertainty, is its policy in regard to the Press report. If ever there has been a fiasco in the field of Commission Reports, it is this Press report that we have had this year. This commission was intended to investigate the contents of South Africa newspapers; it sat for 13 years; it cost the country R350,000 and not a single paragraph in any single South African newspaper was actually investigated and reported upon by that commission. The report only deals with a period four years ago, beginning in 1960, and then only three months of that period itself.

Sir, what is happening to the report of the Press Commission? We should like to know that from the hon. the Minister who is not here at the moment. He had 122 copies printed. It is interesting to see where those copies went. I ask the hon. the Minister what he had done with those copies. Sir, I am reminded in this connection of an old Indian legend. Apparently there was an Indian Sultan who, when any of his followers fell out of disfavour, used to send them a white elephant. The cost of feeding and keeping that white elephant was so high that it made those followers of his who had fallen into disfavour bankrupt. I have an idea that that is what is being done with the report of this Press commission.

Every member of the Cabinet got one copy, but for some mysterious reason the hon. the Minister of Defence got two copies. I put a question to him; I asked him why he had been given two, and he said that he had not asked for it, he did not know why he had been given two. But the hon. the Minister of Information, as a sign of the disfavour in which he was held, got nine copies! He is trying to distribute them all over the world but he cannot get away from the fact that he was the first recipient of this sign of disfavour. I may say that the United Party got five copies, which is not unexpected, but what worries me a bit is that my hon. Leader has offered me one of those copies! Sir, I see the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) is in his seat. In a special interview to the Press—he does give interviews to the Press—he told the Transvaler that for four months he had literally eaten, drunk and slept Press Commission: “Hy het letterlik Perskommissie geëet, gedrink en geslaap.” I could have understood it if he had said, “figuratively” but how can one “literally” eat and drink and sleep the Press Commission report. I realize that he loves the Press Commission report. He probably takes it to his room at night to read himself to sleep. But how can one literally eat the Press report?

Sir, I promised that I would deal with the S.A.B.C. I have dealt with it on several occasions before and I do not wish to speak on it at any great length; I merely want to point out that, despite our warnings and our statements here in Parliament the S.A.B.C. has not improved its reporting. There has been little change for the better, if at all, in its slanting of news, in the past few months. We have had several glaring examples of this. I think of one instance—that of the Chairman of the South African Society who broadcasts over the S.A.B.C. and used these words towards a section of the English-speaking people in South Africa: he called them “virulent”, “vicious”, “uncharitable”, “cheap”, “disgusting”, “arrogant” and “lazy”. I wonder what hon. members on the other side would say if the S.A.B.C. were to call an extremist section of the Afrikaners—say the Broederbond—“giftig”, “boosaardig”, “liefdeloos”, “goedkoop”, “ontaard”, “lui” en “verwaand”. Yet these are the words which the S.A.B.C. in this particular talk used against a section of the English-speaking people in South Africa. I say it is a disgraceful incident.

There have been other similar instances. There was, for instance, a broadcast a couple of weeks ago in a programme called “Deuntjies en Dingetjies”. You will remember, Sir, that some time ago there were articles in some of the English Sunday newspapers praising the United Party for what they called a “fighting new look”. I believe that it is the same “fighting new look” that we have always had but at any rate these articles were articles of commendation. Then there came this broadcast over the S.A.B.C. in the programme “Deuntjies en Dingetjies”—

Sir, that is blatant political comment. It is questionable humour, but if one must have that sort of semi-gutter humour then at least let both sides have a go at it and not only one side. I have here a letter from the Director of Programmes of the S.A.B.C. admitting that the information I have in regard to this particular broadcast is correct.

No wonder that even in Nationalist ranks the protests against the S.A.B.C. are growing day by day. A columnist, Willem, in the Volksblad, which is the only daily Nationalist paper in the Free State, wrote the following about the S.A.B.C.—

Sir, there will be small chance of obtaining a better opportunity for those who disagree with the S.A.B.C. and the Nationalist Party to air their views over the radio because basically the Nationalist Party is a sectional party for a section of a section of the people. The hon. the Prime Minister can talk as much as he likes about national unity in South Africa; I regard a great deal of that as mere words, because there are witnesses that one can call to prove how hollow that cry is on most occasions. One can call the mayor of Randburg, a suburb next to Johannesburg, as a witness. Randburg thought so highly of the English language that its Nationalist city council decided no longer to use the English language in its municipal administration. We can call as a second witness a gentleman called Mr. Eben Cuyler, the leader of the Nationalist Party in the Johannesburg City Council. He is the gentleman who said—

Is that how national unity is practised and propagated by that side of the House? We can call another witness, Mr. Ted Stirton, for 40 years a Nationalist Party member in Natal, and a leader of that party in the province, who ultimately resigned from the Nationalist Party because he deplored the attacks being made on the English-language Press in South Africa. He stated—

And, Sir, we can also call a very strange witness, finally, in regard to the Government’s pretentions in regard to the promotion of national unity, and that is a gentleman named Mr. Ivor Benson who tried to work with the Nationalists. It almost led to a nervous breakdown, as he admitted in his letter of resignation. His letter of resignation from the party as the chairman of the Emily Hobhouse branch of the Nationalist Party in 1962 read as follows—

Sir, I have brought these facts to the attention of the House and to the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister. No one would be happier than we if a real spirit of national unity permeated the Government too, but in view of these facts that spirit is not there, and until we see signs of that spirit, the present Government has no right whatsoever to speak of national unity.

After having listened to the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) who has just sat down one cannot but feel that it is not at all worthwhile replying to what he has had to say. The hon. member took 30 minutes to retell an old story, and it was not the most tasteful old story either. The hon. member has said that the hon. the Prime Minister can talk as much as he wants to about national unity but that he does not believe him. He is now telling the world that the hon. the Prime Minister is not in earnest in pleading for greater national unity in South Africa. He says that the hon. the Prime Minister can talk as much as he wants to but that what he says has a hollow sound. Amongst other things, he quoted the statements of Mr. Eben Kuiler in the Johannesburg City Council. I want to accuse the hon. member of trying to destroy all the national unity which the hon. the Prime Minister is seeking to establish. He does these things deliberately in order to cause the shipwreck of national unity in South Africa. For what other reason does the hon. member quote these statements of Mr. Eben Kuiler? Does he think for one moment that the hon. the Prime Minister made that statement or that it was inspired by the hon. the Prime Minister? He knows the background and circumstances in this regard but he quotes this statement of Mr. Eben Kuiler for one specific purpose. We know the hon. member for Orange Grove. He has quoted this statement in order to bedevil national unity in South Africa. I make this accusation against the hon. member for Orange Grove and the United Party: I say that if ever there have been people in South Africa who have tried to cause the shipwreck of national unity, it is the Opposition as they sit there. They do this because they fear that if greater national unity is brought about, there will probably also be more support for the governing party in South Africa, because everyone knows that the hon. the Prime Minister and this side of the House are in earnest in pleading for national unity in South Africa.

What about Sturtin?

If the hon. member wants to quote examples of that nature I may just as well ask him: What of Etienne Malan and what of Japie Basson? It does happen in this country from time to time that people join this or that party, but he cannot quote that fact as an example because the strongest flow is still in the direction of the National Party. At the beginning, when the hon. member stood up to speak, he tried to give us a lecture on democracy. I do not think that people who live in glass houses ought to throw stones. He is the last person to speak about democracy. I do not know what his idea of democracy is but let me quote the following to hon. members (translation)—

These are the words of Mr. Etienne Malan in the Kruithoring of 28 April 1948. These were his words. He also referred to people who left one party to join another. He became so democratic he joined this party. He said (translation)—

This is the hon. member who wants to give the House of Assembly and South Africa a lecture on democracy! The National Party was probably too democratic for him so he ran to join the allies of the communists, as he himself described them. I want to make this further quotation, and I want to give this free advice to the hon. member (translation)—

I take it, listening to the hon. member, that he is the self-appointed brains trust of the United Party (translation)—

I shall also pay for the printing if that hon. member will have those words printed in gold letters and will hang them up in his front room for daily consideration. But listen to what the hon. member wrote in the Kruithoring of 4 June 1947 (translation)—

If the hon. member will hang up those words in his front room for daily consideration we shall also pay for the frame and the printing in gold letters because this is the type of thing that radiates from him each day here in this House. I shall leave the question of whether it is right or wrong to the judgment of this House and that of the voters outside this House.

We have very nearly reached the end of this Session. We have been here for five months and for five months we have seen the pathetic picture of the Opposition sitting on that side in absolute frustration. A question which has been asked generally outside this House is whether the United Party no longer has any hankering to come into power in this country. We have discussed this matter amongst ourselves and asked one another what is happening to the United Party because there is nothing driving it to come into power in this country; the United Party will be only too grateful if they can be permitted to sit here, even if it means staying in Opposition for ever. That is the only impression they have made on intelligent and observant people. That is also the impression that they have created on the part of people sitting on the gallery and following Press and radio reports.

Yes, the radio!

The hon. member for Orange Grove has the radio on his brain. He tried to ridicule the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze). I think that he has swallowed the whole of the S.A.B.C. and has digested the best part of it. I say that we have been sitting here now for five months and have seen the United Party losing everything that it had about it and protecting it and covering it, piece by piece like a striptease dancer. This debate has left the Opposition more naked than it was when it came here at the start of the Session, and this has been the case after every debate. There has been no determination on their part to come into power and one has gained the impression that they are sitting there and waiting for something to happen outside; for judgments to be given which will be a shock to South Africa so that they can then pounce like vultures and perhaps come into power in this way. This was the case up to a few weeks ago when the Sunday Times tried to instil a little artificial life into the Opposition. Judging from the past few issues of the Sunday Times it appears to me as though the Sunday Times has also given up the struggle. Even the Sunday Times can to-day no longer breathe life into the dead bones sitting opposite us, the party which is held up to the country as an alternative Government.

They are living on oxygen.

We thought that there was going to be a great revival when Graaff was portrayed in a comic strip feature as “Graaff the Killer”; we thought that great things were going to happen but the only thing that has happened is that he is killing in the wrong direction; he has just about killed all his own people!

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the debates we have had during this Session. In the first place there was the no-confidence debate. Time will not permit me to make quotations from that debate but the no-confidence debate became a boomerang; the tables were turned on the Opposition in that debate and they looked pathetic after the hon. the Prime Minister had replied to the debate. That motion boomeranged on the Opposition. We then had the Budget debate and during that debate we saw them burning with fury because things were going so well with South Africa’s economy. Their great grievance to-day is not because there is a shortage of money in the country but their great grievance is actually that there is too much money in South Africa. They are annoyed because things are going so well with South Africa. If things go well with South Africa then things go badly with the Opposition; this has always been the position over the years. Then we had the debate here on the Bultfontein case, that unfortunate occurrence. I think that the Opposition made a very poor showing in that debate too. We then had the debate on the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill which was handled in a masterly and excellent way by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. In this debate too the Opposition presented a very sorry sight.

I resent the fact that the Opposition have made use of drought conditions in South Africa for the purpose of party political gain. They have used agriculture as their theme in many of these debates. Never before has the Opposition had as much to say about agriculture as, amongst others, during this debate. Never before have they given so much attention to agriculture because the salvation of the farmer is not their salvation. When things go badly with the farmer and when he finds himself in difficulty because of drought conditions, the United Party converge like vultures on that farmer’s farm in order to see what they can make use of for their own political gain. I have this to say to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Even if they continue with this slogan of theirs the farmers themselves will not believe it because in this same Kruithoring I read the following, written by M. Etienne Malan (translation)—

He did not know what still lay ahead.

That may be so, but Sir, we also knew the farmer in those days. I want to draw attention to the fact that the farmer also knows who his friend is. What is said here in the House of Assembly does not make as much impression upon him as does his practical experience. The farmer knows that this Government has stepped into the breach and spent millions on conserving the soil for the farmer in South Africa, on conserving water for the farmer in South Africa. This Government did not follow a short-term agricultural policy of trying to get as much as possible from the soil in one year. It has taught the farmer that demands will be made of agriculture in the years and generations to come to feed our nation. That is the direction in which we are going. As far as research and technical services are concerned no Government has done more for agriculture than the National Government has done. The important attack of the Opposition on the Government was actually in connection with those farmers who have to leave their farms because of various circumstances. I want to warn hon. members that we must not encourage thousands and tens of thousands of people to return to the platteland because the more farmers we have, the smaller our agricultural units become. That is obvious; one cannot make five morgen out of two morgen of land but one can increase the carrying capacity of the soil. It will make no difference to the United Party if they populate the platteland with thousands of additional farmers that those farmers die of misery there. What this Government is aiming at is to give every farmer a reasonable living in every sphere and a unit on which he can make a reasonable living.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) came along here with a motion which was tantamount to a motion of no confidence in the administration of the Government.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member says “Hear, hear!”; that was what his motion actually amounted to. I want to put this very interesting question to South Africa: If South Africa gets rid of this Government and its policy, what then? I ask: Who are the potential successors to this Government? Who is the alternative Government in this country? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) is looking at me. Will he find a Prime Minister for me in the ranks of the Opposition? Will he form a Cabinet from the ranks of the Opposition? Even if he were to succeed in doing so I want to ask: Once he has formed that Cabinet, what policy are they going to follow in South Africa. The National Party is celebrating its Golden Jubilee this year. The hon. member for Orange Grove should not come along here with his petty arguments and say that we do not know when the National Party was founded or when the founders’ congress was held. One thing we do know and that is that the National Party was born out of love for South Africa. We know that on 8 December the late General Hertzog stood under the Karee tree at De Wild and because of his slogan of “South Africa first”— the struggle which he was already waging in the Botha Cabinet—he was omitted from the Botha Cabinet on 12 December 1912 because he stood for “South Africa first”. That was a cry which found its echo down the passages of 50 years of our nation’s history. We are celebrating that festival this year. The grapes are sour, Mr. Speaker. Actually, the hon. member for Orange Grove is annoyed because he cannot participate in these festivities.

It is a memorial service.

They are not memorial services; they are celebrations. There we have a revelation, Sir. From the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks. A grateful nation looks back to-day on a 50-year road along which the National Party has led the Whites and the non-Whites in South Africa to happiness. A grateful nation looks back to-day on the actions of the National Party and its work because they know that this party with its policy of separate development is the one party which can bring happiness to every group in its own homeland. A nation looks back with gratitude on 50 years of National Party existence, a National Party which has given a guarantee to the White man that he too will find his home here in South Africa, a permanent home. We look back with gratitude on those services. It is not only Nationalists who look back in gratitude. There are also thousands of supporters of the United Party who are grateful that the National Party is in power to-day.

When we look at South Africa’s position in Africa and the position which South Africa holds in the world then I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition what other policy we can apply to South Africa having regard to the composition of her population? The Opposition attack us from time to time because South Africa does not have so many friends abroad, because the outside world attacks South Africa on account of her race policies. If they come into power, which laws are the Opposition prepared to repeal in order to make South Africa’s name more acceptable in the outside world?

We shall reply.

I hope that the hon. member will reply. I want to accuse the Opposition to-day that they will not discriminate against the non-White. They must have the moral courage—I think that this question was already put to them by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman)—to tell us whether they are going to discriminate between Black and White. Are they going to give the franchise to the Black man if they continue with their race federation plan? The Opposition are annoyed because they know that there is no alternative policy which can be followed in South Africa having regard to the particular composition of her population. There is only one policy which the voters will tolerate—this is the decisive factor—and that is the policy of separate representation.

The previous speaker spoke about various things. He reminded me of a song from the play the King and I—

I think that was what the hon. member was doing. I think that was the whole object of his speech. As for arguments, I could not find a single argument in his speech. He went as far back as World War I and he quoted things which the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) said at that time. The hon. member forgets that at that particular time his party were the friends of the Nazis, the friends of people who had formed a pact with the communists. Hon. members opposite are very clever, Sir, they quote just what suits them; they do not quote those things which do not suit them.

The hon. member also referred to the call for unity made by the hon. the Prime Minister between the two big language groups in this country. What is the past record of that party? What is its record to-day? Is it not a fact that at the moment here in Cape Town they are dividing a school where English and Afrikaans-speaking children used to play together into an English-speaking school and an Afrikaans-speaking school? They are taking our children away from one another so that they will not mix and understand one another.

The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to Ivor Benson. Mr. Speaker, you will remember what he did on the S.A.B.C. Here I have the letter he wrote when he resigned from the Nationalist Party and left South Africa. He left South Africa because he found that he was no longer welcome here. This is what he says—

He goes on to say his position is untenable—

This was a man who belonged to the ranks of the Nationalist Party. This was the man who pretended that he was an English-speaking Nationalist. Not only has he left the Nationalist Party but he has left South Africa because he found his position so untenable.

We are often told of the racial peace which prevails in this country. The hon. member who has just sat down again told us that apartheid was the only policy whereby all the racial groups could find peace in South Africa. His story was that all the races would find peace under this policy of parallel development or whatever they call it these days. They change their policy so often, Sir, that one does not know from day to day what they are calling it. I wish to lay it at the door of that party that never before have there been so many racial disturbances as under the Nationalist Party Government. Never has there been a greater attempt to create racial disturbances than under this Government.

I want to quote what a Mr. van Rooyen who contested one of the Natives’ Representative seats in this House said at Greyton. He said this—

Then he goes on and he says—

Here I have the original pamphlet given out by that particular candidate.

What is the date of that?

Hon. members can come and look at the date later on. I have the original pamphlet here. Do they regard the date of such importance because they change their policy from year to year? Could that be the reason why they want to know the date?

Sir, we have been asked to pass an amazing budget by an amazing Government and under amazing circumstances. An amazing Budget in which the biggest surplus South Africa has ever had is being passed through this House. I said on an earlier occasion that the attitude of the Government always filled me with nausea, especially the attitude of the hon. the Minister of Finance. But the attitude of the other hon. Minister is precisely the same. I find an attitude where they laugh in derison when one speaks about the poor people; that they laugh in derision when one speaks about the problems of the farmers. When you raise the plight of the old-age pensioners the only answer you get is a hoarse laugh. When you speak of hardships, of want and of worry the only reply you get is that you are speaking with a view to the impending Provincial Council election. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee), of course, is the past master in that. Hon. members laugh but do you know why they laugh? They are laughing because of their own prosperity. Sir, I am beginning to wonder, and I think South Africa is beginning to wonder, how is it that the members of this Government and the members of this party are so very, very prosperous when other people in South Africa are not.

Order! What is the hon. member insinuating?

I am not insinuating anything, Sir.

What did the hon. member infer?

I was speaking of prosperity …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that statement.

If you read anything into it that should not be there I withdraw it, Sir.

As I have said great exception is taken to these people who have prosperity at their door. We are told by the hon. the Minister of Finance that he will not make concessions to the people because he is afraid of inflation. Is he asking the poor people of this country to make sacrifices because he is afraid of inflation? Is he afraid to make concessions to the poorer classes because of inflation? An amount of R750,000 appears on the Estimates for buildings as old-age homes. But I notice that four houses for Commissioners-general cost over R1,000,000. Yet only R750,000 appears on the Estimates for homes for all the old people of South Africa. I do agree that there are people who own beautiful homes with luxurious furniture. I do agree that the Ministers have trips overseas; I do agree that they seem to live a very lovely prosperous life. But I realize that there are many people in South Africa who do not share in that.

As we have said before the farmers of this country constitute the one section which does not share in this prosperity. The farmers of Bothaville in the Orange Free State had a meeting where they said there would not be sufficient funds to enable them to plant next year’s crop. They went on to say the following—

Then they talked about the Amato Grain Bag Factory which was subsidized by the farmers and not by the Government. That money comes out of the pockets of the farmers. Then I also find the following—

They ask for a 30c per bag “agterskot”. The President of the Transvaal Agricultural Union said—

Then the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) says Mr. Strauss was the worst Minister of Agriculture the country has ever had.

He did not say it; he was quoting what Etienne Malan had written.

Well he was quoting what somebody had said, and he seemed to agree with it. I want to point out that during the time of the United Party the Farmers’ Assistance Board only advanced £7,000,000 to assist the farmers whereas the sum is ten times as much to-day. As a matter of fact the hon. the Minister of Finance told us last night that R40,000,000 was provided for in this Budget in order to alleviate the position of farmers. The fact to-day is that the position of the old-age pensioner has been relieved. But only half of those social pensioners will derive any benefit from this at all.

The people of South Africa want to know where this universal prosperity is. They ask themselves: What are we getting out of it? With this building boom there is something else to which I want to draw attention of this hon. House: With this building boom old buildings are being demolished and it is in these old buildings that most of the old people are living. What else can they afford on R27 per month other than only a room in a very old building? One asks oneself what the workers—although they do not fall under this par-Budget. I think, for example, of railway workers—although they do not fall under this particular Budget. But there are people on the Railways who have to work for 38 week-ends without getting one off. They have to do it because they need the money. Their basic salary is so low that unless they work overtime they cannot live at all. I have come to the conclusion that this Government has forgotten what it is to struggle; they have forgotten what it is to be poor; they have forgotten what it is to count our pennies; they have forgotten what it is to lack the good things of life; they have forgotten what it is to lie awake at night wondering how you can send your child to university, how you are going to manage to save your farm and how you are going to save your stock in times of drought; how you are going to keep your head above water. Sir, this Government has lost all touch with the ordinary man in the street. This Government is the Government for big enterprise; this is a Government which is thinking only of border industries. This is a Government which is thinking of dividing the people into different racial groups. This is a Government which has forgotten to develop the country as a whole or to develop the hinterland. This Government is no longer building railways in the distant-lying areas. This Government is thinking of one thing and one thing only and that is how to keep themselves in power. This is the Government which thinks that it is synonymous with South Africa. That is the biggest trouble of all. They seem to think that the Nationalist Party is South Africa and that is the greatest tragedy of it all because in thinking that they are not only ruining themselves but South Africa as well.

Listening to the two Opposition speeches which we had this morning on the occasion of the third reading of the Appropriation Bill, one could do nothing else but come to the conclusion that the efforts of the Opposition to disguise their poor showing on the occasion of the second reading of the Bill was also a pathetic one. One gains the impression that the Opposition as it were flies about like a vulture from one carrion to another. The party which has over the years made itself known as the party which has no time for the poor man, is now blossoming forth, in the words of the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk), as the party which is sympathetic towards the simple and the poor man and our old people. This Government is accused of simply being a Government for “big enterprise”. This is what the hon. member told us. Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member should reconsider the historical facts in regard to this matter. She should go back in history to the time when they looked down on the poor man; when they had no time for the poor man and when the Nationalists were made out to be the simple and poor people. But the wheel has now turned full circle and thanks to the training and education they have received, the Nationalists are now coming to the fore. Now that the wheel has turned full circle, the Opposition want to pose to-day as the party which is pleading the case for the poor man. If there is a drought anywhere in the country, they are the party which pleads the case for the poor fanner who is apparently in so much difficulty.

We also had the speech of the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) in which he belittled the efforts of the Government and those of the hon. the Prime Minister particularly to build up unity before political unity in this country. The hon. member referred to the 50 years of existence of the National Party and said that we did not even know in which year the party had been founded. We do know this and it gives us pleasure to hold a celebration for two years because this occasion gives us every reason to celebrate.

And the Transvaal?

They have also started their celebrations in the Transvaal. The hon. member ought to know that. But I think that the hon. member feels rather jealous this morning because he cannot participate in those celebrations. We are grateful that that hon. member is not celebrating this festival year with us. If we could eradicate that short period in history during which he was associated with this party we would do so with pleasure. The hon. member for Orange Grove is the last person to speak disparagingly of this Government and the efforts of the hon. the Prime Minister to establish national unity in the country. When he does this, I can only say that his party has taken fright at the signs of the growth of national unity that there are to be seen in the country. They are afraid of those signs. They are worried lest Afrikaans- and English-speaking people find each other, not because we are trying to force them together into one party but because the solid foundations in this regard were laid in the National Party 50 years ago. Thanks to those foundations that unity is growing in this country as never before, even outside the National Party. One and all can testify to the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister has behind him the support of more South Africans than any individual statesman in this country had ever enjoyed.

The hon. member for Drakensberg spoke about Mr. Ivor Benson. It is a strange thing to my mind that the Opposition should quote Mr. Ivor Benson this morning to prove that this Government is a stumbling-block to national unity.

He was your lackey.

In the past, hon.. members opposite quoted Mr. Ivor Benson as the man doing the harm in the Broadcasting Corporation. The hon. member for Drakensberg quoted a letter to us this morning from Mr. Benson as though these were his parting words when he left the country. The hon. member knows that that is not so.

Order! The hon. member may not say that.

I withdraw the remark immediately, Mr. Speaker, and shall say that the hon. member ought to know that that is not so and that that letter was not written when Mr. Ivor Benson left for Rhodesia. She ought to know he made those remarks years ago and since that time he has again lent his support to the National Party. It is true that he left the country but only to take up a position elsewhere.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Orange Grove. He said that this Government was the stumbling-block in the way of unity. I want to make this accusation against the Opposition: They call themselves the United Party, the party which seeks to bring together all those who should be together. But what is actually happening in that party? I want to make this accusation against them: That party is using certain people to create a false image of Afrikaners amongst their fellow Afrikaners and I want particularly to mention the hon. member for Orange Grove in this connection. When the hon. member was a member of this party in 1945, he did not write, amongst other things, about a political problem but about a political personality, who, since his demise, has stood out in this country as one of the greatest leaders that we have ever had—the late Dr. D. F. Malan. The hon. member for Orange Grove wrote this about him (translation)—

We will both admit that at the time I talked a great deal of nonsense.

He went on to say (translation)—

Malan, the greatest Afrikaner living to-day. But now we come to 1951 when it was the function of that hon. member to construct the image of the Afrikaner for the benefit of the overwhelmingly English-speaking members of that party. How did he do so then in regard to a person who had, as we all agree, an outstanding character? The hon. member wrote as follows (translation)—

On what trash heap did the hon. member find that?

In what trash can?

A party which allows images of this nature to be created of their fellow Afrikaners is not a party which can boast of establishing unity in this country. That is why the hon. member for Orange Grove is the last member in this House who should at this stage allege that the Government is not establishing unity. There is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). Statements by and letters from certain people were quoted in this House this morning. But it is quite common in politics, it happens every day, that when a person feels frustrated, he makes a statement of that nature. But after 1949, when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout joined the National Party, he went from political platform to political platform and said that there was no place in the United Party for an Afrikaner. I am sure the hon. member will not deny that he said this.

No, Mr. Speaker. I say that we have had this reaction because hon. members opposite have noted with consternation the increasing support given to the policy of the National Party by the English-speaking people of this country. It is not necessary for them to join the party to do this but they reveal themselves to be loyal South Africans who are prepared to support the policy of this Government at the present time. This was also apparent from the letter which the hon. the Minister of Finance quoted here yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, I have said that the United Party has distinguished itself as a party which flies about like a vulture from place to place on the lookout for support. The other day the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) made a speech here in which he said that because numbers of people in this country cannot give expression to their political feelings, more and more people are being sent to gaol for political offences to-day. When the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) spoke, the hon. member for Yeoville made an interjection from which it was quite clear that he was referring to the Rivonia case. I want to point out that that speech was made at a stage when there was every indication that a mighty demonstration was going to be set in motion against South Africa abroad. The hon. member then tried to play along with that demonstration.

That is untrue.

If the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) will read the newspapers he will see that the hon. member for Yeoville made his speech at a stage when it was becoming quite clear that a mighty demonstration was being built up against South Africa abroad. In fact, the hon. member made an interjection from which it was clear that he was referring to the Rivonia case. He went so far therefore as to give us to understand that he was referring to that case. But when it became clear that the demonstration overseas had failed and that the people abroad were gradually beginning to realize that justice still lived in South Africa, he immediately changed his tune. We were then told that he was not referring to the Rivonia case at all.

Let me mention another case. Because of the threat on the part of UNO to send a commission to South Africa to inquire into our affairs here—this was proposed a short while ago by U Thant—the Opposition fear the judgment of the people of South Africa because they see that an action of this nature can play into the hands of the Government and that the Opposition will therefore also be condemned if they do not oppose a step of this nature. And yet we are grateful that the Opposition have also said that they are opposed to interference of this nature. But if the opportunity arises, such as arose last week, when the Opposition consider that they can benefit themselves, we will again have this sort of statement.

We find a similar approach to agricultural matters. Because a drought is prevailing in certain parts of our country now and our farmers are in difficulty and people want to sell up because of these drought conditions and find their niche in life elsewhere, it is said that this Government is driving the farmers from the land. But there are numbers of farmers who are being made such attractive offers at the present time that they cannot resist those offers. They therefore sell their land, which may perhaps be too small for them, and move to the cities. But we are told now that the farmers are forced off their land.

By circumstances.

What are those circumstances? The hon. the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs was quoted as apparently having said that a few thousand people would be driven from their farms every year. But does not this sort of thing happen in the normal course of events in, a country which is changing over from a predominantly agricultural economy to an industrial economy? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself recently referred to the fact at Worcester that while in 1950 our agricultural production made up 14 per cent of our national income, it had now dropped to 10.6 per cent. But what is wrong with that? Are we not all grateful that there is a mighty industrial growth in progress which has given an impetus to the new growth in/our country? Are we not pleased because this will also be to the advantage of agriculture? But hon. members opposite make it appear as though people are being driven from the land because of the policy of this Government. Hon. members opposite have referred to what is being done in Holland. But may I point out that the position prevailing in Holland to-day is one in which the farmer is told by the authorities what he has to produce. His entire farming operation is under the control of the authorities and if a time comes when his land is required for other purposes of expansion, it is obvious that special provision will have to be made for him so that he can be settled elsewhere. This is obvious because his entire life is controlled. In South Africa on the other hand we have a system of free enterprise. It is a fact that many farmers are offered such an attractive price for their land to-day—this holds good particularly for the farmer on a smaller scale—that they simply cannot resist those offers. So it is not difficult for those people to change over. It is not because of the neglect of this Government to assist farmers that some of them are moving to the cities.

Hon. members opposite have created the impression that the price policy of this Government is the main cause of the deterioration that has taken place in the agricultural sphere. But in my opinion this statement is indicative of ignorance in regard to the way in which prices are fixed.

Do you not know then what farmers decided at Bothaville two days ago?

When one listens to hon. members opposite, one is forced to the conclusion that prices are fixed in a completely arbitrary way.

The wheat farmers want to see the hon. the Prime Minister.

A letter appeared recently in a certain agricultural publication and this is what the writer had to say (translation)—

This is what hon. members opposite also say. The writer goes on to say (translation)—

This concluding sentence confirms the statement that I want to make. What has to form the basis for a price determination? As far as the man who is in difficulty because of natural conditions is concerned, the price may just as well be R 1,000 per bag because not even that will help him. Although hon. members opposite resent the way in which the hon. the Minister arranged prices, I agree with what he has said on certain occasions. That is (translation)—

The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) also referred to this aspect of the matter yesterday. In pursuance of this fact let me say that unrealistic prices, prices which are fixed in order to satisfy everyone in all circumstances and at all times, may be the cause of the problems to which the hon. member has referred, amongst others, soil erosion. If the prices of cash crops are fixed in such a way as to encourage people to cultivate land which should never be cultivated, one has soil erosion. That is why I say that it does not behave hon. members opposite to try in this way to trade upon the difficulties of the farmers as a result of temporary circumstances. Moreover, the farmer no longer falls for the Opposition’s bait of larger and larger subsidies. The farmer is not prepared to let himself be made a fool of in the eyes of the country. I came across the following paragraph in an agricultural publication (translation)—

Why? Because the farmers of our country still have their self-respect and because it is their intention to retain that self-respect, I believe that the farmer of this country is not prepared to allow himself to be tempted by the bait held out to him by the United Party. Moreover, the farmer knows that these promises are made by people who will not be placed in the position of being able to give effect to those promises. That is why I say that all the efforts of the Opposition to act like a vulture in various spheres and to try to stir up people’s feelings will not succeed because the people of South Africa have the fullest confidence in the administration of this Government.

I am sorry the hon. member for Stellenbosch regards the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Yeoville in connection with Rivonia in the wrong light. That matter has, however, so often been dealt with here that I do not wish to do so again. As far as the quotation he has directed at me, namely, as though I am supposed to have said that there is no room for an Afrikaner in the United Party, is concerned, I just want to point out that a political party is not something which is static. The composition of parties changes. I am prepared to admit that there were times when there were certain elements in the United Party who were intolerably English-jingoistic and that I, as a republican, clashed with them. But then I can also say that there have been and still are elements in the Nationalist Party which are intolerably Afrikaner-jingoistic. I also clashed with them. I can also testify—I would not have sat here to-day had that not been the case— that under the leadership of the present Leader of the Opposition a spirit of South-Afrikanership has developed in the United Party which has pre-eminently made it the national party of the country.

The accusation the Opposition has levelled against the Government on the occasion of the second reading of this Bill remains in the main still unanswered and that being the case we have no option but to repeat that accusation and to place greater emphasis on it. The accusation is not that every member of the Government is incapable of shouldering the responsibilities of his Department. I think it would be wrong to say that. The gravamen of our charge is that this Government has shown that it is no capable of fulfilling its patriotic duty towards South Africa in this sense that it is continually placing the interests of its party before those of South Africa. I do not think a party has ever been in power in our country which has been as fond of itself as the party in power to-day. Sir, just watch the party in this Parliament: All its ideas, its whole life, is concentrated on the question how it can derive benefit for its own party and how it can win elections, irrespective of how the image and the picture of South Africa suffers in the process. If I judge them incorrectly let hon. members opposite explain how, with their eyes open, they could have allowed our country to assume the ghastly image and gain the bad reputation which it has to-day without doing anything about it.

We continually have the submission in this Parliament that somebody else is to blame for the bad image the world has of South Africa. With this object in mind they have selected a long list of whipping boys whom they hold responsible for the position in which our country finds itself: they are communists, liberals, the English Press, agitators, the United Party, etc. But let me say this that, as in the case of all witch hunts, when they no longer know whom to blame, they start looking for whipping boys within their own ranks. That happened in the case of McCarthy in America, and that is beginning to be the position within the ranks of the Government itself. They have now reached the stage where they are looking for whipping boys amongst the Afrikaans ministers of religion. For example, the following is what is prominently reported in the Jeugbonder, the publication of the National young front in the Transvaal. Referring to many ministers of religion of the Afrikaans churches they say—

They are already, therefore, looking for whipping boys amongst the Afrikaans ministers of religion. I also have another interesting journal here, namely the South African Observer. In the April 1964 edition an editorial appears on the front page under the heading—

The editor then goes on to say the following—

They are already at Stellenbosch and no longer only at the English universities.

And to think that their own English Press says that!

The attack goes on—

He then mentions the South African Foundation—

After that he touches upon the “Dawie phenomenon ’ of the Burger and says—

I can continue to quote in this vein. This is the South African Observer of April 1964. The editor of this journal is Mr. S. E. D. Brown, a person whom the Government appointed to the old Censor Board. As a matter of fact he is a “backroom boy” of the Nationalist Party and this journal is supported by the Government side. It is interesting to watch this witch hunt. Because they are running out of whipping boys, and unwilling to seek the fault with themselves, a witch hunt is now being carried out as far within as the Afrikaans churches themselves and as far as the editorial offices of the Nationalist Party’s own newspapers.

Let me put this question to hon. members opposite: Supposing it is true that a certain percentage of factors outside the Nationalist Party are partly responsible for the ugly image which exists of South Africa is the Government not to blame at all? Is the Government not to blame for it at all? Do hon. members really persist in making the allegation that others are to blame for everything? I put this question to the hon. member for Middellande. Does he maintain that this Government is innocent of all guilt and that there is no fault to be found with it? Will the hon. member for Stellenbosch say that? They are not prepared to reply to that, Sir, for the simple reason that they know the Government is to blame. I now want to ask what the Government is doing to rectify the mistakes which do indeed exist? What are they doing to put the matter right from their side? What has been done during this Session to rectify the mistakes which do exist? Or am I right when I say that they have become so fond of their own party that, while they know there are certain things that ought to be rectified, things which would benefit South Africa if rectified, they do not wish to embarrass their party because they are not sufficiently fond of South Africa.

Nonsense.

If I am wrong let the hon. member for Middellande tell me whether the Government is innocent and is not to blame or what the reason is that they are not rectifying that which is wrong. [Interjections.] We are so often told these days that we have to defend South Africa. That is a very noble sentiment. But of what use is it to talk? The question is what does the Government do to establish an order which can be morally defensible. I admit that a policy which allows, not force, a portion of the Bantu people to separate themselves voluntarily in a separate State is morally defensible.

But you were opposed to it, were you not?

One can argue about the wisdom of such a step. That is another question. I am prepared, however, to admit that a policy under which a portion of the Bantu are allowed to separate themselves in a separate state is morally defensible; but what hon. members opposite should remember is the fact that the moment people are separated in a separate state the question of apartheid, as far as they are concerned, is no longer relevant. Apartheid in its usual form is a set of rules governing the relationship between people living in the same state. For example, there is no such problem in respect of the relationship between us who live in South Africa and the people living in Germany. There is no problem of relationship between people who live in separate states. Apartheid deals with the relationship between people living in the same state. And all the fine things that are said about separate freedom for the Xhosas, the Zulus, etc., will not soften the image of apartheid for this reason that the moment a Bantu area has been separated it is a separate state, then apartheid, as far as they are concerned, is no longer relevant. But every South African and every person who is interested in South Africa knows that once the maximum number of separate Bantu states have been established, we shall have a position in South Africa in which you will have South Africans who are White, Brown and of Indian descent, as well as fellow-South Africans who are Black, irrespective of how many or how few there may be. Not only will they be inter-dependent but they will have to live and work together within the borders of the same State. As far as they are concerned the question of apartheid will remain relevant. It is in this regard that the Government is hopelessly neglecting its duty and that is precisely why the policy of Bantustans cannot find favour in the eyes of the outside world.

May I ask a question?

I am sorry but my time is limited. It is unacceptable to the world outside because it circumvents the position of those who have to continue to live together in the same state. The Government neglects to formulate a policy which will be morally defensible in respect of those who live and will continue to live together within one state. Because the Government neglects to do that we shall be in trouble both here and in the world outside and we shall be getting into further trouble. If the Government does not tackle the position we might reach a point where it will no longer be possible to find a peaceful solution.

It is no use therefore the Government looking for whipping boys. It can attack the United Party as much as it wants to and it may bluff a few people for some time into believing that the fault lies with the United Party; but that will be of no avail in the long run, because that is fundamentally so untrue that the Government will not get away with that accusation for very long. When a man like Dr. Thomas Boydell says—

(Cape Times 7/12/63) is that the fault of the United Party or does that arise from Government policy? Is it our fault when a man like Judge A. B. Beyers, the Judge-President of the Cape Province, has to say in a speech at Stellenbosch—

(Cape Times 7/12/63). Is that the fault of the United Party? Is this statement by the Judge-President true or not? A person like Dr. W. M. Eiselen says—

(The Star, 10/4/63). Is that true or is it not true? And is the United Party to blame for that? A journal like the Banier says—

Is that true or is it not true? Is it the United Party which is trying to make such a laughing stock of our country in the eyes of the world? The Banier goes on and says the following in respect of the Group Areas Act—

(The Banier, April 1963 No. 2). I now come to something which the Burger has said. Some time ago a German had to leave the country because his children had visited his servant. The Burger said—

(The Burger 11/2/61). Those are the acts of the Government, unnecessary acts committed under the policy of apartheid. Sir, one can mention one case after the other and one asks yourself the question whether the fault lies on this side or whether it lies in the refusal of that side to do those things which will help South Africa? I am loathe to doubt anybody’s patriotism but if the Government once again testifies to its love for South Africa and talks about defending South Africa it must set the example and it must show us that its love for South Africa is greater than its love for its own party and that it is prepared to do things which may place its party in an awkward position but which will help to assist South Africa out of the misery in which it finds itself to-day as a result of the ridiculous aspects of apartheid.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr J. D. du P. Basson) pleads that we should not place love for the party above love for the people. My reply to that is that I love my party because the struggle of the National Party is synonymous with the struggle of the nation to exist. There is no doubt about that. After the party has been in power for 15 years what is the position? Have we become weaker or are we stronger? When I ask the question whether we are stronger I mean whether our nation is stronger, not only economically but also in respect of those things which have to make us stronger? I want to analyse that.

The fact is generally known that economically we stand out like a giant in certain parts of the world but we are also developing into one of the greatest industrial giants in the world. Nobody can deny that. Secondly, we are at the spearhead in the world as far as the practicing of those things which form an essential part of civilization are concerned, in science, technique and education. We are taking the lead in many fields. What is our position in respect of the propaganda campaign against our spiritual goods and the things we regard as essential for our existence? Ou position is not weaker but stronger. I put the question whether all the propaganda which has been made against us over the past 15 years has made any impression on us or has effected any break-through to us? I have to reply “no”; we also stand firm in respect of the attitude we have adopted. An argument has now been started in respect of the question whether we should have independent Bantu areas in the future or not. One member after the other got up here and quoted what General Smuts and General Hertzog had said That will get us nowhere. I too can quote what General Smuts said. He said—

Somebody else may get up and quote what General Smuts said on a later occasion. That is not the question. The question is whether the basic concepts in respect of our colour problem and the relationship which has to be established are correct and that is what I am interested in. I am not interested in what General Smuts and General Hertzog said in the past. I test it against the demands of modern development and happenings. We are prosperous. We have not become weaker but have gone from strength to strength and the National Party has laid down certain rules to govern the relationship between all three groups, between the workers, between the Bantu and those in agriculture and in industry.

Firstly, I want to say a few words in connection with the relationship between the Government and the workers. It has been the National Party policy to leave it to employer and employee as much as possible to come to a mutual arrangement as far as wage structures and pensions are concerned. We have continually guarded against the employee being exploited by the employer. The National Party has continually tried to entrench in legislation all arrangements in connection with industrial diseases and industrial compensation after consultation with trade union leaders. The National Party has continually aimed at regarding industrial diseases as a national economic problem and not as a sectional problem. The National Party is fully aware of the inability or perhaps the unwillingness on the part of big employer organizations to cope with the problem of pensions and compensation payable to their employees. That is why we have always tried to prevent the mineworkers and their dependants in particular from being left to the mercy and exploitation of merciless big capitalists. The National Party has always regarded it as its duty to tackle the problems which affect the community and the employees on a realistic basis. The National Party has continually prevented the question of compensation from being used as a lever in negotiations concerning the wage structure. The National Party has aways planned in such a way and passed such legislation that the balance between the various worker groups in South Africa has been maintained. We are the people who, with due consideration of the social and economic problems and the needs of the people, have aways pleaded for the most realistic policy in the interests of our workers. In this connection I confine myself mainly to the mineworkers and the turning point which was reached in 1947 when the old set-up was completely done away with and a new setup introduced in respect of the relationship between the Government and the trade unions. That had a direct bearing on the legislation which we passed in those days. For 14 years we have clung to the principles to which the trade unions have steadfastly observed since 1947, namely, 100 per cent consultation and full recognition of the State’s share and of taking the initiative in their own interests.

The National Party has never yet sat still as far as the wage structure and compensation for industrial diseases are concerned. I say that with reference to certain statements issued by certain trade union leaders to the effect that the National Party is not stagnant. It will continue to aim at placing the pensions as well as the wage structure of our workers on a proper basis and I invite the trade union leaders to come forward with some pension scheme or other under which they can guarantee better pensions to their workers in future. I can give the assurance, and I think I am talking on behalf of my party, that not a single member of the National Party will be opposed to such a scheme and that the Government will lend a ready ear to any proposal aimed at giving the mineworkers a pension on which they can live, a scheme which will also have a consolidating effect on these fragmented funds which exist to-day. I am convinced that we must once and for all put a stop to these explosive types of compensation and pension schemes which exist in the case of certain trade unions to-day. I say that with the specific object of making it clear that the National Party have always known where our duty lay and that we shall lend a willing ear to any reasonable request on the part of the employees in respect of any arrangement they wish to come to in connection with their wages and pensions.

My time has nearly expired but I wish to say a few words in connection with agriculture. It is tragic to think that not a single member of the Opposition has made any basically constructive suggestion in order to solve our agricultural problem. Every penny which is to-day being invested in the agricultural sector, all the subsidies and all the financial assistance which is given to-day, is money invested on a long-term basis in the interests of that which must one day become our greatest asset. Our gold mines will disappear. There are many other mineral sources which will disappear with the passage of time. South Africa will more and more have to put back into the soil that which is to-day being taken out. We are too inclined to view and to appreciate the changes which are taking place to the north of our borders from a military angle only. If we appreciated the changes which were taking place north of our borders from a purely agricultural point of view we would realize that all the money which the Government was to-day injecting in our agricultural industry, whether it was in the form of loans or subsidies or advances or research or capital invested on a longterm basis, capital which would some day be productive. We must remember that when the Whites departed from the entire continent a great vacuum was created. We are the only ones who remain in Africa, we who have the technical knowledge, who can enlist the aid of science in the agricultural field in order to increase production. Nor must we forget that we shall feel the weight of the numerical pressure on Africa. The position in regard to numbers is already getting completely out of hand in the East and they will have an effect on the food position and make demands. We must not forget that with the departure of the Whites from Africa, from an agricultural point of view, we shall in future be saddled with a task which will be much greater than the task which has been placed on our shoulders in the military sphere and we shall have to prepare ourselves for that. If the Opposition attacks the agricultural policy of the Government I want them to judge and criticize it from this angle.

What is the National Party doing to prepare itself for the future? We talk about our defence. We are spending R250,000,000 on defence in order to prepare ourselves, but not a single member of the Opposition has asked what the National Party is doing to prepare South Africa for its future task, namely, the task of supplying food to an over-increasing world population and an ever-increasing population on our own doorstep as well as in the East. We shall in future reap the full benefits of these millions we are to-day spending in the agricultural field on research, etc. As a source of food this continent has dried up with the departure of the Whites. They can pump further millions of dollars into Africa, the roubles can continue to flow into Africa, but one demand will inexorably continue to be made in future and that is food for the nations of Africa and knowledge and capital, not capital which is dished out to curry political favour and is consequently of no value, but capital which will have to be utilized to feed the human race. The Republic of South Africa is best equipped to fulfill that task. We can expect a new “scramble” for Africa; that has already started and it will be concentrated on industrial development and not so much on agricultural development because Africa is a poor country agriculturally speaking. Centuries will still have to pass before science and technique will be able to break Africa in the agricultural field as it has already broken it here in the Republic. If I have to judge the agricultural policy of the National Party under the new set-up and in the light of the new challenge which awaits us, I will say that our policy is the right policy because the agricultural policy of the National Party, just as its Coloured policy, is based on certain definite principles.

The new set-up has placed the Republic in the most strategic front in the world, the agricultural front. We only comprise one twenty-fifth part of the continent but just as we are the strongest in the military field and just as we are in the lead in different spheres, we shall also have to take the lead in the agricultural field; and nothing gives me greater pleasure than to notice an increase in the volume of our production. Who can break us when our granaries are full and we have enough food? No hollow slogans about boycotts and no resolutions about sanctions can break a country whose granaries are full and if that production is based on the most scientific methods we are unassailable. The South African farmer has security under the National Party because he is taking part in the great task that awaits us. He can be sure of stability as far as the future is concerned. Hence the disappearance of the tenant type of farmer and the share cropper and the increase in the number of land owners. There is no better sign for the future than that. It shows what stability and confidence there is.

Whenever we on this side of the House ask for improvements to be made in the welfare of the under-privileged people in South Africa, and whenever we claim that the State should set an example by increasing the basic wage rates for Government employees, or when we suggest that we should have a national contributory pension scheme or more food subsidies, we are told by the Minister of Finance that it will cause inflation. I think the position in South Africa in this regard is quite unique. Instead of the State giving a lead in these matters by raising wages, it would appear that our industrialists have better consciences and are prepared to shoulder a greater responsibility than the Government itself. In most other countries the position is exactly the reverse. The Minister of Finance yesterday in his reply practically accused us on this side of wanting to undermine the stability of the State because of our continuous demands for assistance to the under-privileged. Are we to accept the Minister’s thesis that if you uplift the standard of the under-privileged, you undermine the stability of the State? I need hardly tell him that orthodox economic theory says exactly the opposite.

The Minister said that if he were to grant all the tax concessions to the under-privileged for which we ask, it would cost the country anything up to R100,000,000, but I want to remind him that that represents 1.6 per cent of South Africa’s national income of over R6,000,000,000. Could he perhaps give us a straight answer to a straight question? Can the Minister of Finance tell us why the poor in South Africa should bear the brunt of his anti-inflationary policies, and not the rich? If extra revenue is necessary, why not impose a tax on luxury goods? That would be perfectly easy. Why not impose an excess profits tax, as the hon. member for Benoni has suggested? Why fleece the poor?

Now, let us get down to tin tacks. The women members in this House have the privilege of living in two worlds. We live in a man’s world and we live in a woman’s world as well, and we can assess the position. The hard fact is that when the economists have done all the talking and the usual gibes have been made about election propaganda, the working man still has to struggle to feed and clothe his family. Now we have had a lot of erudite speeches in this debate and some have not been so edifying. There has been a good deal of political lobbying, but when we have all done with talking the man in the street is still left to work out his family budget, which is very often a shoestring budget, on a salary which leaves no margin for luxuries and no scope for saving and no reserve for the time when things go wrong Thousands of good working-class South Africans to-day, Whites, live on a financial tightrope, counting every few cents from one pay cheque to the other at the end of each month, and if hon. members over there do not know that it is time they did. There are times when the debates in this House seem to me to bear very little relation to the problems of the man in the street. We seem to be out of touch with the working people. The Minister of Finance tells us that the price of agricultural products must go up. We accept that. We are always in favour of giving the farmer a square deal, but if the R20,000,000 surplus in the Tax Revenue Account had been returned by way of tax concessions to the middle and lower-income groups I submit that their ability to buy that agricultural produce would be just so much greater. By these means your consumer population is increased. The Minister tells us that this is not the time to put this money back into circulation, but if he had agreed to give that money back to the taxpayers, on what does he think they would have spent it? On cars and fur coats and champagne parties? No, Sir, they would have spent it on new shoes and clothes for their children, on school uniforms and perhaps an extra pair of blankets for the winter, and, above all, on better food—more meat, more fish, more butter, eggs and milk—not on luxuries, but on essentials for the maintenance of health and strength. The women know all about it. It is their job to keep the home fires burning, and a very difficult job it is sometimes, particularly with the cost of living as high as it is. Hon. members on this side have made the point, but let me rub it in, that butter and cheese and eggs and meat and petrol and furniture and suburban railway fares have gone up in price. [Interjections.] Radio licences have been doubled in the last two years. Telephone rentals are going up, although the people I am talking about cannot afford such luxuries.

We are now threatened with a 10 per cent rise in the retail price of rice—in order to encourage the rice-milling industry in South Africa, I am told. An overall increase in doctor’s fees to medical societies can be expected soon; the S.A. Medical Association is busy formulating a new tariff at the present time. Sir, I have plenty of poor people in my constituency; I know all about it. I went to see a family last week. The husband is employed in the Post Office as a watchman. He is in charge of 45 lorries and technical equipment at a depot in the suburbs, and do you know what his wage is, Sir? His wage is R100 per month. When he has paid his rent, his income-tax and his unemployment insurance, he and his wife and three children have R70 a month to live on. The mother has poor health and she is sick with anxiety and strain. There are many others, Sir. There are some who earn even less. I put certain questions this Session to the hon. the Ministers concerned and their answers are recorded in Hansard. The three lowest categories of male White workers in the Post Office receive R100 or less per month. Let me tell the hon. the Minister that there are nearly 2,000 people employed in the Post Office at wages of R100 per month or less. The majority of them are married men with families. What kind of standards does the hon. the Minister expect them to maintain under those circumstances? If it is argued that their capabilities do not deserve a higher wage, then I say categorically that this alone proves how disastrously the Nationalist Government has neglected our education system in the last 15 years because it has failed to provide more openings for people of this kind.

The position on the Railways is even worse. Of the three lowest paid male White workers there are nearly 12,000 employed as so-called railworkers earning between R65 and R80 per month. The Minister gave me that answer in the House this Session. There are others in the Railway service who received between R70 and R80 per month and there are apprentices who receive between R60 and R80 per month. That means, from these figures, that we have at least 12,000 White families employed by the Railways living on less than R100 per month. Sir, how do they pay for rent, water, light, fuel, food and clothing out of that? How does a mother provide one square meal a day for three or four school-going children and a hungry working husband on that? If the hon. the Minister does not believe me perhaps he will believe some of his own people. Let me quote from a letter which appeared in the Burger on 16 May this year—

Sir, that comes not from one of us but from one of the supporters, presumably, of the Nationalist Party.

Sir, I have had the privilege for nine years of serving on the Exemption Committee of the Cape School Board, dealing with applications for children to leave school before the age of 16 In 99 per cent of the cases that plea was based on financial considerations. The children had to be released to become wage-earners or the family could not manage to live. Information concerning their financial circumstances was asked for by the board in confidence, and it would have given hon. members a heartache if they could have read the history of some of these families and seen what their incomes were. Thousands and thousands of our children are allowed to leave school at 15 ½ years with, perhaps, a Std. VI or Std. VII certificate; they are unskilled and untrained, and all they can do is to take up the kind of dead-end job that I have been talking about in the Post Office or in the Railway Service, a position in which, at the age of 40 years, they will end with a salary of R100 per month. Sir, I am sorry that the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Mostert) is not here; he knows that that is so. Sir, the Government’s failure to handle the educational situation immediately after the war is directly responsible for the large number of shockingly paid, under-skilled, untrained White workers in South Africa to-day. I just want to remind the hon. the Minister that although some of these people on the Railways get travelling concessions and medical benefits, all the travelling facilities and all the medical benefits in the world do not help them to feed their wives and children.

Sir, the hon. the Minister of Finance is very proud of his R128,000,000 surplus. He has overtaxed the South African people, on his own admission, to the tune of R20,000,000. Let me tell the hon. the Minister in round figures, before I sit down, how the cost of living has gone up in South Africa and how the value of money has gone down since this Government came into power in 1948 If you take the general cost of living index in 1938 as 100, then the position is that by 1948 it had increased to 147.8—that is to say, an increase of 47.8 points during the decade covering the war. But what happened in the next decade between 1948 and 1958? The cost of living index went up from 147.8 to 221.1 in the first ten years of Nationalist Government, in other words, an increase of 73.3 points— almost twice as much as it had gone up during the war. In 1963 the cost of living index was 235.5, i.e. an increase of 135 per cent since 1938, over the last 25 years, and an increase of 14.4 points in the five years from 1958 to 1963. I know, Sir, that in 1958 the cost of living was calculated again at 100 points, but the present index is not really a correct reflection of the position. The fact is that the actual increase on all items from 1950 to 1963, which roughly covers the period of administration of this Government, amounts to 76.2 points. The figures show that with the consumer’s price index taken as 100 in 1938, the purchasing power of our currency has decreased by 57 per cent since 1938. In other words, it takes R1 to-day to buy goods that could have been bought with 4s. 5d or 44c in 1938. In 1962, just two years ago, the average monthly wage being paid to the White working man in Cape Town was between R120 and R160 a month. I am talking about policemen, traffic officers, office clerks, motor mechanics, shop assistants, firemen, bus drivers and conductors and so on, the people who keep South Africa going, the people who do all the basic work. The only people who are really benefiting by the so-called economic boom are those whose profits rise with rising prices. Look at company profits to-day; they are all going up, but there is practically nothing for the small man. The majority of the people involved are not rich people; they belong to the middle and the lower-income group. The position of the small man is reflected in the number of civil summonses for debt. Just let me tell the House that in 1961 there were 104,649 civil summonses issued, the vast majority of which were for debt. That figure represents an increase of more than 14,000 over the figure for 1960. Sir, we talk so glibly—all of us—of the civilized standards we maintain in South Africa. How “civilized” a standard of living can you maintain on R100 per month? The truth of the matter is that the lower-income groups are to bear the brunt of the Minister’s anti-inflationary policy. That is what is happening. Hon. members can talk of election propaganda as much as they choose; I have given the figures and I have told the House what the housewives of South Africa have to cope with. They are not particularly interested in election propaganda, whether it comes from the Nationalist Party, the United Party or anyone else. They want food and clothes for their children and decent educational prospects for their future. They look forward to having their children trained to a better, happier way of life than their own What hope have they under this administration? I want to tell the hon. the Minister that there are 60,000 more women voters in South Africa than there are men, and I hope the day is not far off when they will get down to it and vote this Government out of office.

I rise in this late stage of the debate not because I want to talk about matters affecting the struggle between the parties, but because I feel that there are certain things which are of interest to the country in general and in regard to which I have to adopt an attitude. In view of the fact that there will be no other parliamentary opportunity during this Session to do so, I get up now to state my standpoint. It is in regard to the reactions we have experienced in the outside world with reference to the court case which has just taken place. It is a fact that people overseas have felt themselves called upon to devote attention not only to this case but also to the judgment and even to what they think is inevitable in the years that lie ahead. These are purely South African matters, but in spite of that we find Governments of other countries taking an interest in them. Articles are written about them in the world Press and even at a body like UNO immediate attention was given to this matter. Under those circumstances I think it is essential for me to make a very clear statement on behalf of South Africa in regard to a few points.

Let me first indicate the character of the reactions. In the first place it is alleged that we are dealing with an event which flows from a general difference in policy, so much so that there can even be a measure of sympathy with the persons concerned. Secondly, it is being represented as if we are dealing here practically with a form of heroism and, thirdly, that as the result of the penalties imposed one is dealing with a form of martyrdom. The tendency at the moment is to gain sympathy for those who were convicted in that case. In the fourth place, there is a tendency to intimate that because this is a matter in which opposition to a policy is concerned, therefore the final conclusion of this court case cannot just be left there. There must be continued demonstrations and pressure must continue to be exerted in order to have the persons convicted treated more leniently. Fifthly, it is intimated that these offences arise from an opposition to our policy and not so much from rebelliousness, and that foreign countries and people all over the world are therefore entitled to interfere in these affairs of South Africa.

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

Afternoon Sitting

When business was suspended, I had pointed out that what I wanted to discuss was the reactions in the world with reference to the Rivonia case. I want to emphasize that these reactions are not spontaneous reactions. They have been organized for a long time. It is true that there are persons, particularly members of governments, who have expressed opinions and who certainly are not members of these organized groups, but who have been influenced in their statements by the pressure exerted upon them as the result of this organization which took place on a very wide scale. This organizing of the reactions emanates from two circles; the one is the group of bodies which are continually opposing South Africa and which have made it their task to attack South Africa, like the Anti-Apartheid League and other groups in Britain; but behind them there is a much more widespread organization, viz. world Communism. I want to emphasize that we are dealing here with a phenomenon in the cold war which is being waged in the world, not in the first place against South Africa, but in regard to which South Africa is at the present moment the handiest means of combating the West. I therefore want to say clearly and unequivocally that in this case we are not dealing with a revolt against the Government’s policy, or with a championship of the freedom and rights of people; we are dealing here with a communist revolt which was to have been fomented. It is not Communism which need sail under any flag of saying that this prosecution was instituted as the result of a particular Act existing in South Africa to combat Communism; it is bare-faced Communism in the universal meaning of the word. The people who tried to organize this revolt are either communists themselves or worked knowingly in the closest co-operation with people who are communists and who are influenced by Communism. The sources of money were at least partially communist sources. A further proof that we are dealing here—and the world powers must recognize it as such—with a communist-inspired attempt to create chaos and disorder in South Africa lies in the fact that this is the first time and perhaps the only time hitherto that communist states and governments have openly expressed their support for these people. It is a fact that attempts were made to exercise pressure on this Government an appreciable time before the sentences were imposed, and to try to persuade the Government to interfere with the administration of justice in order to ensure that, whatever the facts might be, no death sentence should be imposed in this case. It is Government to do so. It has happened for a fact that attempts were made to force this the first time that cables were received from communist states in which it was tried to exert pressure on us. That was the end of the pose hitherto adopted, viz. that all kinds of front organizations, behind which the communists hide, are used to fight on behalf of Communism. It was the end of that hypocrisy. There was frank support on the part of communist states for these law-breakers in South Africa. They exerted pressure on this Government to influence the administration of justice not to have the courts impose the sentences they thought fit, but the sort of sentence which would be imposed under pressure. Let me now say this clearly, as it has already been alleged outside that either the Government or our Judiciary retreated in the face of this pressure, that this Government paid no attention whatsoever to this form of representation or pressure. Those cables went straight into the wastepaper basket, because it just does not happen in South Africa that a Government interferes with its Judiciary, which is completely independent. Let me now say equally unequivocally that where it is now being alleged in the world that our Judiciary was influenced by what happened in the world, that is not true at all. Our Judiciary is free from all pressure, whether internal or external.

Hear, hear!

I want to ask hon. members to accept that I am not talking here on behalf of my side of the House, but that I am talking, I hope, on behalf of South Africa.

Hear, hear!

That is the first thing I want to tell the world on behalf of all of us, that they should not be under the wrong impression and think that we were dealing here with mere political opposition, or with the attempt of heroes to fight for the freedom of certain people. We were dealing here with a communist attack which was directed not only against South Africa but against the West. These people are criminals, communist criminals, on the same basis as any spy who has been caught and sentenced to death in the U.S.A; on the same basis as any communist spy caught in Britain or in any other Western country and sentenced to imprisonment. We are dealing here with a crime against society, based on the communist struggle against the West. If this concept can sink into the minds of our friends in the world, wherever we may have friends, this type of reaction we see as a result of that wrong impression will disappear.

Let me test the matter: Supposing these criminals had succeeded, what type of Government would have been established in South Africa? Supposing persons of this type, whose names are now known and whose associations are known, and to whose communist associations the Judge referred in his judgment, had succeeded and had come into power, we would have had a communist-orientated Government here, whether it be White or Black or mixed. And the tyranny which would have arisen here would have been similar to the tyranny of the communist countries, whether it be Moscow or Peking, over other countries which have become their satellites. Then freedom in South Africa would have been doomed, not only freedom for the minority groups, the Whites or the Coloureds or the Indians, but also the freedom of the Black man qf South Africa, and we would have had tyranny even worse than that of Liberia or Ghana or Ethiopia. It would have been an out-and-out communist tyranny. Our friends in the world should understand that. Nor should they judge by double yardsticks in this matter. I am afraid that is what is happening now. I am afraid that what is happening now is that at this stage in various respects thoughts are being expressed and actions are being taken, even by countries friendly to us and by our trading partners, other than those to which we are entitled. I hope we will still be able to put a stop to that.

We have the position that when there is a revolt in Cuba and people are caught and immediately shot, or when there is a revolt in Zanzibar, death follows; or when a Government in Vietnam is overthrown and succeeded by another, the rebels shoot the members of the previous Government without trying them in the courts. In spite of that, the Western powers even continue to have diplomatic relations with them, first with the one Government and then with the rebel Government. They do not worry about what happens in regard to the domestic affairs of those countries. Why is different treatment meted out to South Africa? Particularly where the communists were behind the country, there is not a continuous world-wide organized disapproval of what happens in those countries Only when it happens in the case of an anti-communist country like South Africa, where a revolt is suppressed, do we get this world-wide organized propaganda. It is planned; it is organized. Our friends dare not act differently towards those countries where they do not interfere than they act towards our country where some people have intimated that they will continue to interfere in order to obtain an amelioration of the life sentences imposed.

Let me give another example. This freedom which these saboteurs are supposed to have had in mind is now being described as liberation and the granting of human rights. But it would not even have meant freedom for the Black man, as I have already said. At best it would have become the freedom of a small clique to rule and to control. Why is that approved in our case but not elsewhere? It is even being said now that it is doubtful whether we can retain our friends as our trading partners. An ideology like that of Russia, which is particularly abhorrent to our friends, is however being ignored, an ideology which must certainly be more abhorrent to them than our policy, which at least aims at giving true freedom to our various population groups, or to give them freedom in another way according to the policy of my friends opposite.

We all seek a solution when we talk about true freedom. Why then must the yardstick be used in our case that it is doubtful whether they will be able to continue to trade with us, but with communist Russia—notwithstanding the tremendous difference in ideology; notwithstanding the murders committed by them on certain nations, as in the Baltic states and Hungary; and notwithstanding the large numbers of people who have lost their lives as the result of Communism—these friendly states are prepared to co-operate and to trade? While recognizing the differences of opinion, they try to achieve a form of co-existence in the world so that there may be peace. Is noninterference a yardstick which is applied when dealing with the mighty nations, and are the small ones oppressed when there is a difference of opinion with them?

Therefore I want to emphasize that South Africa should not be condemned in the way she is condemned; that there should be no interference with its affairs; and that South Africa cannot allow it but will have to oppose every attempt to interfere in our affairs, also if it comes in the form of an attempt to change the sentence imposed by our courts. I shall not be a party to anything of this nature.

When saying this, I ask the Western world at least also to look after its own interests and to realize that if South Africa were to fall prey in this way to communist conspiracies, the West would suffer also. Even if the West assists in making us fall prey by trying, in the new atmosphere which prevails, to gain the support and the friendship of everybody else at the cost of South Africa, it should bear in mind that if a conquered South Africa becomes communist the noose around the neck of Europe and America will just be pulled tighter. It will not only be the end of us, but also the beginning of the end for them. When therefore it is said in those circles that they are glad that Mandela received a life sentence and not the death sentence because he may still, like Kenyatta, become the leader of the future, then I say: God forbid! If that were to happen, not only would South Africa be doomed and become communist, but then the world would in time be conquered by Communism, because after that the only bastions which still protect White civilization against that pernicious ideology would fall one after another.

It is not necessary for me to give the assurances which certain hon. members on the other side of the House have apparently asked for here this afternoon. Our attitude towards what has happened recently and what is happening overseas at present was clearly defined, eloquently and unequivocally, yesterday by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He initiated the discussion which the hon. the Prime Minister has supported in similar terms. There is no question whatsoever about the feelings of all of us that as far as South Africa is concerned, we are one nation represented in this House. That is our attitude. There is no question about how we feel about it. More especially when we think of our judiciary, all of us in this country, whatever our outlook, our race, our language, have complete confidence in our judiciary.

Sir, I do feel, however, that the hon. the Prime Minister has over-simplified the position in discussing what is happening overseas. Those of us who do go overseas occasionally —I go over quite frequently—realize that there is something more than just a communist agitation. It would be consoling to think that the agitations that we see in London were purely communistic or communist inspired. But when one looks at television or sees on Trafalgar Square men of the calibre of Mr. Harold Wilson, the leader of the Opposition in Great Britain to-day, who will probably, I am told, become Prime Minister in a few months’ time, and realizes what his attitude is to South Africa and the attitude of a prominent Conservative Member of Parliament, who is taking a leading part in this agitation, I feel that we must come back to what we discussed under the Information Vote. It is necessary for us, as a White people, to put our case across and I feel we are not doing that. From what I read and see of what is happening overseas I feel our representation should improve—not by sending more members of the staff. But all of us should have an opportunity of making a contribution towards putting the case for South Africa. There is no harm in putting the case of the Opposition. During our discussions on Information hon. members opposite felt that we should put the case of the Government because it was the Government in power.—Not necessarily. One sees to-day in London and in other cities of the world that the Opposition gets just about as much representation on television and in broadcasting as the Government itself. We should open the doors to criticism. We should not be afraid. We have a case. I have had to put the case of the Government when I have been overseas. I have described the case of the Government. I have told overseas people what the difficulties are in the Government’s case. I have described the case of the Opposition and I have explained to them what the difficulties are in our case. There are difficulties; there are difficulties to be overcome. It is part of the evolution of democratic government. In this evolution we in this country can make a contribution to the rest of the world. It is very necessary that we should put our case. I am very concerned about the self-satisfaction displayed by some of the hon. members opposite in this debate. Their attitude seems to be: Come the three corners of the world in arms and we shall shock them. That is not how I feel. I am reminded of the visit to South Africa and to this Parliament by probably our best friend in the Commonwealth days, when we were members of the Commonwealth, Mr. Menzies, the Prime Minister of Australia. Mr. Menzies on his return to Australia from a Commonwealth conference addressed us Members of Parliament in the old caucus room of the Government. I remember the conclusion of his speech. He spoke throughout his speech about Australia. But one felt he wished one to substitute the word “South Africa” for “Australia”. In the conclusion of his speech he said this: “If Australia were attacked to-day by a major power Australia would fight. Those of you who have fought with Australians will agree, I think, that Australians can fight. We would fight—and we would lose. You cannot exist to-day alone and isolated in a dangerous world.” We in South Africa have to cultivate friends. The sooner we cultivate friends, the sooner we make a better impression on the Western nations of the world and say “our hands are clean; our motives are honest; we are out to govern this country as we think other African States should have been governed; we are anxious to show the Western world where they went wrong because we have a better plan; the better it will be for us. I do not think the hon. the Prime Minister need have any doubts about the attitude of the Opposition. I think the speech by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition yesterday should be engraved in all our records.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks about the Budget itself. This is an appropriation of R 1,018,000,000 together with another R21,000,000 for Bantu education. And there, to begin with, is our great mistake. Why should Bantu education have a separate appropriation? Why do we not say to the world: Bantu education is the education of a part of our population? We do that in the case of the Coloureds and in the case of the Indians. Why do we say to the Bantu population: Your grant for education will be pegged; it will be pegged at R 13,000,000 and the rest you must provide from your personal taxes? I think a very fine gesture to the world at this stage would be to say that we are unpegging this amount. We of the Opposition have on many occasions asked that it should be unpegged. Unpeg the amount; treat the African population as we treat the Coloured and the Indian population. They are in the majority; they constitute 70 per cent of the population in this country. And very important, Sir, is that the people who suffer most because of this pegged allowance—it is after all only an allowance—are the Bantu teachers. We must get those teachers with us. We must see that the Bantu teacher is well paid; that he is going to be the friend of the White man in this country. Every nationalist movement in every country has come from the élite, the teachers, from ministers of religion, from members of the Bar. The teachers of the country are the leaders. We must get these leaders with us but we are antagonizing them. We are not getting their support. We have not got their confidence. I think that is one of our great weaknesses. With that situation facing us, in the course of this debate, in the course of the general debate on the appropriation, we have had hon. members of this House discussing the old, old tale of “Afrikaners en Engelse”.

Debate having continued for three hours, business was interrupted.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend detaining the House long this afternoon. When I think back, the main criticism of the Budget is that we did not devote more money to relieve taxation and that we did not make more concessions to various sections of the population. I think that was the crux of the criticism voiced here. I do not want to say much about it. I have already had much to say about that. I have already given the reasons for it. What was said can be suitably summarized in the words of Mr. D. J. J. Botha, the senior lecturer in economics at the University at Cape Town, in the Bankers’ periodical in regard to one aspect of the Budget I am now dealing with here. He says this under the sub-head, “The Budget on Balance”—

I think that covers the argument I have tried to develop here on quite a few occasions during the past week That is the reply to the plea made here from time to time. I had not intended saying more about the Budget.

I wanted to make certain critical remarks about the actions of the United Party in general, but I shall refrain from doing so. I have decided to refrain from criticizing the United Party because of the Prime Minister’s appeal and also because of my realization of the seriousness of the times in which we live and the dangers which perhaps lie ahead of us. I would rather support his appeal and ask for co-operation also in the financial and economic spheres; I would rather ask that in this cold war which is being waged against us with the weapons of sanctions and boycotts, we should remember that the strength of our economy and the stability of our finances are absolutely essential for our continued existence, just as it is essential to strengthen our military arm and to keep it strong. Sir, you know that we could not have done that had we not had this buoyant economy, which enabled us to increase our defence expenditure from R44,000,000, as it was four years ago, to R210,000,000 in this Budget. We would not have been able to do so. It is important for us to do so and to continue to do so, because in the final account this military arm is our bulwark against aggression, of which there are threats. That is our guarantee. The money we spend on defence is merely the premium we pay on a policy for peace, internally and externally, for South Africa. It is our guarantee for the inviolability of our country and of freedom, not only in general but of every section of the population in South Africa, together with our national independence. That is what this amount guarantees. This strong economy and our stable financial position form the basis on which everything has to rest.

Therefore I would instead rather make an appeal to hon. members on both sides of the House rather to be doubly cautious, as I am, so that we will not waste the prosperity we have at present; not to sacrifice that prosperity for temporary gain and temporary pleasures. Let us rather try to extend it so that the standard of living of all sections may rise; not to make them richer, but so that everybody will have a better opportunity to develop his spiritual and other gifts. In that way everybody will be able to make a bigger contribution for the general benefit of South Africa. I want to ask that we should not exchange the rich heritage we now have for a mess of potage

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, where I now introduce the General Law Amendment Bill or, as it is known in the Lobby, the Omnibus Bill, hon. members of course realize that this Bill this year, as in every previous year, does not contain one principle throughout, because it deals with the requirements of various Departments and every clause of course stands by itself. It is therefore very difficult to make a second-reading speech on this Bill. If one could avoid it, one would of course like to do so, because in the first place it does not lend itself to a second-reading discussion, but rather to a discussion in the Committee Stage where every clause can be dealt with on its own. Hon. members will recollect that last year we had no second-reading debate on this Bill. We had only a very fruitful Committee Stage debate. This year, however, it appears that a second-reading speech is unavoidable. I have not given an explanation of every clause, but only in respect of certain clauses which I will select, without motivating it in detail. On the occasion of my second-reading speech I shall only give an explanation of the various clauses. I shall not argue or debate them. Possibly I shall do so in my reply to the second-reading debate, but mainly I shall do so in the Committee Stage because this is par excellence a Bill which should be discussed in the Committee Stage.

Before proceeding with my exposition, I just want to point out, with your permission, that the task of a legal draughtsman, of a law adviser, is not a very easy one Any hon. member who served on the select committee and who has made an intensive study of Bills will agree with me. Now it so happens that Mr. Jonathan Young, who since 1956 has been Chief Law Adviser and Chief Legal Draughtsman, retired last month, and I should like to take this opportunity not only to convey to him the hearty thanks of my Department, but also the thanks of this Parliament. He is probably the person who has attended more sessions of Parliament than anybody else. I understand that he has attended sessions of Parliament in Cape Town since before 1929. Throughout the years he was entrusted with very important legislation. I want to mention just in passing that he was personally responsible for the Marketing Act, the Transkei Constitution Act and for the Act introducing the Pay as You Earn system, but what is perhaps most important to him and to us is that he was responsible for the Constitution of the Republic Act. We want to express our hearty thanks to an official for very many years of unselfish service which he has rendered to Parliament in particular because of the close relationship he had with us. We are grateful that in spite of his retirement we can still retain his services on a contractual basis, and on behalf of my Department and of Parliament I should like to wish him a very pleasant time of rest.

I said that I would select only certain clauses in regard to which I would give an explanation in the second reading, and I think hon. members will readily agree with me that the first 12 clauses of the Bill are very clear. I think hon. members will also agree with me that not a single one of those clauses contains anything contentious. Therefore I shall confine myself to the clause dealing with the Commissions Act, viz. Clause 13 of the Bill, to begin with.

A commission appointed by the State President can of course consist of any person. It can be a civilian or a magistrate or a Judge, but any commission appointed by the State President is not a court. The task of such a commission and its function are not to find people guilty or to punish them The task of such a commission is purely to investigate facts and tendencies according to the circumstances of the case and according to its terms of reference, and to give a factual finding in regard to the matters it has been asked to investigate. It is obvious that circumstances must differ from commission to commission. We now provide in Clause 13 of this Bill that we want to amend the Commissions Act by providing as follows—

1. (a) Declare the provisions of this Act or any other law to be applicable with reference to such commission, subject to such modifications and exceptions as he may specify in such proclamation; and
2. (b) make regulations with reference to such commission, conferring additional powers on the commission and providing for the manner of holding or the procedure to be followed at the investigation or for the preservation of secrecy and generally for all matters which he considers it necessary or expedient to prescribe for the purposes of the investigation.

All we are now doing in Clause 13 is to remedy the existing defect in our Commissions Act. At the moment the Commissions Act provides that the State President may appoint a commissioner who will then have to hold sessions, and the Act provides that the sessions should be held in public, except in so far as the commissioner determines that they shall not be held in public. It is a very brief Act containing hardly any details at all, and we now make it possible, from case to case, whenever it may be necessary, to lay down by regulation the procedure to be followed by future commissions, by way of legislation, as we are doing here. The hon. the Prime Minister has already foreshadowed this matter on a previous occasion. Hon. members are aware that a commission is to be appointed to investigate certain organizations. The hon. the Prime Minister on that occasion stated very clearly that as far as he was concerned the confidential affairs of those organizations should be treated confidentially, except in so far as it may be necessary for the commissioner to make them public in accordance with his terms of reference. Those terms of reference are known to hon. members. The hon. the Prime Minister announced them in this House. I want to say immediately that if this amendment of the Commissions Act is passed, this amendment will be used in connection with the commission which is about to be appointed. I have noticed that the organizations to be investigated have stated that they welcome the procedure and that they welcome the commission, and I have no fault to find with that and do not find it strange; on the contrary, I am fully in favour, where an organization is investigated, of its confidential matters being kept confidential by the commissioner, except in so far as it may be necessary to publish them That is all that Clause 13 provides in this regard.

Clause 14 of the Bill can be described as the so-called Sobukwe Clause. Hon. members will recollect that after his sentence expired, a provision was adopted last year which authorized us to detain him for a period of one year, to 30 June, and that he can only be detained further in terms of a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. The circumstances which obtained when we passed that Bill last year which authorized us to detain him, still obtain to-day in essence. Hon. members will recollect, and I just want to place it on record, that Sobukwe was the leader of an organization which proved to be a terrorist organization, an organization which was directly responsible for innocent people being murdered. I refer to the incidents at Paarl, the incidents at the Queenstown station, and at Bashee Bridge. That organization, in so far as it exists abroad and in so far as elements of it perhaps still exist in South Africa, still regards this person as their leader, and from his side there has been no indication at all that he dissociates himself in any way with that organization. I do not want to cover the whole field again, except to tell hon. members that the considerations I mentioned during the discussion in regard to the 90-day detention clause under my Vote and its suspension also apply to the further detention of Sobukwe. Until such time as clarity has been obtained, the Government has decided to ask Parliament for permission to detain Sobukwe longer.

In regard to Clause 15, Section 11 (b)ter of the Suppression of Communism Act, inter alia, provided that anybody receiving training outside the Republic is punishable, as defined in this connection. We discussed it at length last year. If I remember correctly, this was one of the sections supported by the Opposition.

The official Opposition.

Yes, the official Opposition As far as I am concerned, that is the only Opposition I know. It has now become necessary, in the light of circumstances, to make the same provision apply also in respect of training received in the country, or at least to cover in the provision the people receiving training in the Republic for the same purpose, because whether it takes place within or without the Republic it is not only equally dangerous but equally pernicious. I do not think it is necessary for me to say much more about this matter.

I then skip the other clauses because they speak for themselves, and I come to Clause 22 of the Bill. Section 60 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1955, inter alia, provides that if, after the commencement of a preparatory examination, somebody is joined with the accused person, the evidence heard before this joinder must be read out to the first-mentioned person. In preparatory examinations where the record is in any way lengthy, this procedure takes up considerable time. The magistrate must read to the accused for days on end what was said by the witnesses. Provision is now made that only the nature and the tendency of the afore-mentioned evidence will be intimated to the accused when he is joined, and that he should at all reasonable times be allowed to refer to the notes of evidence and to make or have copies made of it. This is not a new provision. It is similar to the one in Section 65bis of the relevant Act.

In regard to Clause 23, Section 108bis provides that an accused person may in certain circumstances be detained for 12 days without being released on bail. This is a section which the Opposition and also the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) opposed in the past. I have consulted the Attorneys-General. The majority of them are of the opinion that this provision should be retained, and in the circumstances that is being done. In recent times this section was not used very often. If my memory serves me correctly, hon. members have not even asked me during the course of this Session how many times it was used. As far as I know, it was used very seldom. Nor will it be used unless it is absolutely essential to use it for the reasons which both my predecessor, who introduced it, and I have given the House.

In regard to Clause 24, Section, 156bis provides that when two or more accused persons are tried by a superior court or a regional court after a preparatory examination, the court may in certain circumstances authorize the absence from the trial of any of the accused persons for a period. It is therefore completely within the discretion of the court as to whether it will allow it or not. The procedure at such a trial is prescribed by Section 156ter. The circumstances envisaged in Section 156bis, such as e.g. the illness and death of a relative of the accused, may however also arise in the case of a summary trial before the Supreme Court. Then the court will not be able to act in terms of this provision, in view of the fact that this section applies only in cases where there has been a preparatory examination. Such cases have occurred, and the change is now being made in the first place not for the sake of the court but for the sake of the convenience of the accused, so that he may be allowed to attend the funeral of a relative. Such a problem easily occurs particularly if there are many accused persons. These provisions were placed on the Statute Book as the result of the experience gained during the High Treason case. It is a good thing that it was placed on the Statute Book at that time. That case repeatedly had to be postponed due to the illness of some of the accused, and hon. members know how much delay that caused. And where one accused person cannot be present, it also results in extra costs for the other accused under the circumstances. Therefore it is desirable that in the case of summary trials in the Supreme Court action should also be taken in terms of the provisions of Section 156, and consequently the words “after a preparatory examination” are now being deleted.

In regard to Clause 25, the amendment in this clause is necessitated by the proposed amendment in connection with Clause 24 and by the fact that summary trials, as well as trials after a preparatory examination, can now be held in a superior court.

I come to Clause 27. Section 212 of the principal Act provides that an unwilling witness may be sent to prison for eight days at a time. It prescribes the procedure to be followed in such cases. Lately it has often happened, however, that witnesses have refused to take the oath or to make an affirmation and to answer questions. The existing provisions are evidently inadequate for dealing with such people who are really challenging the authority of the court. In addition, being detained in prison is not the same as serving a prison sentence, with the result that an unwilling witness can merely be detained in prison and cannot, for example, be compelled to work. There is really no means of punishing him for his unwillingness to give evidence. It is now proposed to provide that the court may summarily investigate such a witness’s refusal or delay to take an oath or to make an affirmation or to answer questions, and if he does not have sufficient excuse, to impose a maximum sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment. Jurisdiction is also being granted to a magistrate’s court to punish such a witness. Provision is also made that a witness may be dealt with in this way more than once if he persists in his obstinacy. That is in accordance with the existing Section 212 (2). Now the representative of the General Bar Council of the Cape came to see me in that regard, and after consultation it was agreed that an amendment would be introduced to this clause, and the essence of this amendment will be that in the English text the words in line 56 on page 11, “fully and satisfactory” will be deleted. The effect of that is, as the Bar Council briefly stated it to me, that there will not now be a trial within a trial in this regard. I shall move that amendment in the Committee Stage.

Is that in case he refuses to answer?

Yes, in other words it will then be more or less as the old provision was, except that it now is not eight days but that it is within the discretion of the court to give him up to one year’s imprisonment.

Clause 28 speaks for itself.

Then we come to Clause 29. In respect of this clause also the representative of the General Bar Council had consultations with me. We debated this matter at length, and I think I state the position correctly if I sum it up as follows. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) was also present during the discussions and he can correct me if I put the matter wrongly. When the representative of the General Bar Council saw me in that regard and we discussed the matter, the attitude was adopted that he understands it and accepts it as it is worded in this clause, because the essence of this clause is simply this: A witness who is not an accomplice but who is merely a witness can be compelled to come to court by means of a subpoena. He can be compelled to tell the court what he knows about any matter, and if he refuses to do so he can be dealt with. According to the existing legislation, he can land in prison if he refuses to tell the court what he knows, or to comply with the court procedure. The court wants to know the truth, and is concerned only with the truth. The court therefore has a right to expect any person, whether a witness or an accomplice, to tell it what he knows about the matter being investigated by the court. Now the accomplice is in the position of knowing best what happened. He was not only present as a witness, but he was also an accomplice. But he can say that he does not want to talk because he might possibly incriminate himself. Now it is a basic rule of our law, and one which must be honoured at all times, that an accused person shall not be compelled to incriminate himself. We are not violating that basic principle in any way in this regard. All that happens now is that we say that an accomplice may be called as a witness, and if he gives proper evidence to the satisfaction of the court he must receive exemption, and he can therefore not be prosecuted for the act he committed and in regard to which he gave evidence. Therefore, before we have a long discussion about this matter, I want to tell hon. members that there is no prejudice to the accomplice here, because if he replies to the questions no prosecution may be instituted against him. Therefore he is not prejudiced in any respect, because he is in fact being discharged from all liability to prosecution by the court if he gives evidence to the satisfaction of the court. From that point of view there can therefore be no prejudice at all. But supposing he does not get exemption and supposing he does not answer to the satisfaction of the court, and the court refuses to give him exemption, then the next section, Section 255, provides very clearly that the evidence he in fact gave cannot and shall not be used in any prosecution brought against him later. Therefore in this regard he is not prejudiced at all and he can never be prejudiced. I therefore have no hesitation in recommending that hon. members should accept this clause as it stands. All we are doing is to place the accomplice in the same position as that of an ordinary witness, and is it now wrong to put the accomplice in the same position as you and I would be if we happened to be a witness? My argument is that the protection which the accomplice enjoyed in the past was an unfair and unjustifiable protection, and that there is not the least reason why an accomplice should not give evidence when he is offered a discharge from all liability to prosecution or when, even though he forfeits that discharge from liability, the evidence he gives cannot be used against him on a later occasion. If necessary, I shall say more about this section later.

I then skip the other clauses until I come to Clause 38. It says that nobody may receive or obtain stock or products, as defined in the Stock Theft Act of 1959, from a non-White unless at the same time he receives from that non-White a certificate issued by certain persons mentioned in that section, which states that the non-White is entitled to dispose of said stock or products. The Department of Bantu Administration and Development now desires that in addition to chiefs and headmen, who already in terms of the aforementioned Act have that authority, sub-headmen and deputies of chiefs and the so-called Official Witnesses should also be empowered to issue those certificates in order to facilitate the implementation of the relevant legal provisions in the Bantu areas. Particularly in view of the conditions prevailing in those areas, it appears to be necessary to accede to the wishes of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, and that is what is being done in this clause.

In regard to Clause 39, Section 15 of the Stock Theft Act makes the imposition of a compensatory fine, or alternatively, imprisonment if the fine is not paid, obligatory in the case of certain offences described in the Act, and that fine, if it is paid, is handed over to the person who suffered the damage. Now hon. members will recollect that in addition to any sentence of imprisonment which may be imposed of two or four or six years, one can also be sentenced to corrective imprisonment by a court, and if one gets such a corrective sentence it is from two to four years, and now there is uncertainty as to whether in the case of the imposition of a corrective sentence the courts may also impose a compensatory fine. There are some courts which consider it can be done and others which consider it cannot be done. Our standpoint is that there is not the least reason why, if one gives a man corrective training as a sentence, he should be exonerated from the compensatory fine, and all we now do in this clause is to state very clearly that also in the case where a corrective sentence is imposed can a compensatory fine be imposed.

Then I skip the other clauses and come to Clause 45. Sections 1 and 12 of the Population Registration Act of 1950 were amended by the Population Registration Amendment Act of 1962. The amendment of Section 1 resulted in a new definition of “White”, and the amendment of Section 12 empowered the Director of Census to investigate, or to appoint an officer in the Public Service to investigate and to report to him in regard to any matter in respect of which details have to be noted in the population register. It now appears that the new definition of “White” may have the result that there may be two kinds of Whites, i.e., in terms of the old and the new definitions. Hon members will recollect that when this matter was debated in 1962, the hon. members for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) and Zululand (Mr. Cadman) moved amendments, and then my colleague, the Minister of the Interior, stated his standpoint very clearly. It is now to give effect to the standpoint adopted by the Minister of the Interior at the time and to put this matter beyond all doubt that the amendment as contained in Clause 45 is being placed on the Statute Book.

In regard to Clause 46, hon. members will know that the Criminal Procedure Act provides that whenever anybody has made a written statement in connection with the actions of a peace officer, including a police officer, and a prosecution is thereafter instituted in connection with that action, anyone who has such a statement in his possession must on his request give a copy of that statement to the person who has made the statement. That is in ordinary criminal investigations, under the usual circumstances. But an attempt is now being made by some persons—I need not tell hon. members who they are and where they come from—to make use of this Section to obtain statements made by the so-called 90-day detainees, i.e., under Section 17, by this means. I simply cannot release such statements, for many obvious reasons. In the first place, I have to protect the persons who made the statements. Hon. members know what has happened in the past to people who have made statements, and what threats were made in the Rivonia case against people who made statements But apart from the fact that I have to protect those people, there is a much more important consideration, viz. that the interests of the State demand that I should not tell those people what information in regard to subversive activities the State has; because a person who is questioned in this connection is not questioned in regard to one case only, and as a rule he does not have information about one matter only, but he has information about many matters. Perhaps an attempt may be made, in regard to a case which concerns Cape Town only, to gain information all over the country, and I simply cannot allow that. Hence this amendment to set it beyond all doubt that persons are not entitled as of right to receive statements made by persons detained in terms of Section 17, as was obviously thought by them.

And the man himself?

No, I dare not give it even to the man who made the statement, because he has not made a statement only in respect of the matter for which he is now being tried, but in respect of many matters; and in his own interest, as well as in the interest of the State, I am compelled to withhold it even from him. If he wants to tell his advocate what he stated, that is his own affair, and also if he wants to tell other bodies what he stated, but I am not going to give them the proof that he in fact said so. No prejudice whatsoever can result from this. My standpoint in this regard is therefore purely that I am guided by the interests on the one hand, of the person himself, and if that is not enough, then I am guided by the interests of the safety of the State in regard to that matter.

These, in the main, are the most important principles of this Bill. I do not think they are contentious. There were certain people who thought that the heavens would fall and that we would all be wearing blue caps as the result of the introduction of this Bill, but with the best will in the world I cannot agree. Not only is every single provision in this Bill necessary, but they are all reasonable provisions, which may in fact elicit differences of opinion and discussion, but they are not provisions which are in any respect far-reaching or very contentious, and I move.

General Law Amendment Bills are always inclined to be something like the curate’s egg, partly good and partly bad. As far as this Bill is concerned, the parts which are good are very small and the parts that are bad are quite substantial. I want to say that we can all appreciate the necessity at the end of a session, at the end of a year’s administrative experience, to tidy up certain aspects of the law, and we are always prepared to give a sympathetic hearing to the Government’s pleas in that respect. But of course this Bill is far more than the ordinary bit of tidying up. I think we are entitled to say to the hon. the Minister that as far as the Opposition is concerned we are not prepared at this stage of the session to consider major changes in the existing law unless there are urgent security considerations which justify it As far as we can see, there are no urgent security considerations at the present time.

I should also like to say that if ever there was a Bill which justified a White Paper, it was this Bill. It does seem a pity that during this Session, with the new rules and with the attempts we have had to streamline parliamentary procedure, the Opposition should not have been favoured with a White Paper from the hon. the Minister whose Department, above all, is the Department which should seek to simplify the law for the benefit of over-worked parliamentarians, and if I may say so, over-worked officials of this House. Sir, there is no real urgency in respect of any of the provisions of this Bill. There are no real security problems, and looking through the Bill, and looking at the clauses dealt with by the hon. the Minister as well as certain others which we shall probe in the Committee Stage, it does seem to us that there is quite a lot in the Bill that we do not like. There are some clauses which we cannot tolerate at all, and there is nothing that we see that is of any real urgency. In fact, this is a very different proposition from even the General Laws Amendment Act of last year. Then there was urgency and real reasons for certain of the provisions to get on the Statute Book because they were necessary for the security of the State. As far as we are concerned, we cannot see any urgent need at present for the changes the Minister is asking for in these dying days of the Session.

The Bill contains a number of somewhat startling innovations which the Minister seems to take in his stride, and a number of hardy annuals which we have opposed before and will oppose again, perhaps with more reason on this occasion because we have had some experience of how they are being applied.

I suppose perhaps the most important clause in the Bill is Clause 13, the provision which empowers the hon. the Prime Minister to make the necessary changes in the Commissions Act to appoint the sort of commission he has in mind to investigate the Broederbond, the Freemasons and the Sons of England in accordance with the discussions we have had this Session. It seems to me that this Bill seeks ex post facto, after the event, without the Prime Minister at the time ever having disclosed his full intentions, to change the basis on which the challenges and acceptances —I think there were two of each—were made across the floor of the House between the Prime Minister and myself in respect of this matter. I think that in a sense this Bill is designed to avoid certain of the consequences of the rash challenge which the Prime Minister made to me across the floor of the House, I believe in the full confidence that I would not accept his challenge.

I expected you to accept it, and I told you so.

I do not think it is for me to comment on that. I will resist that temptation. I think the effect of this clause is that it is a provision which is completely contrary to the spirit of the Commissions Act. Our Commissions Act, which this Clause 13 seeks to amend, is a most interesting Act. It is a very short Act, passed in 1947, the object of which was to provide for the appointment of commissions which would have the same power in respect of certain matters as a Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa or of South West Africa. It gave powers to summon witnesses subject to penalties and to conduct their proceedings under oath, and provided that the proceedings should be in open court except in certain circumstances. It provides that witnesses should have normal privileges which witnesses have in the Supreme Court. Here we have a provision entitling the relevant authorities to make regulations concerning the procedure to be adopted at a commission, and concerning the powers of a commissioner, providing especially for secrecy, which is entirely inconsistent with the provisions of the Commissions Act. I think the Prime Minister will not take it amiss if I say to him across the floor of the House that as far as I was concerned, when he spoke of a commission, I understood that it would be a commission under the Commissions Act, and I laid down certain matters on which I hoped we would be able to agree. I put it no higher than that. It seems to me that we now have a somewhat miserable retreat from the aggressiveness of the original challenge made by the hon. the Prime Minister to me in this regard.

The only retreat at that stage was your retreat.

The hon. the Minister says I am retreating. Let us test it. Leave the rules as they were. What reason had I to expect that you were going to change them? Who warned me? Certainly not the Minister of Justice. I wonder whether he was even consulted about it. Who warned me that those rules were going to be changed, and at what stage? We can test it very simply. The Minister talks about retreat. Just leave the rules as they were and let us see who is retreating. But I realize that I am dealing here not just with a provision which is to provide for an inquiry into the organizations concerning which the hon. the Prime Minister and I had our differences during this Session. Here we are having a new innovation in our law, something which will be put there permanently. It seems to me that this House this after noon has to consider this piece of legislation not just from the point of view of the immediate objective with which it is being put on the Statute Book but from the point of view of what its effect will be permanently on our Commissions Act and on our legal system in South Africa. It seems to me to create a most dangerous precedent, because here you are creating a new type of commission, something we have not known in South Africa before, something which is new to our law, which may or may not have been authorized under other empowering legislation in other countries. I am not going to argue about those issues, but here we are creating a position where we are appointing a commissioner who will be the detective and the inquisitor, if necessary, and who will be the advocate and the Judge.

What about Lord Denning?

Yes, and what a tragedy it was! It finished Profumo and it finished Macmillan, and it even finished Christine Keeler …

And are you afraid it will finish you, too? [Interjections.]

The Prime Minister opens up wonderful vistas. I should like to say to him what I said to his predecessor and you will forgive me, Sir, if I put it in Afrikaans: “Ek veg horn staan-staan, maar nie as hy lê nie”. I want to beat the hon. the Prime Minister. There is nothing I want to do more, but I want to beat him fairly and squarely before the public of South Africa, and not as the result of his taking—I suppose I cannot use that word—of his making extremely stupid and unwise proposals in respect of a matter of this kind. I want to tell the Prime Minister that particularly when I have a statement of that kind I am absolutely sure I am going to beat him, and it will not take so long either if he goes on in the way he is doing at present. Sir, you have allowed me a lot of latitude, but there is a tremendous temptation for me to pursue this debate on quite another sphere. But let us come back to this clause.

Here we have machinery created for a commissioner who can act almost in the guise of an inquisitor under the Spanish Inquisition.

Here we have provisions for secret sittings, and for something coming very close to the hated Court of Star Chamber which existed in England, that hated institution for secret persecutions which was practiced by the Stewarts and which probably led as much as anything else to the success of Cromwell’s revolution in Britain. Now, I know I will have quoted at me, as I have had from the somewhat guileless member for Port Elizabeth the Denning Commission. Here it is, Sir. I may say that Lord Denning was a very brave man who took on a very heavy onus and appreciated that there were certain advantages in the procedure which he was instructed to adopt, and certain disadvantages. I believe in all the circumstances that the disadvantages outweighed the advantages, even in respect of the inquiry with which he was charged. Here is what he said himself in paragraph 5 on page 2 of his report—

This clause does not permit me to discuss the wisdom of appointing one commissioner. He continued—

Then he goes on to say that there are three considerable advantages, and he deals with them, but I think that they are somewhat ephemeral if you compare them with the disadvantages. Later on, in paragraph 7, he deals with the tremendous difficulties he had procedurally.

But there have been other commissions in South Africa, and I have had the privilege to look up some of them. There is one in which a magistrate called Staaten, an inspecting magistrate of the Department of Justice, was appointed to inquire into allegations of bribery and corruption in relation to members of the Transvaal Provincial Council in 1918. That struck me particularly, because of three passages, two in his first report and one in his second report. The first passage was—

Then in the second part of his report, he says—

In an inquiry of this kind, which has caused so much public interest, that is the sort of principle that I would have liked to have seen followed. But, Sir, you will want to confine me to this clause, quite rightly and I want to say that this clause departs from certain fundamental principles. One of those fundamental principles is that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. That is one of the fundamental principles of our law, and unless we have a provision of that kind I believe the public will not be satisfied. Here, however, it is being applied—secret investigation into a secret society or secret societies, and therefore I say that I am against this clause in principle. We on this side of the House are against it in principle. We are not only against it because of the use to which it is going to be put in that particular case; we are especially for that reason, and I believe that perhaps it would have been fairer to all concerned if the hon the Prime Minister had raised these issues with me at the time when we had our challenge and counter-challenge across the floor of the House. I believe that this clause is no adornment to our permanent jurisprudence. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Justice: Where does privacy end and secrecy begin? I think it is worthwhile looking at. Sir, when you look at this clause you see that by regulation you can change the provisions which lay down that the court will sit in public, that the commission will sit in public, subject to certain provisos which are laid down in the Act; in other words, by regulation you can change the normal law.

We are applying a different procedure; that is all we are doing. You can prescribe the procedure.

The hon. the Minister says that you can prescribe the procedure. Of course you can, I am raising it only for one important reason: There is a section in the Commission Act which says that hearings will be public subject to certain provisos.

Except when the chairman decides that it will not be public.

That is not an exact quotation. It is nearly right. There is another provision in the Commissions Act which says that witnesses shall be subject to the normal privileges of witnesses. That can be changed by regulation as well. That means that we are going to have a commission of inquiry appointed under the Act, as amended, in which witnesses will not have the ordinary privileges which a witness has at common law. Do you realize where we are going, Sir? Here is something which I do not believe the hon the Prime Minister intended; here is something which gives most dangerous powers. It entitles the Commissioner, who has all the power under the other provisions of the Act, which the hon. gentleman is now amending, to put witnesses who refuse to answer questions away for 12 months probably or to put them in a position where they can be put away for 12 months. Sir, the witness has no privileges now; those privileges can be taken away by regulation. I wonder if the hon. the Prime Minister intended that? I hope he did not.

To what clause are you referring when you say that?

Clause 13.

No, I mean which clause of the existing Commissions Act?

The hon. the Minister will find it in the latter part of Clause 4 or 5.

That is also wrong.

It is Section 3 (4); “the law relating to privileges applicable to a witness giving evidence or summoned to produce a book or document in such a court shall apply …” That is in the Commissions Act. Sir, that can be altered by regulation in terms of this amendment. It seems to me that a provision of this kind underlines most dramatically the difficulties with which Lord Denning was faced in his own commission and the difficulties of which he spoke in paragraph 7 of his introduction, where he spoke of his enormous difficulty in deciding what the limits should be of the inquiry which he was conducting. He found himself in this position—

Sir, I started quoting just too late; he says—

That is the dilemma which this clause is designed to create for any Commissioner appointed under this amended Act and under these regulations in South Africa at the present time, and therefore I say that as far as we on this side of the House are concerned we are against this clause in principle; we are against its use for the object which I believed the hon. the Prime Minister and I had in mind, and I believe it is a great pity that we should have reached the stage where this is to be the manner in which the investigation is to be conducted.

You just wanted a slander campaign, not an inquiry.

Sir, I wonder if the hon. member is justified in making that remark.

The hon. member need not take notice of interjections.

I accept your ruling in that regard, Sir; that has been my feeling for some time.

Now, Sir, there are other clauses in this General Law Amendment Bill to which we object. The hon the Minister has called one the Sobukwe Clause, Clause 14. Does the hon. gentleman really feel that the situation in South Africa is still so critical that he is not able to let the normal processes of law take their course? You see, Sir, we were against this clause even when there was a critical situation. Here we have a man who has served his sentence. He has served the punishment to which a Judge believed he should be submitted. He has served out his time and yet he is being held by the Minister. Has the Minister not got adequate powers to cope with this one man if he releases him, now that he has served his sentence? I believe Sobukwe wanted to leave South Africa. In the past the hon. the Minister said, perhaps in a somewhat ebullient moment, that he would be happy to assist people like that to leave.

Not this particular one.

I accept entirely that the hon. the Minister was not referring to this particular man. He said that he would be happy to assist saboteurs and people of that kind to leave South Africa, to get rid of them. I believe he meant it at the time. But he is doing something here that offends the entire principle underlying our jurisprudence. I think that principle is that a man is innocent until he is proved to be guilty and that when he has served his sentence he is entitled again to start from scratch, because the whole object of sentencing a man is to punish him, to deter others, to act as an example to others and one hopes also to reform the man. The Minister may say that he has failed in his reformative activities in so far as this particular man is concerned, but is he justified in saying that? Becuase, you see, this clause stands on the Statute Book and it applies not just to Robert Sobukwe, it applies to any man who has served his sentence for this particular type of security crime It places the Minister in the position that he can create a concentration camp in South Africa; he can hold not one but many people who have served their sentences. Is that the sort of impression you want to create. If you want to hold Sobukwe, put his name in the clause and say: “It is Sobukwe I want to hold and nobody else,” but if you want power to hold anybody who comes out of gaol, then frame the clause this way and the outside world will immediately say: “Why do you need this wide power?”

If you move an amendment to that effect I will accept it.

No, I will not do so because I think the Minister is wrong in holding Sobukwe, but I think the Minister would be well advised to move an amendment of that kind; he would be well advised to do so in the interest of the name of the Republic overseas and amongst our own people, and if he moves it we will not cause him any trouble about it. We will vote against his clause as amended because we believe that the principle is wrong. Sir, what has he told us? He says that in so far as this organization still exists they regard Sobukwe as their leader; Sobukwe is unrecalcitrant; the same considerations that apply to the 90-day clause apply here. But there are many disadvantages that apply, and I think it is a great tragedy that we should be faced with this clause at this time.

Sir, the hon. the Minister dealt in passing with Clause 15 which extends the ambit of the crime of undergoing training for sabotage. There he has our support. We believe that that is correct. It is a pity that we have this spectacular death penalty attached to it, but that is a matter which, I believe, is in the discretion of the courts and we can leave it to the courts. We will support the Minister in this extension; we have no worries in that regard.

There are one or two technical matters which I want to deal with but before I deal with them I want to move, because I see that time is against me, the amendment which I feel should apply—

Sir, I will deal rapidly with the other clauses. There is Clause 22 in respect of the joinder of accused while proceedings are already in progress. I may say that I am not satisfied with this business of brief information about what has gone before to an accused who is joined. That man has lost his right to cross-examine, and if he has lost his right to cross-examine he should be given proper and detailed information of the evidence that has gone before.

He has not lost his right to cross-examine.

Of course he has lost his right to cross-examine.

He can ask for any of the witnesses to be recalled.

Can he ask for any of the witnesses to be recalled without knowing in detail what they have said?

Of course. He has the record.

He has not got the record; he can go and look at it. But if the Minister will agree with me, give him a copy of the record free.

That is a different matter altogether.

No, it is not a different matter; give him a copy of the record free and then the Minister will have no trouble with this clause.

Why say that he cannot cross-examine a witness?

Well, he cannot.

Of course he can.

We can argue about this in the Committee Stage, but I say he cannot unless he knows in detail what the position is.

Then there is Clause 23, the 12-day clause, under which a man can be held, on being charged, for 12 days without bail. I think the hon the Minister knows the attitude of this side of the House. We have always been against it and we are still against it But what interested me was this: The hon. gentleman said—and I respect his honesty in putting it to us—that the majority of the Attorneys-General wanted it retained. I assume that there is a minority who felt that they could do without it. I would say to the hon. the Minister that as in this House he should pay attention to the views of the minority; they are very often right and very often they point the way which the majority follows later.

That is not strictly contained in the Bill.

Sir, the hon. the Minister drew attention to that in introducing the Bill. I believe that the hon. gentleman could do so much if he were to start divesting himself of some of these powers which are no longer strictly necessary, even if that is the opinion amongst the minority of his officials.

Then I want to deal with Clauses 27 and 29 together. Clause 27 provides that whereas in the past a witness who was called refused to give evidence and to produce documents before a court could be put away for eight days, can now be sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months. I belive that that is a very excessive sentence in the light of the experience which I have had in my time. Perhaps the Minister in recent months or years has had a different experience, but he made out no case for that clause. One of the difficulties with which we are faced is that a witness in the past could refuse to answer questions for just cause, an accomplice was held to have just cause Now, when you read Clauses 27 and 29 together you find that an accomplice can no longer refuse to answer questions on the ground that they will incriminate him. The Minister seeks to justify that by saying in Clause 29 that if he answers those questions to the satisfaction of the court then he will be free from prosecution for such offence, that is to say, the offence charged before the court. Supposing in giving evidence he incriminates himself in respect of some other crime?

Then it is not evidence against him.

Of course it is evidence against him.

Read the Act.

I am sorry, I differ with the hon. the Minister here. I think he is taking away a very real right which accomplices have.

No.

I am grateful for the concession which he is making in deference to the wishes of the Cape Bar Council or the General Bar Council …

The Cape Bar Council on behalf of the General Bar Council.

While I am grateful for that concession I still do not feel that I am satisfied in respect of the provisions of these two clauses.

Then we come to Clause 45 which I think is the last clause with which I shall deal. That clause provides that the amendments in the Population Registration Act which were accepted by this House in 1962 shall be made retrospective to 1950. That amendment was made by way of a separate piece of legislation which came before this House. This side of the House so disapproved of it that the amendment we moved was that the measure be read “this day six months” Both at the second reading and at the third reading. I think the hon. the Minister can understand that we have the same feelings about any extension of the operation of that clause. You see, Sir, that was a clause in which the original test as to a man’s classification ceased to be general acceptance; it became “general appearance”, and the question of descent was brought in as well, because if a man had admitted that he was of Coloured or Native descent, then that was final unless it was proved not to have been based on the facts. What we never got from the Minister at the time was when a man was held to have made an admission based on the facts; how much Coloured or Native blood he had to have— one-quarter, one-eighth, one-sixteenth, one-thirty-second. When was it accepted? We were faced with another position under that clause and that is that a man might have not one drop of Coloured blood in his veins; he might be generally accepted as a European but because some official decided that by general appearance he was Coloured, he was classified as Coloured. That was one of the vast objections we had to this Bill. One of the other objections we had was that we feared it might be possible for children to be classified differently from their parents. In the course of that discussion we got an undertaking from the hon. the Minister of the Interior that there would be no reclassification initiated by him otherwise than when there were appeals from the people classified. At the time we expressed our worry that there might be other Minister’s of the Interior in due course and we wondered whether we were right in accepting an undertaking of this kind. Sir, what is the effect of this clause? If this clause now makes the provision of the 1962 Act retrospective to 1950 …

It does not affect the Minister’s undertaking at all.

It does not affect the Minister’s undertaking, but surely if anybody now queries the man’s position there is no doubt whatever that he will be tested under the new clause and not the old law.

The 1962 definition still stands.

The 1962 definition will apply retrospectively to 1950, whereas we were under the impression that the 1962 definition would be effective from after 1962 I accept that that does not cut across the Minister’s undertaking, but it places us in a very difficult position, because anyone classified under the old law who now appeals is tested by new criteria. We all know what a difficult thing it was to administer this Population Registration Act. We all know what human tragedies there have been and we all hope that where some measure of finality had been reached, that measure of finality would have been left. Now we are being asked this afternoon to approve a provision which is of retrospective effect, and I think you shall understand our feelings, Sir. With our natural dislike of the original clause we have no desire to see it extended in any way. That is why it falls into line with the other clauses in this Bill which we cannot tolerate and which have caused me to move that this General Law Amendment Bill be read this day six months.

I am sorry that I have to rise again to speak here to-day but is is clearly desirable that I reply to the attack made upon me by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in connection with Clause 13.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has made various accusations here. His first accusation is that I changed the terms of the challenge issued to me with regard to an investigation by a commission; in other words, that I really made myself guilty of a dishonourable deed in that having issued a challenge here in a certain form or having accepted a challenge issued to me in a certain form I then resorted to clever tricks to evade his challenge. I want to remind the House of what happened here. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a strong attack upon an Arikaner organization. I then told him that if he wished to move that a judicial inquiry be instituted to investigate secret organizations I would be prepared to consider accepting such a proposal. I explained later on what I meant by that. At the time of this incident—this was in January—he did not reply; he did not see his way clear to reply.

How do you know that?

He did not see his way clear to reply to the demand that an investigation be instituted into three specific organizations but he laid down the following conditions with regard to an investigation into the affairs of only one of these organizations—

That is what he said on 24 January in reply to my speech.

I think it was the 2nd.

No, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had already mentioned these four conditions in his first speech. I want to be fair towards him. Hon. members will see that he said time and again that he “thought” that this was what should be done. At that stage I was not concerned with what his thoughts were in that connection; I was concerned with the challenge which I had issued to him that he should be prepared to include other secret organizations in his motion, and that was why I reacted immediately. It had nothing to do with what his thoughts were in connection with other points; it had to do only with the motion that I had challenged him to move. I asked him to move that the Broederbond, Freemasonary and other secret organizations be investigated; he refused to do so, we then argued the matter across the floor of the House and it was left at that. On 28 April an opportunity again presented itself for me to make a speech in this House and in the course of that speech I came back again to this subject. On that occasion I said this—

That was after I had told him that he could easily accept my challenge because the Freemasons and the Sons of England had publically stated that they would welcome such an inquiry. He cannot therefore come and tell me now that I did not expect him to accept this. I not only expected it; I told him in so many words why I thought he could accept it, because he was no longer faced with the difficulty, as he was in January, of not knowing what those other people would think of him and say about him. The Leader of the Opposition then asked—

At that stage he only mentioned these two things; I then replied—

Note well: I did not say that I would come to an agreement with him; I said that I would consult with him—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition then spoke and said—

He therefore had in mind one or more—

After I had already said that, whether we agreed or not, I was going to appoint a commission, he expressed the “hope”—separately in each case—that we would be able to come to an agreement on four different points. The reproach is now being levelled against me that I did not immediately promise at the time that I would be prepared to give such an undertaking in respect of these four points. He even goes so far as to assume that I suggested by implication that I was accepting or issuing a challenge in terms of these four points, which again were first raised after the challenge had been disposed of and after I had already said that I was not giving any undertaking that we would have to come to an agreement but that I did undertake to consult with him. Moreover, he again mentioned these four points as “hopes” which he cherished. In spite of this, however, the position is now being represented as though I committed a breach of faith in that I allegedly gave an undertaking which I subsequently failed to honour. How dare people argue in that way? I reject with contempt the accusation that I altered the terms of the challenge. I contend that the procedure that we followed was entirely in consonance with the terms of the challenge.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also wanted to know why I did not express my views with regard to a public inquiry in the course of the debate. These points, as you will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, were raised subsequently. And I did raise them—if I may say so without being unfair—in the course of the first discussion between the Leader of the Opposition and myself. I could not, in all fairness, be expected to do more than that.

The second accusation which has been made here is that I have all sorts of plans in connection with the regulations; that I have all sorts of strange plans to misuse the provisions of Clause 13 and, because of the way in which the clause is formulated, to introduce peculiar regulations which will make this commission i useless or dangerous commission. It is alleged that even as far as witnesses are concerned the commission is being placed in an embarrassing or awkward position.

I did not say that. May I explain? The hon. the Prime Minister has set out his terms of reference; I accept them. But I am against this clause in principle because of the fact that it will lend itself to misuse in other cases—not only for this purpose.

I am grateful to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for not accusing me in this case of wishing to misuse the opportunity to frame regulations. I want to make it perfectly clear that the only reason why I asked that the Commissions Act be amended at this stage was because I wanted to give effect to certain undertakings which I had given, and one of those undertakings was this: Although I believed that in this case the inquiry should be conducted in confidence— and I believed that for the reasons which I have already set out here—I was anxious to make it possible for witnesses to be placed under oath. As the Commissions Act now reads, that cannot be done unless all the conditions laid down in the Commissions Act are complied with, including the condition as to public hearings. I therefore wanted to give the commissioner the powers which he would have had under the Commissions Act in the case of public hearings, namely to be able to place witnesses under oath; to have the right of access to documents and the right to demand the production of documents; that is to say to do the various things for which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked. I think it is very unfair, what we are doing here is to insert a clause in the Commissions Act to make it possible for the commissioner to retain the ordinary powers which he has under the Commissions Act but we are excluding the obligation in this particular case that the inquiry must be conducted in public, and I think it is very unfair to suggest that we want to make the wrong use of this amendment. Let me also add this as far as this particular case is concerned: Does anybody think that a Judge of Appeal would agree to become a commissioner and to accept powers which are unfair or improper and which ought not to be accepted by a person of his high standing? Surely he would refuse to do so. In other words, the guarantee that this amendment is not going to be misused and cannot be misused lies in the fact that we have appointed a commission of inquiry of this high judicial status. In reply to the accusation therefore that we have all sorts of plans in framing the regulations I say firstly that at least as far as this inquiry is concerned the appointment of a Judge of Appeal is a guarantee and, secondly, that I hope that my pledged word is also a guarantee that we merely want to vest the commissioner with those powers which will enable him to do what I promised the Leader of the Opposition; in other words, we want to give him the right to have access to documents, the right to search for documents in offices, etc., and the right to place witnesses under oath. These are all rights which the Leader of the Opposition himself wanted such a commission to have.

I think this clause is an improvement on the present Act …

May I ask a question before you leave that point? According to the terms of reference under the amended clause, what powers will the commissioner have which a Judge did not formerly have under the Commissions Act? There is a certain amount of doubt in that regard.

Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not follow my point? My point is that since the idea of public hearings is linked up with the Commissions Act—and in this case I do not accept that the hearing must necessarily be in public, for the reasons which I have already mentioned—there is no other law under which I can appoint a commissioner with the right to place witnesses under oath, with the right of access to documents, the right to demand the production of documents and the right of access to offices.

In other words, two new powers—the right of access to documents and the right of access to offices.

The right to place witnesses under oath, the right to demand documents and the right of access to offices …

He already has the first power.

As a lawyer the hon. the Leader of the Opposition probably understands better than I do as a layman that he will not have those powers unless I appoint him under the Commissions Act. But as the Commissions Act now reads I cannot appoint him under that Act because in addition to providing for these powers the Commissions Act also makes public hearings obligatory. I do not believe, however, that in this case public hearings should be obligatory. The result is that I must make it possible for the Commissions Act to be applied to inquiries which are conducted in secret; I have to see to it that the Commissioner is vested with these powers in the case of this particular inquiry. The purpose here is simply to give him the powers which are provided for in the Commissions Act in spite of the fact that one particular requirement of the Act will not be complied with.

May I ask a final question?

I think the further details should be discussed in the Committee Stage.

The basic principle here is that I think this is an improvement on the existing Act because it enables us, not to appoint bad or unfair commissions, but to have a certain amount of flexibility, which we have not had hitherto in this country, in approaching the question of making use of commissions. There is nothing improper about it; it exists in other countries. In Britain it has been possible on various occasions to appoint commissions which have been able to institute confidential investigations, and at the same time the commissioners have had the sort of powers which I think this commission ought to have in these circumstances and which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in fact wanted this commission to have. Why should it be wrong in principle in South Africa to extend the provisions of the Commissions Act, which hitherto has been used in a limited form, so as to enable us to make the same use of commissions as is done in Britain and elsewhere?

That brings me to the next point. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition tries to frighten people by suggesting that what we want to do here is to institute a sort of inquisition. Why should this inquiry develop into a sort of persecution when the whole intention obviously is to obviate a public persecution on incorrect lines? Secondly, why should this result in an inquisition when it is possible to institute an investigation in Britain on precsely the same lines, an investigation which is not condemned there as being an inquisition and which is not regarded as being wrong in principle? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the Denning report. But in principle at least the procedure adopted by the Denning Commission was not regarded as an improper procedure, as something which is a disgrace to Britain; it was not regarded as being wrong that it was possible under the British legislation for a one-man commission to institute a secret inquiry into a situation which was very similar to the sort of situation that we are dealing with here, in other words, a situation where there was a possibility of a violation of security regulations. The Denning Commission did not investigate the question of sexual offences. What it investigated was whether, because of the various relationships, information had been divulged which might be harmful to the good government and the safety of Britain. That was why this investigation had to take place. A confidential inquiry of the kind which was held there was regarded as suitable because of certain concomitant circumstances. I have Lord Denning’s report here. It is true that he says in his introductory remarks that there were two great disadvantages attached to this particular form of inquiry but he also says that it has three outstanding advantages He says—

[Interjections.] No, that is not correct. It had to do with the involvement of Cabinet Ministers, amongst others, in corrupion and the possible misuse of their position. In any event I am not arguing now about the contents of the inquiry; I am dealing with the justification in principle of causing an inquiry of this type to be instituted. What I am dealing with is the accusation made by the Leader of the Opposition that it is scandalous or wrong to provide for the power in the Commissions Act to do what it was possible to do in Britain and what was done there without anybody expressing disapproval of that course; in other words, to authorize the commission in this case also to institute inquiries in confidence. It is not necessary for me again to quote those portions which have already been read out by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I want to quote two further passages, however. Lord Denning clearly says—

That applies, of course, to every commission of inquiry. The commission brings out a report setting out its findings, and if the evidence reveals that an offence or crime has been committed then a public prosecution is instituted in a court of law. I have stated before that if the finding is that these bodies engage in harmful activities—and that is what is important as far as we are concerned—it follows that their activities will be publicly investigated as the result of such a report. On what note does Lord Denning conclude his introductory remarks? This passage was not read out either by the hon the Leader of the Opposition. Lord Denning says—

In other words, he has the same basic idea that I have and that is that one also has a certain obligation towards these bodies. If these bodies engage in harmful activities then that fact must be brought to light in an inquiry of this kind; and if there is anything wrong with these bodies there is more likelihood of that fact being brought to light when the person conducting the investigation is a Judge than there would be if it was not a judicial inquiry. If the commission finds that something is wrong, then there will have to be a public inquiry before a court of law, and if there is anything wrong then this is the most effective way of achieving our purpose.

I want to conclude by making this point: I acted fully in accordance with the challenge issued to me. Secondly, in fairness and justice to everybody concerned, this type of inquiry is probably the best that could be instituted.

Sir, why, when we were unable to agree on the one point, did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who had previously talked about four different points on which he “thought” and “hoped” we could agree, refuse to discuss the other point with me? He said that he hoped that we would agree; he went so far as to say that we would agree. Subsequently, when there was one point on which we could not agree, he refused to discuss the others! If he has any complaint with regard to the terms of reference, then it is too late to complain at this stage; if he has any complaints with regard to the nature of the commission or the membership of the commission, it will not avail him to complain at this stage; he had his opportunity to discuss these matters; why did he not do so? That brings me to the accusation that the reason for this is that he is not really interested to find out whether there is any real harm in any of these bodies; that he is not really interested in finding out whether they are harmful to the community, whether they are dangerous to the State, whether they abuse their position or whether they wrongfully influence persons in authority. Those are matters in which he is not really interested, because I say that such an impartial Judge would be in a better position to find out these things than any other body of inquiry. There must be something else that the Leader of the Opposition has in mind. His aim is to institute a witch-hunt. Furthermore, what he would like to see is that this body which he does not like is destroyed, and that is precisely what this clause is designed to obviate. This clause seeks to make it possible to institute an inquiry in which the commission will be able to determine whether or not any harm results from the activities of these bodies. In fairness to everybody concerned, there is no better method of ascertaining that than the method that we are adopting here.

I had the greatest difficulty in following the hon. the Prime Minister in regard to the reasons he advanced as to why Clause 13 of this Bill is necessary. He has sought to justify a change in the present law relating to commissions, a law which has been on the Statute Book since 1947. He has dealt with the attitude of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in that regard.

Order! That matter must be considered as closed.

Surely not.

Order! Yes.

On a point of order, the Prime Minister has made certain allegations …

Order! I cannot allow this debate to develop. I have allowed the hon. the Prime Minister to reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition …

On a point of order, Sir, has the Prime Minister got privileges in this House which other hon. members have not got …

Order! Is the hon. member reflecting on the Chair?

No, Sir … I am asking a question.

Order! The hon. member must not ask such a silly question. The hon. member may proceed.

I protest; it is not a silly question.

Order!

We have at the present time, and at the time of the exchange between the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a law on the Statute Book which controls the manner in which a judicial commission is to act and which controls the proceedings of a body of that kind. That legislation was established in 1947 and has been used on a number of occasions since then by all the most important commissions which have operated in South Africa since 1947. It was used in the commissions of inquiry into the events at Langa, at Paarl, at Sharpeville, and the riots which took place at Durban in 1948.

Reference has been made to the Denning Commission of Inquiry. It has been sought to justify the change which is now being made to the Commissions Act by a reference to that commission’s report. There is no relationship whatsoever between the inquiry which is anticipated into the organization known as the Broederbond and the facts which the Denning Commission had to inquire into. What was the situation as far as the Denning Commission was concerned? You had there allegations, which had gained currency amongst the people and the Press, that there had been intimate personal associations of a most unsavoury kind between a high officer of the British Government and a certain young lady of easy virtue. That was the justification given in the case of the Denning Commission of Inquiry for an inquiry of a secret nature.

Order! I don’t think that is under discussion at the moment.

But that is the argument used to justify the present amendment to be made to allow for secrecy in Clause 13 of the Bill. What possible comparison can there be between an inquiry into unsavoury personal actions of that kind and an inquiry into a body like the Broederbond? I should be astonished, Sir, to hear any Government member repeat the argument that there is a similarity between the two sets of facts to justify a similar inquiry in this instance as was required in the case of the Denning Commission. But I go further, Sir. I say that even on the facts of the Denning Commission there should not have been a secret inquiry because the criticism which has resulted from the fact that it was a secret inquiry is, rightly or wrongly, made. I repeat; it is rightly or wrongly made that that commission was there to whitewash certain important personages in the British Government. It would be most unfortunate if the same sort of accusations were to be made as a result of the inquiry in the present instance.

But I do not look to British commissions for justification of the type of commission we should have. I look to the most recent commission in South Africa, a judicial commission of inquiry. One only has to look to the commission of inquiry conducted by Mr. Justice Snyman at Paarl where no better argument could be found for the type of commission which we envisage, and which was always envisaged by anyone speaking of commissions until this Bill came before the House a few days ago. There was no suggestion, prior to that, that there was to be a change of the type of commission when the challenge was accepted by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. There was no suggestion in January of this year that the four bases upon which the Leader of the Opposition accepted the proposal of a commission of inquiry would be changed until months later when this Bill came before this House and when the hon. the Prime Minister, about three months after the acceptance of the challenge, made the reference which he did in the April debate to which he referred earlier this afternoon.

Let me come back to the hon. Mr. Justice Snyman as a justification for the point of view which we adopt. He says in his report, amongst other things, a number of things which justify our point of view. He says—

The most astonishing thing I find about these proposals to change the existing law on commissions is that one of the key sections of the existing Act which will be changed by the regulations to be introduced in terms of this amending Bill reads as follows—

Under the existing law pertaining to commissions there is power in the presiding Judge to exclude persons and to have the proceedings held in camera if he feels that that is the proper thing to do. Why is that not sufficient protection of the rights of individuals in this case? Why is the discretion of a very eminent Appeal Judge to be so fettered that he cannot decide whether or not evidence should be held in camera or in public? We had, as I say, this commission of inquiry into the events at Paarl, not an inquiry into a simple cultural organization, an inquiry into an ordinary everyday sort of organization, but an inquiry into one of the most sinister and dangerous organizations in the country.

How do you know?

Judge Snyman said that was the position of the Poqo organization. At an inquiry of that importance where the people, as we know from the report, were even threatened with their lives if they were to give evidence, not merely that their political reputations might suffer, but that their lives were in danger, the present legislation of a public inquiry was considered sufficient because the Judge had power to hear evidence in camera in certain circumstances. But when we come to an inquiry such as is proposed, that is not sufficient. It is to say the least, surprising, that a change of this kind should be sought to be brought in.

Let us get back again to Mr. Justice Snyman. He says—

Here again you have under the existing law absolute protection for witnesses who are in difficult positions at the time and yet these provisions are to be changed in a manner which will restrict the discretion of the judicial officer in that regard. For this we have had no adequate explanation.

The hon. Mr. Justice Snyman in this case refers to the fact that he followed the example of the Langa Commission of Inquiry and also the Vereeniging Commission of Inquiry because these inquiries were in his view satisfactorily conducted. He allowed cross-examination of witnesses through himself as the commissioner so that this aspect of the matter could not get out of hand. He then says—

In the light of this, what possible argument can there be which carries conviction that these provisions under the established law should be changed in respect of the proposed inquiry? Mr. Justice Snyman went on to say—

Such was the assistance which he gained from the presence of counsel at that inquiry that he was able to rely heavily on what they had found, for the compilation of his report. Finally, he says—

Sir, almost every line of the introduction of the hon. Justice Snyman to this report is contrary to what will happen under the provisions of Clause 13 of this Bill, in terms of which the hon. the Minister of Justice, who has charge of commissions of this kind, will be able in almost every respect to change or even disregard the provisions of the Commissions Act. In terms of the new proposed paragraph (a) the Minister may—

He can modify and except the provisions of this law to an extent that it becomes entirely nugatory. The new proposed paragraph (b) reads—

and we have not been told in any detail what is envisaged—

Now, if one wants to tie the hands of a judicial commission of inquiry, it can be done in two ways. Firstly, it can be done by reference to the terms of reference and, secondly, by the procedure which has to be adopted by the judicial officer. A judicial commissioner is not a free agent. However eminent he may be or whatever high judicial office he may hold, he is bound to follow two things: He is bound to adhere to his terms of reference and to adhere to the procedural regulations which will be made in terms of this amendment. We have seen how in certain respects his hands have been tied by his terms of reference which have been made public. I have no doubt, Sir, that the object of this amendment is to complete the hamstringing of the judicial officer concerned and completely to tie his hands by reference to the procedure which he will be bound to adopt in terms of this amendment, whatever he may think of it.

The Prime Minister said that no man of the eminence of a Judge of the Appeal Court will take on the job of a commissioner in an inquiry of this kind if the criticisms which had been made were true. But that honourable gentleman, the Judge, has not seen the regulations yet under which he will have to operate and, in any event, we do not know wheher he had even seen the terms of reference when he accepted office as commissioner for this inquiry. I want to go further and say that there is duty on a Judge, or on any judicial officer of that kind, when he is approached in regard to conducting an inquiry, to accept that office and to do his best in the circumstances. After all, the rules under which he will have to operate and the terms of reference under which he has to operate are not his concern and no blame can be attached to him in that regard.

The next difficulty we have with this Bill is in regard to Clause 14 which, as hon. members know, gives the power to detain a person in a gaol after he has served his term of imprisonment. Now, our objection to this has already been stated by the Leader of the Opposition but I should like to frame it this way. When an extraordinary power of this kind is sought, one expects a case to be made out for it. I think it is being accepted by the hon. the Minister that this is something unusual. A case should therefore be made out for taking an unusual power of this kind. But no such case as as yet been out. We have had from the hon. the Minister, as well as from the hon. the Prime Minister over and over again statements that everything in South Africa is now under control, that the P.A.C. and the A.N.C., the Communists, Umkonto and all others are under control and have been broken and that mopping up operations have now to take place. Now, if that is the position, and I accept it from the hon. the Minister that it is, then under the powers the Minister presently has in terms of the existing law, and particularly in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act, the powers to retain a man after his sentence has expired are unnecessary. One has only to look at page 14 of the report of the Department of Justice for this year to see the powers the Minister has and to see what use has been made of them. Some 15 or 20 examples are being set out there, with the form which the prohibition, the banning or the restriction takes as well as the number of persons in respect of whom those powers have been used. And if these organizations, as the hon. the Minister has said, have been broken, if these subversive and terrorist organizations are presently under control, then the powers the Minister has, apart from the power asked in Clause 14, are perfectly adequate to meet the situation. There are powers—

So it goes on in endless detail. The hon. the Minister knows which powers I have in mind. They are set out in the report on his Department. Now, these powers properly used should be sufficient to deal with the sort of person the hon. the Minister has in mind. It is common knowledge that the person concerned, Sobukwe, is a dangerous person. We accept that. We accept what the hon. the Minister says as to his present attitude, and that it is the same attitude as that which he has retained throughout his detention. I have no reason to believe it has changed. I think it is probably the same as it was last year. But it cannot be that one individual of this kind can hold a whole State to ransom, or a whole country and a whole people. If that is so, then there is something wrong. I do not believe that one individual can hold us to ransom so as to require us to take power of this kind to deal with one individual.

Then there is Clause 22 dealing with the question of evidence required to be read over under the existing law to an accused person at a preparatory examination. Hon. members will know that if at the end of a preparatory examination a prima facie case has not been made out against the accused concerned, then he is entitled to be acquitted. Now, the proviso here is that a summary of the evidence, where an accused has come into the case halfway through, shall be given to him. But it does not stipulate by whom. I presume, however, that it must be done either by the interpreter or by the judicial officer concerned. There is one thing that is basic to any system of justice and that is that an accused person shall know the evidence he has to meet, whether it is at trial or whether it is at a preparatory examination. Amongst interpreters, as amongst all classes of people in this world, there are those who are conscientious and those that are not so conscientious and because of the fallibility of humans one cannot say that this as enacted in its present form will ensure that the accused person will always be given a sufficiently detailed analysis or résumé of the evidence given against him so as to enable him to be in a position properly to assess his position when he comes into the trial. During a long trial which is tedious there is a lot of time wasted by having to read all the evidence over to the individual concerned. As against that, it is agreed on all sides that the individual is entitled to a fair trial or to a fair preparatory examination, as the case might be. Unless the hon. the Minister is prepared to accept a suggestion of the kind put to him by the Leader of the Opposition, i.e. that the accused be given a copy of the evidence up to the time he joined the proceedings, I fear there might be a miscarriage of justice in some instances. That is to be avoided even at the cost of some days or hours being wasted in any particular judicial proceeding.

So far as the 12-day detention clause is concerned, it has been axiomatic in our law for many years that no one may be detained for more than 48 hours without being brought before a court of law and that a charge be laid against him or even only for the purpose of being remanded. This power to detain a man for 12 days without bail in certain cases is an infringement of that provision, a provision of long standing in South Africa’s criminal law. Here again the hon. the Minister must make out a case for it, it being something exceptional. But such a case has not yet been made out.

I made it over and over again when I originally introduced it.

I know the hon. the Minister has referred to his previous arguments, but times have changed for the better on the Minister’s own argument. Under those circumstances it is of no use for the Minister to refer again to his previous arguments, the case then having quite different circumstances than those which he now has to meet.

In these circumstances, I hope that during the course of this debate, we shall obtain from hon. members opposite more details for the case which is necessary to justify these exceptional powers in so far as the amendments to our criminal law are concerned but on the facts as they now stand I do not believe any case can be made out for the principal amendment of this clause, i.e., that appertaining to judicial commissions of inquiry, especially in so far as a change to the rules pertaining to judicial commissions which have been perfectly good for all these serious and difficult commissions we have had up to the present time, is concerned. I do not believe that any explanation will justify Clause 13 of the Bill.

I want to give the House the assurance that I shall not refer to Lord Denning or his report. Nor do I want to entertain the House to a Profumo or Christine Keeler debate.

I want to tell the House how necessary it is for the Commissions Act to be reviewed and I say this as a person who has worked with this Act for ten years and who has experience of it. This Commissions Act is a very good Act but it does not go far enough. I want to tell the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that if they will only read that Act and consider it and take the matter a little further, section by section, they will see how necessary it is that the Act be reviewed. If hon. members will only look at Section 3 they will see that a commission has the power which a Supreme Court has in the province where that commission sits. But experience has taught us that a commission might find it necessary itself to search for documents which other people have under their control; the police have that power, the Attorney-General through the police has that power but the Supreme Court does not have it. This is not covered by Section 3 (1). If hon. members look at Section 3 (3), they will see that it states that a witness will only have to give evidence on oath or make affirmation if the chairman of the commission requires him to do so and not otherwise. How can the hon. the Prime Minister tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the evidence will be given under oath if the taking of the oath is in the discretion of the Commissioner who is appointed? In other words, the hon. the Prime Minister makes the promise but somebody else who has not made that promise has to fulfill that promise. The hon. member knows that if he makes promises, he carries them out, but he cannot make promises for other people. The hon. member knows that. I forgive the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for not knowing it because I understand that he is more a farmer than he is an advocate. But the hon. member for Zululand is more an advocate than he is a farmer and so ought to know this.

What do you know about it?

It seems to me as though the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) is very touchy. I am giving him the benefit of my knowledge and experience. I am giving it because the hon. member for Zululand has asked for it. I am not trying to parade my knowledge in this regard. It is not my custom to prepare hon. members opposite for an argument, but if I have to do so I do so unwillingly and in spite of my own good manners.

I said by way of interjection, in order to assist the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, that what he was referring to was Section 4, which provides whether a hearing should be held in camera or not, and not to Section 3 (4). But it does not actually make any difference. The point is that every time there is a hearing and a witness comes forward, the chairman has to decide whether that evidence shall be heard in private, in camera, or not. In other words, the chairman has continually to decide whether every new witness shall be heard in secret or not. This creates an impossible position on the part of the commission itself. What is more, if the chairman decides that the evidence shall be given in camera, there is no regulation which covers him. There is nothing which prevents the newspapers or any other member of the public keeping up a running commentary on his actions, something which cannot happen in court but which can happen in connection with a commission. It is absolutely necessary that this Act be reviewed and I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister of Justice is taking this step. For the benefit of the House I should like to read Section 4—

This is the rule—

He has to take ad hoc action in this regard on each commission. But when a regulation covers him then the promise can be made that everything will take place in camera, as the hon. the Prime Minister promised the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

What is more, this section certainly does not cover the case where a judicial commission can be subjected to pressure from various quarters because such commission is not a court. Even though it is a judicial commission, there is no process covering contempt of the commission. Under the circumstances I think it is very necessary that this can be done for the sake of the good progress of affairs. Mr. Speaker, I think that I have made out a case in this regard notwithstanding all this hot air about the Broederbond and the Freemasons which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition indulged in under Clause 13, which amends the Commissions Act.

I want to put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: What was his intention in giving the impression that such commission of inquiry was a court and in comparing it with the “Star Chamber” which was a political court in England and which was notorious for the fact that it did not pass fair judgment but that it passed judgments which the King wanted it to pass? Was he trying to insinuate that when we make regulations they will be intended to give effect to those things which the hon. the Prime Minister wants or which the State President wants? Or is this once again simply a continuation of the policy of the United Party under his guidance to make all sorts of disparaging remarks in order to feed the flames of the cold war which the people overseas are waging against us? I can give no other explanation for his actions in this regard. There is only one other alternative and I do not know which of the two alternatives is the more reprehensible. The other day the Liberal Party sent us all a circular and a portrait of Mr. Gander. In this circular I found the following interesting sentence—

I want to put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Did he make this accusation simply for the sake of the Sunday Times, which advocated this inquiry into the Broederbond and in order to carry out its commands? I can give no other explanation for his actions and explanation, which is to my mind just as reprehensible as the first explanation—that it is a pleasure and a privilege for him to feed foreign correspondents with all kinds of false relevancies in order to blacken our name overseas.

I come now to Clause 14 of the Bill, about which the hon. member for Zululand had so much to say, the Sobukwe clause, as the hon. the Minister has called it. I want to say very clearly and frankly what the feeling on this side of the House is, not because it is not known but because I think that it will be a good thing to formulate it again. It is a good thing for the Opposition to know what the feeling of the country is in regard to people like Sobukwe. Any person who is guilty of an offence under the Suppression of Communism Act and other laws forbidding Communism, is in our opinion a person who places himself beyond the category of the law. He is tainted with what is known in law as infamicr, he is tainted with what we call dishonour. Under the law of our country in bygone days those people who became so tainted became people without rights. They could not hold any office; they could not possess land; they were werewolves, in the folklore sense of the word. People who are guilty of crimes detrimental to the safety of the State are we feel people who have become rightless. If we do concede them anything, it is merely a concession and nothing more. That is why we on this side do not at all feel that when it is a question of security we are acting immorally or unjustly or unfairly.

I am surprised that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said while discussing Clause 22 that in terms of that clause an accused person would lose his right to cross-examine. Sir, if he had read Clause 22 well, he would have seen that under sub-section (3) of the new Section 60 a person who is accused in accordance with the facts that have been communicated to him, can receive a copy of the entire record. He can keep himself informed of all the accusations against him. He is summoned and all the facts are made available to him as though he were at a preparatory investigation. There is not the slightest reason why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should make that accusation.

May I ask a question? The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) in referring to Clause 22 and the proposed new sub-section (3) said that under the section as it is to-day an accused person who is joined during the preparatory investigation has a right to a copy of the record?

He can have one made.

The question that I want to put to the hon. member is this: Where in sub-section (3) does he find it provided that such person has the right to make a copy of the record bearing in mind the fact that the majority of records at such investigations are in shorthand?

Will the hon. member please read that sub-section again. The new sub-section (3) reads as follows—

Now he asks me: What if all the evidence has been recorded in shorthand? But these are not hieroglyphics. He can get somebody to read them to him. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked whether the hon. the Minister could not supply such person with a copy of the record, and the hon. the Minister said: “We can discuss that.” But it is not a question of shorthand which people cannot read; it is a question of the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has once again given the impression that we are not playing the game in accordance with the rules of the game. That is my accusation against him. It is not that he is ignorant. People make many mistakes. I have already made so many that one more will not make any difference, and I should imagine that he is in the same position. But the fact is that I have never dirtied my own nest. I have never given the outside world the impression that there are people in our country who are obsessed with the idea of humiliating people and of unjustly treating other people who are less privileged than they are. That is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has done and that is my accusation against him.

I should also like to discuss Clauses 27 and 29 together, that is to say, the amendments to Sections 212 and 254. Other hon. members have also done this. But before doing so, I want to make one further remark. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition complained that imprisonment of “not exceeding 12 months” was a too heavy penalty. Well, in terms of the Commissions Act the penalty for that same crime is six months. I have never heard hon. members object to that fact. In that case too it is also “not exceeding” six months. But the crux of the matter is this: Under the present Act, we can send a person to gaol for eight days at a time, but there is no crime. It is a crime in England and in all the other Anglo-Saxon countries from which we have also inherited much. It is a crime when a person who is a competent witness comes before the court and who does not answer the questions put to him. That is contempt of court. That has been the case over the years—since the year 1400. It was only in 1952 that that penalty was fixed at seven days in the lower courts in England. Before that it was always in the discretion of the court. I can give the House a vast number of examples of people who have been sent to gaol for as long as six months for that particular act of contempt. We say here “not exceeding six months”. This does not exclude the fact that the magistrate or the Judge can sentence such person to six days or seven days or three months, depending upon the contumelia which that particular witness has shown the court. I cannot understand that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can object to this. The principle is that it is a crime if a competent witness appears in court after he has been subpoenaed and refuses to say anything.

Why should it be fixed at eight days?

I shall tell the hon. member why. We are the greatest imitators one can find; we like imitating the British formulation. When I say “eight days”, it means that it is the practice in the British lower court to make it eight days.

Since when?

Since time immemorial, but this is not the case in the high courts. The high courts have a discretion, depending upon the case, and they still have it to-day. It is only in the magistrates’ courts in England that this penalty is seven days.

I want to take the matter further in connection with an accessory who is now compelled to give evidence. There are two facts in this connection that I want to put to the House. The one is that experience has taught us recently that our law of evidence is being misused. It is misused by accessories who tell the Attorney-General: “We will give evidence.” The Attorney-General knows nothing else but that such person will give evidence. He brings him before the court, puts him into the witness box and then those persons do not want to give evidence. What is the result? They can be accused of the main crime, but they know, particularly in regard to crime of sabotage, that everything has to be started from scratch again—a long drawn-out process. Now they take a risk. They take this risk: “If we keep our mouths shut or refuse to give evidence we stand the chance of not being prosecuted. What is more, we are protecting those people whose accessories we are.” So they are not punished if they give the police or the Attorney-General the false impression that they are going to give evidence or say that they are sorry for their crimes. They suffer a remorse brought on by fear; it is not genuine remorse. They make misuse of the opportunity and may perhaps go free. This happens simply because the prosecutor becomes discouraged.

I want to put a further point to hon. members and that is that in this case no injustice at all can be suffered by such accused person. He cannot be adversely affected because he comes before the court and he refuses to give evidence. We deal with him then as we would with a person who has to go to gaol for a year or less for contempt of court. If he talks he goes free under the provisions of this particular clause. The position is not as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has stated—that the person will now be compelled to give incriminating evidence against himself and that he does not have the advantage of refusing to give that evidence. Just the next section of the Criminal Procedure Act. Section 255, states expressly that when incriminating evidence is given by such a witness it shall not be used as evidence against him. That is why I say that I think that the hon. member for Zululand knew this but as far as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was concerned, I think he must say: “I am sorry I spoke.” Section 255 states that an accessory who gives evidence either under a pardon or because of a promise that no action will be taken against him or under any other condition, evidence which is incriminating evidence as far as he is concerned, can give that evidence without its being used against him. That particular evidence cannot be used against him.

But there is another point I want to put to the House: This right of silence of an accused person for which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Zululand have appealed, and for which I believe the other lawyers on the other side will appeal just now, this right of silence which any witness, or even any accused person or any suspected person has, is disappearing. It is not only disappearing in our country but has also been in disfavour in England for some years now. There was much opposition to this right of an accused person not to give evidence against himself. Jeremy Bentham has already said—I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister of Justice for his consideration that when he again introduces this sort of legislation we should give serious consideration to reviewing this right of an accused person of always refusing to speak when it is a question of whether or not he has committed a crime.

The Continent does not know it.

It is as the hon. the Minister says—the Continent does not know it at all. I am apparently talking to a semi-converted man. The position is very unsettled in England. As early as in the 18th century Jeremy Bentham had this to say—

Those words of Bentham were later quoted with great appreciation by Salmon in his “Jurisprudence” and in the 11th edition of Glanville Williams. Glanville Williams himself has expressed appreciation of this statement. In other words, this idea that an accused person cannot incriminate himself whether he is an accessory or whether he is a complete outsider, is losing ground. As an idea it is becoming obsolete. But hon. members opposite will again give the impression that we are trying to buck the ordinary prescriptions of decency and justice so that this fact can again be transmitted overseas so as to add to the image of South Africa over there in all its distortion and in all its unfairness.

I want to come back to some of the major principles in the Bill, and I want to say that if I had to sum up the proceedings this afternoon in one phrase, I would simply say “Here we go again”. Year after year the hon. Minister has got to come back to Parliament and ask for more powers, for an extension of the powers which he took in previous years, powers which were meant to be limited to a period of 12 months, powers which he took only “because a special situation had arisen”. Here we go again, as we have gone in this country since 1950 one might say, when the original Suppression of Communism Act was introduced.

Order! The hon. member must confine herself to the Bill before the House.

Yes, Sir, I am leading up to this, because after all, if I may point this out to you, this Bill amends the Communism Act, and therefore I submit that I am entitled to refer to the original. Year after year the hon. Minister comes back and tells us that circumstances have arisen which necessitate his taking even further powers. The reason is obvious. It is because he never tackles any of the basic reasons for the troubles which we have in South Africa. He always, invariably puts it down to communistic agitation and refuses to tackle a single racial grievance.

The same old story.

I have to come with the same story year after year because the hon. Minister comes along introducing the same sort of legislation year after year. The pattern does not change. There is one difference between the Bill that the hon. Minister is introducing this year and the proceedings that attend thereon, and the Bill which we had last year, and that is that at least the official opposition is opposing this in principle, and for that I am duly grateful. Maybe they have learned in the year that has passed that it is a dangerous thing indeed to give the hon. the Minister unbridled powers, and maybe they have learned also not to attach too much importance to the hon. Minister’s statements that he is only maintaining legislation for a fixed period of time, and that only if it is really necessary will he come back to the House and demand further powers. I knew this long ago. I knew this when the Unlawful Organizations Act was passed, an Act which the official opposition also supported in principle on the basis that the Minister would have to come back to the House to get renewed powers the following year.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Yes, Sir, this Bill also introduced that same principle of renewed powers …

What clause are you referring to now?

The Sobukwe clause. Last year the Minister took these powers which would have to be renewed each year by Parliament. I did not attach the same faith to the hon. Minister’s statements that in fact there was a possibility even then that he would not renew this clause, just as I attached no faith to his promise that he might not renew the Unlawful Organizations Act the following year, just as I attached no importance to the statement that he was not going to renew the clause which allowed him to gaol people without bail. That again is coming back this year.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Sir, may I point out to you that that is a clause of the Bill. Gaol without bail is one of the clauses of this Bill, and the hon. Minister is renewing that clause for a further year. I attach no importance to that because I know that once the hon. Minister has these powers he is not likely to give them up lightly, in fact he is not likely to give them up at all. My prediction then was, and my prediction again is, that we are unlikely to have the hon. Minister dropping any of the powers which he has taken in preceding years.

I don’t attach so much importance, although I intend to oppose it, to the so-called commission clause. Clause 13 to me is less important than other clauses in this Bill. It is certainly less important to me than Clause 14 which the hon. Minister has rightly called the Sobukwe clause, and it is less important to me also than other clauses such as 15, 29, 27, all of which I intend to oppose together with certain other clauses.

I do not accept that there is an urgency to re-introduce this sort of legislation. I did not accept it last year when it was introduced, when the power to detain people without trial, the 90-day clause, was introduced as a matter of urgency, when the Sobukwe clause was introduced as a matter of urgency, and which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to-day said he supported in principle because he believed that there was a certain real urgency about the situation in those days.

We did not support the 90-day clause.

You supported the Bill which contained the 90-day clause. It was the main principle of that Bill. The hon. Minister himself said it was the main principle.

They were very right in doing so.

They may have been right by your lights, but I am suggesting that it was the principle of the Bill that they supported. I did not believe that it was an emergency. If they were right to support the principle, then they were not right to oppose the clause in the Committee Stage. They cannot have it both ways. [Interjection.] I am arguing with the hon. the Minister, and not with the hon. member for Durban (North). Where I take umbrage at the hon. member for Durban (North) is that he made use of this later by going around the country and saying that I was supporting sabotage and bloodshed, the very sort of propaganda one expects from the Nationalist Party and which indeed they used against the United Party when it opposed the Sabotage Bill the year before. The hon. member accused me of that and I must say he did not earn the respect of his own colleagues at the Bar by doing so.

But to come back to the Bill. I did not be lieve there was a real urgency then and I do not believe there is urgency now. Last year, when this matter was of such great urgency that it had to be rushed through without any opposition except by myself at the second reading, the urgency was used as the excuse when there was no declared emergency or even an obvious emergency. In fact, when this House adjourned for an Easter recess, although the Snyman Report had been published on 6 March, this urgent legislation was only introduced six weeks later after everybody in the House had enjoyed the Easter vacation. So I do not believe there was any urgency then, nor do I believe there is any urgency now or any emergency which requires the Minister to take even more extended powers than he took last year. I would not support the so-called Sobukwe clause even if it related only to Sobukwe, as seems to have been suggested by the Opposition. To me, it abrogates a basic principle, that a man shall not be held in prison after he has served his term of imprisonment, at ministerial will.

It is not at ministerial will, but at the will of Parliament.

I will come to that in a minute, because I can see that the Minister is going to give me the same sort of argument that the hon. member for Heilbron gave me the other day, namely that any law passed by this Parliament makes whatever is done the rule of law, because it was passed by due process of this Parliament. Neither the hon. member nor the Minister can apparently distinguish between the rule of law and rule by law. It may be rule by law because it was passed by this Parliament, but that means that any law, no matter how absurd or oppressive, which is passed by constitutional means by this Parliament therefore falls within the ambit of the rule of law, and of course that is not so at all. The rule of law carries with it one very clear implication, and that is that it shall not be contrary to the accepted freedoms of the individual, which are freedom of speech and movement and association, subject only to the limitation that freedom is not licence and that one may not for example, use freedom of speech to libel his neighbour or use freedom of movement to trespass on some body else’s property.

Or that people may not subvert the country.

Yes, even that. The Minister may be surprised to hear that I agree with him there. But 90 days’ detention and keeping people in gaol after they have served their term of imprisonment, has nothing to do with what the Minister calls subverting the country, because the man should come up before a court of law and be tried for that crime, and if he is found guilty he can be sent to gaol again. Let us get this Sobukwe thing into perspective.

What was Sobukwe sent to gaol for?

Order! That is irrelevant now.

With due respect, the Minister and hon. members said that Sobukwe was a dangerous man, and therefore Clause 14 is being introduced, which again gives the Minister the right to hold him in prison without another trial. My contention is that we have lost all perspective. Sobukwe was in fact sent to prison for three years for incitement against the pass laws, and at the time of passing that sentence the Judge said that it was a severe sentence. Yet the Minister uses, this as an excuse again to introduce a law which permits him to keep a man in gaol who has served his term of imprisonment for the crime he committed. The Minister, in introducing the Bill to-day, said that Sobukwe had been a member of the P.A.C.

Not only a member, but the leader.

I think the Minister said he was involved in the Paarl riots, but I would like to point out that Sobukwe was in prison when the Paarl riots took place. He had been in gaol for three solid years when the Paarl riots took place. He could have had no contact with any of the people involved, and for all he knew, and in fact it is so, the P.A.C. had changed its entire complexion during those three years.

But he still regards himself as the leader of the P.A.C.

Yes, but does that mean that the Minister can keep him locked up for ever unless he simply says that he no longer regards himself as the leader of the P.A.C.? I now ask the Minister: Would he release Sobukwe if Sobukwe made a statement that he no longer regards himself as the leader of the P.A.C. and wishes to leave South Africa?

I will if I am certain that he has dissociated himself from the Communists or the P.A.C.

How can the Minister make certain of that when Sobukwe is sitting on Robben Island? Surely it is only after he is out and after the Minister has kept him under supervision or has put him under house arrest that he can even begin to decide whether Sobukwe has changed his attitude and whether he has in fact repented of his sin, which at that time was the comparatively minor sin of incitement against the pass laws. I say our whole sense of perspective has disappeared in respect of this man, because of the subsequent happenings with which he could not have had any possible connection.

Apart from that, I have objection to other clauses of this Bill, but I will leave the details of my objection to the Committee Stage. I am certainly going to oppose Clause 15 again. I opposed it last year, when the official Opposition did not oppose it, and I did so for good reasons, and I shall oppose the amending clause which goes even further.

I expect you to oppose it. You always run true to form.

Yes, and the Minister usually lives up to my expectations also, so that the feeling is absolutely mutual. There is no mention in the clause of training for sabotage, nor in the original clause, so the question of my supporting training for sabotage is quite irrelevant. The words are not even used in the clause. It simply says “training” and does not say for sabotage or violence or anything, nor does the amending clause say it. If the Minister reads the clause more carefully, he will know that he should refrain from using this phrase, “training for sabotage”, because his interpretation of this clause will not affect the way in which the courts interpret it. The courts have to stick to the wording of the text and it says nothing about training for sabotage. But I am not surprised at the Minister coming back to the House again with this Bill. It is the same story year after year, measure after measure and counter-measure after counter-measure, and it will go on happening in this country as long as we do not tackle the basic grievances. I said so in 1960 when I opposed the Unlawful Organizations Bill and I said so again in 1962 when I opposed the Sabotage Bill, and I said so last year, and I say so again now. Every single measure introduced by the Government without the consent of the people to whom these laws apply, has a counter-reaction, particularly when those people are not given political representation that means anything to them, and by that I do not mean separate representation in this House by a few members representing the vast bulk of the population; I mean Common Roll representation on a qualified basis, which will really mean something to these people. As long as they have no say in the laws which govern them, and have no legitimate means of voicing political opposition to the laws that are passed, we will have action and counter-action. There will be a law leading to protest, at first nonviolent, passive resistance. That gets put down because laws are passed prohibiting passive resistance, and so passive resistance becomes active or violent resistance. A lot has been said in this House in the last few hours about the Rivonia Trial, but one thing was not said, and that is what the prosecutor said in his opening address. He said: “By the latter half of 1961 the A.N.C., driven underground, had decided on a policy of violence.” What can we infer from that? My contention is that it is obvious that the A.N.C. did not go in for violence before it was driven underground. Luthuli did not preach violence before he was banned. He was one of the strongest opponents of violence. Now the A.N.C. has turned to violence. I am not denying it and I am not condoning it, but I say that by putting down the A.N.C. and introducing one oppressive measure after the other will not help because other organizations will take their place as long as there are no inquiries into the genuine racial grievances that people have.

What are they?

If the speaker would allow me to tell you.

Order! No, I will not allow it.

We can expect this pattern over and over in South Africa. It is the normal reaction to legislation which does not have the consent of the governed, followed by resistance, first passive and then violent, and followed again by more oppressive legislation, for the simple reason that apartheid, race discrimination, as I believe it to be, and the rule of law, are mutually incompatible. They cannot go hand in hand and therefore the Minister will come back to us again and again and demand more and more powers, and I will be very surprised if he comes back to us at any stage and suggests that he will repeal any of these vast powers of banning, punishment, house arrest, detention for 90 days and imprisonment for life, which is what it can be. In fact, I often wonder why people even worry about what sentences are passed for these political crimes, because the Minister can extend that sentence indefinitely simply by invoking Section 10 of the Suppression of Communism Act. We have lost all respect for the rule of law. Our protests become weaker and weaker. The House and the country are punch-drunk from the constant assaults on the rule of law which the Government and successive Ministers of Justice have administered. Therefore I shall oppose this measure in principle just as I opposed the parent measure last year, and I shall oppose many of the clauses in the Committee Stage, including those I have mentioned.

The hon. the Minister of Justice seems to be adopting the habit, when he introduces far-reaching measures such as the provisions contained in this Bill before us, of telling the House that in his opinion the measure concerned is necessary and expecting the House to accept that statement without any substantiation. The hon. the Minister adopted the same attitude during the discussion of his Vote in dealing with the renewal of the 90-day clause. He told us then that he intended to renew that clause at the end of June because he said it was necessary for the maintenance of the security of the State. I point out that that was merely a statement of his opinion, quite unsubstantiated. The hon. the Minister has adopted the same attitude to-day. In introducing this Bill he said that the provisions of the Bill are not only necessary but this time he added for good measure that they are reasonable and that they cannot be regarded as too contentious. I hope that when the hon. the Minister gets up to reply to this debate he, or perhaps one of the Government’s speakers before him, will tell us why the provisions to which we take exception are necessary. Sir, in dealing, for example, with Clause 23 the hon. the Minister dealt with it by simply saying that the majority of the Attorneys-General, though not all, have advised him to maintain this provision. That is all he said. He did not give the House the reasons of those Attorneys-General who did give him that advice.

We discussed that on so many occasions in this House.

The hon. the Minister says that we have discussed this on so many occasions in this House, It was pointed out by a previous speaker on this side—I think the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) —that since our last discussion, let alone our original discussion on this clause, the circumstances have changed completely and this House is entitled to know why, at the present time, under the circumstances which exist at present, the Minister seeks to renew this far-reaching provision enabling the detention of persons for 12 days at a time before they are brought before the court. It is not fair to this House simply to say, as the hon. the Minister does, that this has been discussed on a previous occasion. I mention this by way of an example.

I now come to the first of the clauses to which we take exception and that is what I will call the Broederbond Commission Clause. In introducing this clause to the House the hon. the Minister suggested that a commission of inquiry was not a court of law. I wonder why he did that. It seems to me it could only be to try in some way to place a commission of inquiry on a lower basis, a lower status, then a court of law and in that way to try to justify the provisions which the Government are now trying to introduce but which clearly do not apply in the case of courts of law, where the evidence is given in public and where it is within the discretion of the judicial officer to decide whether in respect of particular witnesses their evidence should be heard in camera. I would point out to the hon. the Minister that a commission of inquiry is an important body; it is a quasijudicial body and indeed in the majority of important commissions of inquiry in the past, a Judge of the Supreme Court has been appointed as Commissioner. The rules of procedure which govern commissions, that is to say, the rules of procedure laid down in the Commissions Act, are clearly based on procedures similar to those of courts of law, so there is no doubt whatsoever that particularly in the case of judicial commissions of inquiry they are regarded as being of an equivalent status to a court of law. The hon. the Minister suggested that all a commission of inquiry was required to do was to investigate the matter entrusted to it and that it was given the task of giving a finding of facts. Sir, that is so, but in what way does that differ from the position of a court of law? Surely a court of law is required to investigate the matter entrusted to it, namely, the guilt or otherwise of the accused person, and a court of law is required to give a finding of fact, namely, a finding as to whether or not the accused person is guilty or innocent of the charge. In those respects a commission of inquiry is certainly no different from a court of law in principle.

The hon. the Minister of Justice in introducing this clause, if I understood him correctly, said that the main object of this clause was to enable the domestic procedures of these secret organizations to be kept secret. I think I am right in saying that; the hon. the Minister nods his head. All I can say is that that does not coincide with the attitude of the hon. the Prime Minister who suggested that the entire evidence given before the commission of inquiry would be heard in secret …

You are talking absolute nonsense.

Does the hon. the Minister suggest that portions of the evidence heard by the Commission of Inquiry into Secret Societies, will be heard in public?

In so far as that is included in the terms of reference, and where they made themselves guilty of the acts referred to in the terms of reference the commission will say so in public.

Sir, this is certainly an interesting statement. I am very sorry that the hon. the Prime Minister is not in the House at present.

The Prime Minister said so and I said it when I moved the second reading.

I should have liked to have had the hon. the Prime Minister’s confirmation of this. However, one can certainly accept the word of the hon. the Minister’s justice.

The Prime Minister said so repeatedly.

Sir, this is really most interesting. Do I understand the hon. the Minister correctly that the only evidence given before the Commission of Inquiry into Secret Societies which will be given in camera will be those portions of the evidence of witnesses dealing simply with the secret procedures of these societies?

No. I will explain the position to you again when I reply.

I should have thought that it would be easy for the hon. the Minister to give an answer to that question across the floor of the House.

I will explain the whole procedure to you again. You do not understand it.

I hope the hon. the Minister will take an early opportunity to do so.

I have only one opportunity and that is when I reply to the debate.

Yes, that is true; I beg the hon. the Minister’s pardon.

Sir, the most serious objection to this commissions clause is that important commissions of inquiry should hold its sittings in public so that the public can have knowledge of the evidence which is lead and in that way bring its judgment to bear on that evidence.

Order! That point has been made before.

Yes, I do not wish to labour it. I mentioned it for this reason only that hon. members opposite have not shown why the existing provisions in the Commissions Act is insufficient or that it has operated to the detriment of commissions in the past. The hon. member for Zululand has pointed out that under the existing Commissions Act it is in the discretion of the Commissioner to hear particular witnesses in secret. He has pointed out also that it is in the discretion of the Commissioner to have a discussion with a particular witness as opposed to compelling a witness to give evidence on oath. That procedure was adopted in the case of the Snyman Commission. Under these circumstances this House is surely entitled to know from the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister why this provision is insufficient. This House is also entitled to know in what respects important commissions of inquiry which have been appointed in this country in the past have been hampered by not having had the provision which the Government now seeks to introduce. In the absence of any explanation from that side of the House I suggest that there can be only one reason for this and that is that the hon. the Prime Minister and hon. members opposite believe that the Commissioner in this case would rule that the majority of the witnesses should give their evidence in public, and that is something which members of the Broederbond in the Cabinet and on that side of the House wish to avoid at all costs.

That is a silly accusation.

If it is a silly accusation then I hope there will be an answer to some of the questions which have been put on this side and which I have reiterated for the purpose of getting some elucidation.

Sir, I want to deal with certain of the other clauses of this Bill to which we object. The hon. the Minister of Justice in dealing with Clause 22 said that that was not a new provision; that it appears in the existing law. That does not make that clause acceptable. What we would like to hear from the Minister of Justice is why he is not prepared to accept the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition that in circumstances of that sort, namely where a person is joined as an accused during the course of a trial, he should not be given a copy of the record. That surely is a reasonable request bearing in mind particularly, as I pointed out in asking the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) a question, that in important preparatory examinations nowadays the majority of the evidence is taken down either in shorthand is not readily available to accused persons or is taken down on tape and is likewise not readily available. Furthermore, in order to be in a position properly to cross-examine, an accused person who is joined during the course of the trial, is surely entitled to be able to study the evidence given to assess that evidence and to decide what questions to put either to subsequent witnesses or to the witness then appearing before the court.

He will have all the opportunity to study the evidence. We are not dispensing with that.

What I would like to know from the hon. the Minister, if an accused will have ample opportunity to study the record, is how that accused person is going to get a copy of the proceedings.

He will have access to the record.

The Minister’s explanation, with the greatest respect to him, is not reasonable at all, for reasons which I shall endeavour to bring to his notice. Firstly, it is not correct to say that the magistrate will read over to the accused the record. That is the position at the present day but this clause seeks to amend that by making it obligatory only to tell him the parts of the record which, in the opinion of the magistrate, are relevant. In other words, all that is necessary is to refer to the portions which the magistrate regards as necessary, not the whole record. It has been up till now one of the fundamental principles that an accused person, who has been joined at a late stage, should have the opportunity of examining the whole record to form for himself the conclusion as to what is relevant and what is not relevant and in that way to decide on how to cross-examine. So it is not sufficient simply to say that the purport of the evidence will be made known to him.

This is only a preparatory examination.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) says this is only a preparatory examination.

Order! That point can be cleared up in the Committee Stage.

I won’t press that, Sir. I accept your ruling.

I should like to deal with Clause 29. Under Clause 29 the hon. the Minister said that the position under the proposed amendment was that accomplices would now be obliged to give evidence but that if his evidence was accepted by the court as having been a full disclosure of what that witness knew he would automatically get an indemnity. The Minister has suggested that this brings accomplices into line with ordinary witnesses and should therefore be accepted by this side of the House. The law in regard to accomplices has indeed undergone a change but it has undergone, in my view, a change for the worse. The original law in regard to accomplices was that they could not be compelled to give evidence and that if they did give evidence their evidence was subject to the greatest scrutiny. The reasons for these two provisions were very good ones, in my submission, namely, that accomplices are persons who are involved in the crime and in order to exculpate themselves they may be tempted to incriminate the accused person …

That principle is not touched at all.

I appreciate that it is not being touched by this particular clause. I am pointing out the way in which the provisions relating to accomplices have been changed in the past, each step being, in my submission, a bad one until we come to the present one.

Order! The hon. member must not reflect on an Act of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the effects the Act has had. I suggest that the effect has been bad. I think I am entitled to say that.

Coming to the present proposed amendment we find that what the hon. the Minister now wants to do is to change the existing provisions which are that accomplices shall not be obliged to give evidence and particularly shall not be obliged to answer questions to incriminate them. He now wishes to change that so that accomplices will be obliged to give evidence and shall be obliged to answer questions even though they may incriminate them.

There is an indemnity.

Granted there is an indemnity. But, Sir, there is a very grave danger that under such circumstances an accomplice, even though he knows, and particularly because he knows he is going to get an indemnity, is going to give the sort of evidence which will help him to get an indemnity and that sort of evidence is generally evidence which will enable the accused person to be convicted of the offence with which he is charged. Sir, that is a very serious step to take. In my submission it is a bad retrograde step.

I now want to deal briefly with the last but one clause, namely, Clause 46. This clause has been justified by the hon. the Minister in this way: He has said that he has introduced this, firstly, because he must protect those persons who have made statements under questioning in terms of the 90-day clause. He said furthermore that it was justified because those statements might affect the security of the State and might be related, not only to the particular matter in respect of which the questioning was directed, but other matters as well. I fail to see how those can justify a provision of this sort, a provision which enables the State to withhold from a person who has been interrogated under the 90-day clause, a copy of any statement he had made. If a statement is given to that person it is up to him to decide whether he wishes to show it to anybody else. If he decides to show it to anybody else then he cannot complain and ask for the protection of the State. That is his own decision. For that reason I suggest there is no substance in that argument of the hon. the Minister’s to justify this clause.

I come now to his second argument to justify this clause, namely, that the statement affects the security of the State. If indeed that statement does it ought not to get into the wrong hands. Surely what can be done then is that if a person who has been interrogated under the 90-day provision is called into court to give evidence he ought to be allowed to refresh his memory by reading over that statement before he gives evidence. That is a normal principle which has operated in our law until the present time and it is an eminently fair provision.

This clause has nothing to do with that aspect.

I am surprised to hear the hon. the Minister say it does not deal with that aspect because this clause enables the State to withhold a copy of the statement from 90-day detainees.

Where do you get the idea from that a witness cannot refresh his memory?

If a copy of the statement may be withheld from him, which is the way it is put here, how is he able to refresh his memory? If the hon. the Minister has an answer to this we should very much like to hear it because as the clause stands at the moment it seems to us to operate most unfairly against persons who have made statements under these circumstances. The only objection which the Minister has raised, namely, the question of the security of the State, can quite easily be controlled in the way I have suggested.

For these various reasons we shall oppose this Bill and in particular the clauses we have mentioned.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said amongst other things this afternoon that he believes that the provisions in connection with the law dealing With the appointment of commissions will be of application in this particular case to the commission which has been asked for. In pursuance of Clause 13, I just want to say that I cannot understand how the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can think that all the provisions as they exist in the Commissions Act will of necessity have to be applied. When one reads Section 1 of that Act, one finds that it states specifically—

In other words, in the very first paragraph of this Act provision is made for fluidity in regard to the appointment of such commission. The Stae President has the power to determine by proclamation that at least one or more of the provisions of this Act shall be of application and that others shall not be of application. And so the conclusion which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has drawn here to the effect that the Act as it stands must of necessity be of application in this case is completely illogical.

The existing Act is a very short one and in the circumstances I think it is to be understood that special circumstances must be created especially in the case of a commission such as the one which is now being suggested. In regard to a commission of this nature, particularly one has to consider the fact that it is a commission dealing with secret organizations. The hon. member who spoke before I did said that it is possible that none of the evidence adduced before that commission will be made public. I cannot see why the hon. member should of necessity have come to that conclusion. When the hon. the Prime Minister made the announcement in connection with the commission he stated emphatically—and I think we agree—that there are organizations in this country which are of a secret nature. The attacks that have been made against one of the organizations have been made because it is apparently interfering with and bringing pressure to bear on the administration.

Order! I do not want any hon. member to deal with the merits of the inquiry.

No, Mr. Speaker. With respect, I just want to point out to the hon. member that in terms of the announcement itself, this is necessary, and one would expect part of that evidence to be made public. The only matter of interest in connection with this specific inquiry is in how far the organizations exert a detrimental influence upon the administration of the country and the safety of the State. In so far as that portion of the inquiry is concerned and in so far as the evidence in regard to these matters is concerned, it is obvious that the Judge will in his report make quotations from that evidence in regard to such matters. This is the reason why the hon. the Minister of Justice has told the hon. member that it is so obvious, because, after all, that is the purpose.

But I want to come back now to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The main objection which the Opposition have to Clause 13 is that Clause 13 makes provision for regulations to be made to provide for four possibilities. These are: The additional powers of such commission, the manner in which the investigaion shall be held, the procedure to be followed at such investigation and the preservation or otherwise of secrecy. Their main objection is in regard to the question of secrecy. But because this is a fluid Act, that is to say, the Commissions Act. and although these regulations will merely make provision for the procedure to be followed and for additional powers, the preservation of secrecy and so forth, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said, amongst other things: “Justice must be seen to be done”. He referred more particularly to the fact that this could take place in secret. The only conclusion that jj can draw from this remark is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has no real confidence in the commission. If he had confidence in the commission which has already been appointed and in the Commissioner who has just already been appointed, it would not be necessary for him to express doubt as to whether justice would be done on that commission. I do not want to go any further into this matter but I think it is unfortunate that a doubt as to whether it will be a proper inquiry should be expressed in regard to the appointment of a commission of this nature.

I want to air a few ideas in regard to the principles of a few of these clauses. I want in the first place to refer to Clause 22 which deals with the evidence of an accessory, and also in pursuance of what was said by the hon. member who spoke before I did in regard to the evidence which will apparently not be made available to the persons joined with the accused. Sir, if you will look at Section 60 of the Criminal Procedure Act. you will see that there is an obligation upon the magistrate to read out the evidence to the accused person. The hon. member has told us that circumstances may arise when the evidence may be in shorthand or be recorded and he asked how any person joined with an accused person could then read that evidence. But, Sir, if this provision is read together with the existing Section 60 in which provision is made that the evidence must be read out, if we are now making provision whereby the evidence as a whole will not be read out—in many cases this will merely be a waste of time —but that only a summary will be given of the evidence led before the person joined with the accused appeared on the scene, then it must be available because otherwise it cannot be read. And if it is available then the accused person has access to it. Special provision is being made whereby he will be able to inspect such evidence which will be made available to him. He will also be able to make copies of that evidence. The question was asked today by way of interjection whether the hon. the Minister would be prepared in such a case to give an accused person a copy of the evidence. The hon. the Minister said: “We can discuss that matter”. It may perhaps be possible to do so.

We have already done so.

Yes: I just want to point out that the hon. member is only chasing up phantoms. There are no phantoms where he sees them to be.

When we look at Clause 23 in regard to the 12-day bail provision, we know that any accused person has to appear before the court within 48 hours and that it is then in the discretion of the court whether such accused person shall be allowed out on bail or not. We have had to deal with exceptional circumstances over the past years, and not only here; this has been the case throughout the world. We find that we have the type of accused person who cannot be left at liberty for particular reasons which are known only to the police or to the Attorney-General. If such person is allowed out on bail, he will do those wrong things which we do not want him to do. That is why it is not always possible, although the court has a discretion in this regard and the court can decide that he be released on bail, to furnish the court with these particular reasons in order to convince the magistrate of this fact. It is for this reason that this provision is again being renewed for a year. The Attorney-General will be able to issue an order whereby such person will not be allowed bail for at least 12 days.

I come now to Clauses 27 and 29. These are clauses which must be read together. Clause 27 makes provision whereby an ordinary witness can be imprisoned for 8 days if he refuses to give evidence. It is obvious that after 8 days he can again be imprisoned tor a further 8 days. The position is now being changed. In fact, I cannot understand why the Opposition object to these clauses. There is actually nothing in them. The clause as it is now being amended—to leave it to tfye discretion of the court to determine the period— is an important change. It is not 12 months but “not exceeding 12 months”. In other words, this is now in the discretion of the court and the court can now say: I am sending you to gaol for three days; or: I am sending you to gaol for nine months. This is in the discretion of the court. What I do want to emphasize is the fact that when the court imprisons such person for a specific period it is not necessary for that person to spend all that time in gaol. Under sub-section (3) provision is made whereby a court may at any time on good cause shown remit any punishment or portion thereof imposed by it under sub-section (1). In other words, if a man is imprisoned and he decides at a certain stage of that imprisonment that he wants to talk, that he wants to tell his story, and he makes known the fact that he is prepared to tell his story and he does so, then the court has the power to remit that portion of the sentence which has been imposed upon such person and which that person has not yet served. When we look at Clause 29 which is also opposed in principle by the Opposition, we see that we have to deal with an accessory who, as the position is to-day may be prepared at a preparatory examination to tell his story, to give evidence, but who, when he has to give evidence at the main trial, refuses to do so and is protected by the fact that no action can be taken against him. He is not an ordinary prisoner who can be punished because he was given protection when he gave evidence at the preparatory examination. That is why provision is being made here now that a person who refuses to give evidence at the main trial will lose the protection previously given him. But as is very clearly stated here, when he does give evidence, he enjoys protection. Actually, he has a double assurance and protection. Express provision is made in Clause 29 (2) which in the first instance makes provision for that protection to be given to him, but he also has a further protection in terms of Section 255 of the Criminal Procedure Act which was mentioned by the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze). There is not very much therefore in Clauses 27 and 29 and the Opposition have not really been able to make out a case against the amendments proposed in those two clauses. They are good changes.

I want to conclude. Powers and provisions are being asked for in this Bill which the Opposition are opposing. I think that it can to some extent rightly be said that some of these powers are far-reaching powers. I should like to see that we keep as far as possible to the principles of our common law. But when circumstances regarding the safety of the individual and the safety of the State require us to make these powers available, we would be neglecting our duty if we did not do so. It is as clear as daylight to my mind that the safety of the State is more important than the freedom of the individual.

Business suspended at 6.45 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller), who is not present this evening, but who explained to me his inability to be present, in the course of his address, said that, whilst his objective was to try to deal with some of the principles of the Bill, he wanted to say that he nevertheless preferred to hold to established principles and would be sorry to see them disturbed. He felt that when it was in the interest of the safety of the State these principles would have to go by the board and provisions would have to be made which would ensure that safety. It seemed consistent with the Minister’s approach, who said that he preferred to deal with the Bill in the Committee Stage when the various clauses could be considered in detail. He did not seem to be so much concerned with the principles of the Bill.

There are 46 principles in the Bill.

This side has seen the pattern which the Bill creates, particularly in eight of the clauses, and we see a very important principle, and that is of ensuring that the rule of law and the established principles of our legal system should be regarded with as grave concern as possible before they are disturbed in any way. The Minister, of course, said that he was motivated by certain factors which concerned the safety of the State. As was pointed out by this side of the House, some of the fears we had in the past, and which was the cause of some of these provisions in earlier legislation have now virtually been allayed because there is a different situation in South Africa to-day than there was two or three years ago. So we believe that this Bill must be opposed and that the provisions which the Minister seeks to extend are provisions which he could well have allowed to lapse, particularly because he has sufficient law at his behest to maintain the good order and safety of the State.

There are certain of the clauses in the Bill which obviously have disturbed us and which, as our leader rightly pointed out, form a type of legislation which creates a very bad image of South Africa abroad. Now, we are not really worried about the image created if we find that legislation is essential for the safety of the State and so we have in the past supported certain measures of a similar nature under conditions entirely different from those which we find to-day. But in the course of supporting that legislation, we sought the protection of Parliament to ensure what is actually taking place to-day, namely, that before some of these provisions are extended further, Parlia ment should give its approval and it should have an opportunity of reviewing and debating those provisions. I would like to say that it is to the credit of Parliament in our country that we are able to review these particular provisions and to reassess the situation and to assure ourselves that it is not necessary to put legislation on the Statute Book which infringes, as it would, certain of our well-established legal principles and which should only be done in so far as they are absolutely necessary.

Another very disturbing clause is Clause 13, to which much attention has been given. It deals with a change in the manner in which commissions shall be conducted. The hon. member for Ceres went to great pains to explain to the House that Clause 1 in the Act actually did contain the power to set up a commission and to lay down the manner in which it is to be conducted, but what he did not tell the House was that in amending Clause 1, without disturbing the other features of the Bill, we have virtually placed in the hands of the Minister or the State President the power of restricting and limiting the other provisions of the present Statute. So that the new clause virtually contains an entirely new principle in regard to the procedure in conducting judicial commissions. In other words, what we have been accustomed to in regard to commissions, a system which has proved successful over the years and which has weathered some very difficult storms, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Zululand, has now been completely disturbed and the effect of the clause is virtually to negate much of what is contained in the Act. We regard this as a disturbing feature and the public has been rightly disturbed by this proposed legislation to meet the Prime Minister’s desire to conduct an investigation into the Broederbond and other secret organizations in a manner quite extraordinary in so far as judicial commissions in our country are concerned. We were very satisfied with the establishment of a judicial commission and we were under the impression that the commission would be conducted in accordance with the present law. This is obviously an instruction to the Minister who, as a member of the Cabinet, must ensure that legislation is provided to satisfy the requirements of the Cabinet. Here we have a law specially designed for a type of judicial commission which does not meet with the approval of the public. What is the object of a commission of inquiry into the activities of these secret societies?

Order! We are not discussing organizations now.

I only want to deal with the viewpoint of the public in regard to the form of judicial commissions, and I want to make it clear that these organizations are satisfied to have their affairs fully discussed in public. They have said so. [Interjections.] The Freemasons have said publicly that they do not mind if every facet of their work is examined. They are prepared to give the necessary evidence and to make their officers available in the commission. The Sons of England have said the same thing. The Prime Minister at one time said that he would like to examine the affairs of the Anglo-American Corporation, and I am sure that they would be perfectly happy to submit to a commission of inquiry as it exists at present. Therefore, it is not surprising that we must voice very strong protest at this clause which virtually negates the whole of our judicial commission procedure which has hitherto upheld a very high standard of justice in this country. That is a matter which is of considerable concern and in itself it is sufficient for us to move the amendment we have moved that this Bill be read this day six months.

Then we come to Clause 14, known as the Sobukwe clause, and here I would like to say that the hon. member for Ceres and the other few speakers on that side have not gone to the trouble of explaining the principle on which they support legislation of this kind. They gave us the details of how it would work in practice, but that is not the matter at issue in this Bill. We know from a careful analysis of the wording of the Bill how it will work in practice, and the Minister will obviously elucidate that further, but we are concerned with principles. Here a whole new principle is continued to be applied in order to protect our country from one individual. Many of us feel a little ashamed of the Minister’s admission that this Sobukwe is such an important figure in the life of this country that we must pass a general law amending the principles of our law, and not just a specific provision to deal with a dangerous individual. Have we not had dangerous individuals in the past? Is not the whole of our history characterized by numerous cases where men as dangerous as the Minister alleges Sobukwe is have been subject to the ordinary laws of the country, and the country was protected from them? We have had riots and strikes and even rebellions at a time when this country was at war, and yet we have not found it necessary to pass a general law. We have passed specific laws for a specific period, and perhaps rules and regulations to deal with an emergency, but here we are entrenching something in the law and because it may be applied for another year and possibly still another year, we are seriously disturbed. The other thing is this, that we have all sorts of criminals walking around who have served their sentences and some of whom are much more dangerous than this political prisoner we are trying to contain. I sometimes think of the serious crimes for which people have received long sentences and then those people have gone back among the public after serving those sentences and have been chased again by the police because they commit other crimes. Are we passing a general law to deal with those people? No, I think in principle this type of legislation must be rejected and I am sure that the public of the country, despite the assurances of the Minister that we require this protection, would not like to see legislation like this placed on the Statute Book.

Then on the question of Clause 22, in regard to evidence, there is just one point I should like the Minister to deal with in his reply, and that is this, that strangely enough although Clause 65bis of the Code has a similar provision, this has a slightly different context, because in 65bis it deals with the case where a person is charge or arraigned ab initio and then he is absent for some reason or another like illness, or he has absconded, and so the examination is continued in his absence and when he returns he is given certain information. But interestingly enough, Section 65bis says the court will give him the purport Of the evidence that has been led. In this provision it merely says that he will be briefly informed of the nature and purport of that evidence. I would like to see that at least a brief summary of the evidence should be given to him by the court itself; in other words, the magistrate should do so. If the Minister says that that will be so, then that should be incorporated in the clause just as it was incorporated in Section 65bis.

On the question of the 12-day detention clause, the Minister knows that this has been opposed year by year. If the Minister will have a look at the discussion on it in 1961, he will find that cases have been quoted which set out very clearly indeed the fact that there is sufficient power in the hands of the courts to maintain such detention without bail for longer than 48 hours. The man will be arraigned and his case will be remanded and applications to the Supreme Court for bail can be dealt with by the courts, which have a very wide discretion. We know what the reason for this was. I am not surprised that the Minister was very perturbed at the time. There was the case of a person who subsequently got the life sentence and who estreated his bail, even though the bail was very high. The Attorney-General opposed bail, but nevertheless the accused applied to the Supreme Court and bail was granted and he estreated his bail and it caused the police a considerable amount of trouble. So one is not surprised at that, but I do not think it is necessary to continue this type of provision in our law. We talk about the fact that it creates a bad image. That is because we are concerned with the image of South Africa. The Prime Minister to-day dealt with the image created by the Rivonia Trial. While South Africa as a country can hold its own, we must nevertheless live with friends. I think it is conceded on all sides that we must have friends and I do not think the friends whose cause we are espousing and whose interests we say we are protecting, namely the Western nations—would like to see the changes. I do not see why we should not as far as possible endeavour to maintain our legal and legislative institutions on lines similar to those accepted by them, a system which has over the centuries developed into the modem system of the rule of law as we know it. These Western nations all abide by it and if we create an image, that image must be acceptable to them because it is their cause we say we are fighting and it is their friendship we are looking for. We are their allies in opposing Communism. Why must we constantly come into conflict with them and be criticized by them over the type of provision which perhaps in the wisdom of the Minister might have been necessary at one stage but which to-day, according to his own admission, is not really necessary? I am not prepared to believe that the Minister will say that we are in a state of crisis or emergency. We are very proud indeed of our security forces who have brought the difficult position of South Africa on a very much more level plane and brought a sense of security into the hearts of our people. But a Minister must use his wisdom and must not be an automaton and continue to have on the Statute Book legislation which he himself as a legal man would normally find abhorrent.

To come to Clauses 27 and 29, which deal with the accomplices and their compulsion to give evidence which may tend to incriminate them, even a young student of law knows that it is one of the cardinal principles of our law, namely that a man should not be compelled to give evidence which may incriminate him. The members of the Bar Council have approached the Minister in order to discuss this matter. They are very perturbed. They do not want to interfere with the highest legislative body in the country, but there are cases when they are compelled as a matter of duty to the public and the courts of which they are officers to make representations to the Minister. He has met them in certain respects, but I think that Clauses 27 and 29, which must be read together, have a very unsavoury feature. For instance, even in sub-section (2) of the new Section 254. the question of answering to the satisfaction of the court still remains. It is something similar to the concession in regard to the words which the Minister has agreed to delete in Clause 27.

As a lawyer you know that he must answer to the satisfaction of the court.

I would rather say this, that if you leave out these words it would read “if such person fully answers all such lawful questions as may be put to him”. How are we to define “to the satisfaction of the court”?

Order! I think that is a point which should not be discussed now.

I was only replying to the Minister. I would like to say that it indicates that the Bar was perturbed, and we are perturbed, and I do not know, in view of what has happened, that it is not unnecessary to have an amendment like this which makes such a fundamental change in our law of evidence.

By and large, I think that as the Minister had an appeal made to him on a previous occasion, an appeal should be made to him again to have the courage to administer the affairs of our country with confidence and not to clothe himself with extraordinary measures which he would normally not have thought of applying. He should have the courage to rule without having to use these measures. That would show the measure of confidence which our country has. It would hold us closer together and allay the fears in the minds of the public. Why is the Minister of Justice seeking these extraordinary powers? Is there something wrong? That is what the public thinks. The Minister must not think that he represents more than just a section of the people. The people of South Africa still have the right to vote and to change the Government. We represent nearly 50 per cent of the public, but I am almost sure that on legislation of this nature we represent the majority of the people. In that sense I would like to make this point to the Minister. The public has a sense of confidence in the authority of our country and in the manner in which peace and good order are being preserved, but the Minister cannot hold the view that the public is anything but concerned and worried when it finds that extraordinary legislation has to continue to be imposed year after year. I do not want to use any strong words in regard to the Minister because I am sure that as a South African he means well by the country and tries hard to do his duty, but he is misguided and it is our duty to point out to him that he should have much more confidence in the people of the country. We South Africans should have confidence in ourselves and we should not rule our country by the iron laws which are built as concrete beams all round our country. We must not fence the country in. We must be able to measure up to the problems that face our country as we did iia days gone by where we did so not only with credit to ourselves but with credit to the Legislature and to South Africa.

There are about 38 different matters provided for in this measure and I agree with the hon. the Minister that it is quite unnecessary to discuss every clause. I have also been restricted in my time by the Whips and must confine myself to one matter only, the matter raised by the hon. members for Florida (Mr. Miller) and Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). They again said that we had apparently departed from the “principles of the rule of law” in 8 clauses of the Bill, two of which I want to mention specifically. These are the bail clauses in terms of which a man cannot be allowed bail within 12 days and the Sobukwe clause in terms of which a person can be detained after he has served his term of imprisonment. These hon. members are always trading on the fine phrase “the rule of law”, without giving us a definition of this phrase. The hon. member for Houghton made an accusation against me the other day. She said that my idea was not the “rule of law” but “rule by law” and that “rule by law” did not form part of the “rule of law”. The “rule of law” is simply this—and if she knew anything about the law she would perhaps know it—that no person can be deprived of his rights, his personal rights, his right to his possessions or any right that he has, either by the authorities or by a private person, without there being a specific provision in the law to that effect. If a private person interferes with the rights of anyone and that person does not have the right to do so in terms of the laws of the country, action can be taken against such person and an application can be made for the restoration of those rights. In the same way nobody can be deprived of his rights by any organ of the State, whether that organ is the Government or even the court. The court cannot deprive a person of his rights either unless there is a specific “rule of law” in that regard which gives the court that specific right. Let me eive an example of a person who can be deprived of his rights administratively but in terms of the law. If a person is insane he can be deprived of his personal rights by the process of administrative law without a court judgment. I want to point out in this connection that the “rule of law” does not mean “rule by the courts”. These hon. members have the idea that the “rule of law” means that one has first to be found guilty by a court before one can be deprived of one’s rights. But this is not the case at all. I want to quote the British law, and specifically, the case of Rex v. Halliday, which was heard by the House of Lords in 1917. This dealt with the difference which exists between what we call punitive law and preventative law, the law which imposes punishment and the law which exists to keep people out of trouble, to ensure that law and order is maintained and to prevent the commission of wrong actions. Lord Atkinson who pronounced judgment, had the following to say—

The Judge went on to give an example in this regard. He mentioned an example from the year 1360, four centuries before. This provision has been part of British law for more than four centuries and has not yet been repealed. He said—

In other words, one can take such person and imprison him without trial because he is not of good fame; the word “infamia” used by the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) this afternoon has the same meaning.

Was that before the Magna Charta?

Order! Is the hon. member for Point (Mr. Raw) making jokes?

No: I was merely asking whether this happened before Magna Charta.

The hon. member knows nothing about Magna Charta. There are three interesting points concerned in this matter. The first is that this provision has remained part of the law of Britain for so long, the country from which America took her laws and the country where the rule of law has always held sway. That is the first point. The second point which is of interest is the example that a person can be imprisoned without trial because he does not have a good name and will probably act contrary to the safety of the State. I want to make this further quotation—

Not only now when there is a state of emergency, as we heard from the hon. member, but even during normal times—

He is not tried by a court—

I mention Sobukwe as an example in this regard. We know that he is the leader of the P.A.C. and that he will make contact with the communists. What I have quoted is part of a judgment of the court in England.

It is nonsense!

The Judge went on to say—

Lord Atkinson went on to say—and on this note I want to conclude my speech—

Let me say this. It is contended and the allegation is made that this clause has been included in the Bill specifically for Sobukwe. I strongly deny that. This clause was not framed specifically for Sobukwe.

The hon. the Minister said so.

It is true that Sobukwe is the only person who is being detained in terms of this provision, but the clause is not intended for Sobukwe only, because other cases of this nature may possibly arise. [Interjections.]

Order, order!

I want to say that Sobukwe is a dangerous person. We are grateful that the hon. the Minister has, during the past year and in terms of the laws which he has had at his disposal, taken such effective action that it was not necessary for him to detain other Sobukwes under this provision. But the hon. member for Florida has told us that we want to extend the provisions of this clause year by year. But this was not the hon. the Minister’s idea. The provision that it should be extended from year to year was incorporated in the Act at the request of the Opposition. It was they who said that we should ask for this power to be extended year by year. They did not want us to place a permanent Act on the Statute Book as the British did in 1370. They asked that this provision should be reviewed from year to year. And yet the hon. member for Florida has accused us of coming to this House year after year to reaffirm this provision in order to keep Sobukwe in prison and to apply this “preventive justice”. Is that fair and just?

May I ask you a question?

No, I am sorry, but my time is limited. I want to emphasize the fact that we must take these steps, not because, like the hon. member for Florida, we have no self-confidence. We have self-confidence, but we do not have confidence in the other people who want to undermine our authority. It is only a man who is living in a fool’s paradise who cannot realize that a large-scale cold war is being waged to-day. It would only have been a person living in a fool’s paradise who would not this afternoon have listened attentively to the hon. the Prime Minister when he issued a warning about the tidal wave of Communism which will break, not only against the West, but also over the whole of Africa if it is not stopped. It will only be a person living in a fool’s paradise who will close his eyes and say that we must sacrifice all our freedom for the sake of the freedom of one or two individuals. We cannot play with saboteurs and we may not play with Communism. That is why we must act as we are acting here. Let us, therefore, consider the matter in the serious light in which it must be considered. Just look at what happened in Zanzibar. It was just after the British Government had renounced its authority there that the communists took over the state. If we want to act just as stupidly by not being prepared, we may also find ourselves in the same predicament.

I do not intend following the hon. member as far back as he has gone, i.e. back to 1360. When one listens to the hon. member one has great difficulty in understanding why Dicey, whose traditional concept of the rule of law is one which all students have to learn, was allowed to survive in England. If the hon. member is to be believed this state of 1360 should have been applied to Dicey and he should have been turned on a spit or stretched on a rack. But, as I say, I do not want to go back as far as 1360. I am happy to dwell no further back than the good old days of yore when the United Party was the Government of this country. I want to go back only to 1947, i.e. the year in which the Commissions Act was placed on the Statute Book. This Act was passed by a United Party Government as an unopposed measure. All the Opposition’s (i.e. the Nationalists’) spokesmen had to say about it was to make some suggestions about the victimization of witnesses and costs of proceedings. As was the wont and as one would expect from a United Party Minister, he said he would postpone the Committee Stage of the Bill so that the hon. member might have time to bring forward his objections. But when the Committee Stage came, there were no amendments. So the Commissions Act was an agreed measure and has remained a satisfactory statute until this year. Why, in 1964, i.e. 16 years later, is it now no longer the sort of statute we need for commissions? Because the hon. the Prime Minister was placed in a corner by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition about the Broederbond and now the law no longer applies to the Broederbond. Now the law is no longer good for us because the hon. the Prime Minister finds himself in a corner. Is that not the reason? Or is there any other reason why in 1964 we should amend the Commissions Act? Can the hon. the Minister of Justice indicate to us which commissioners have complained about the Commissions Act? Is there a commissioner that has complained about this Act? I do not think so. So this Government is changing it because it is going to be in trouble if the Broederbond is investigated. That is the simple reason why we have these proposals.

Order! Is the hon. member not now traversing ground which has already been traversed?

No, Mr. Speaker. I do not intend covering ground which has already been covered. But the hon. Prime Minister did indicate …

Order! I hope the hon. member means by that that he is going to come back to the Bill?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. One of the things the Prime Minister did about this clause, i.e. Clause 13, was that he cavilled at what the Leader of the Opposition had to say about it, i.e. that it would provide a sort of star chamber or inquisition. But the words which the Leader of the Opposition used were not words which he sucked out of his thumb. They were not unreasonable words. Indeed, in a commission into the Inidan riots held under this very Act we now seek to amend, the late Mr. Justice van den Heever spoke about the functions of commissions under this Act. He said that the commission was in effect a sort of inquisition. He said it was the purpose and duty of the commissioner to find the answer to certain questions stated in the terms of reference. He said of the commission that it was responsible for the collection of evidence, for taking statements from witnesses and for testing the accuracy of such evidence by inquisitorial examination, i.e. “in the canonical and not in the Spanish sense”. That is the essence of commissions. Of course a commissioner has to be an inquisitor if he has to but then not in the Spanish sense of the word but in the canonical sense. And if the Prime Minister cavils at what my hon. leader said, then I want to ask this Minister, who is going to reply, whether it is not in fact a sort of Spanish inquisition when you can ask a person questions to which he has no right to refuse a reply upon the grounds set out in the Commissions Act, i.e. that he may incriminate himself, or on any of the other grounds which the law provides for the protection of the individual. But if the commissioner has the right to force a witness to answer those questions, is it then not a sort of Spanish inquisition rather than a canonical one?

It is of no use the hon. the Minister saying, as he did by way of an interjection when someone else was speaking, that the terms of reference of this commission will not include that, because that can be included. And when in 1947 the whole country agreed to the Commissions Act, it agreed to it on a certain basis, i.e. that protection would be given to witnesses so that it would not develop into a Spanish inquisition. But the powers which exist under this Act make this Bill unnecessary. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why he does not just repeal the Commissions Act? Why does he not simply repeal the Commissions Act and stipulate that the State President may by regulation provide exactly what is provided for in Clause 13 of this Bill? Why does he not say that? Why does he pretend that there is some sort of Commissions Act applying in this case, while it does not in fact apply at all? The whole show is being given away by the word “secrecy”.

When the hon. member for Ceres, who is unfortunately not present in the House now, said that all that was being provided for was that certain domestic aspects of the inquiry into the Broederbond be kept secret, then one feels constraint to ask why, if that is so, is it not stated in the Bill? Why has everything else in this country to be sacrificed for the Broederbond? Why has the Commissions Act to be sacrificed for an investigation into the Broederbond?

What is being sacrificed?

The rights of every single person who gives evidence before a commission if this Government wants them to sacrifice it. And goodness knows, they will want them to sacrifice it if the lamb is to be the Broederbond. But perhaps the worst thing the hon. member for Ceres said was that the hon. Leader of the Opposition did not have faith in the commissioner. But what chance is this commissioner going to have to get to the truth? What possible chance can he have of finding the truth in this matter if the inquiry is going to be secret? Who is then to know what evidence has been led, who is then to say that the commissioner should lead certain evidence, and who knows what evidence has been led so that he might controvert that evidence? Indeed, who is going to be aware of anything at all? Who is to know whether there is in fact something to defend?

Order! The hon. member must leave that and come back to the Bill.

Yes, Mr. Speaker and accordingly I come to the “Sobukwe clause” as the hon. the Minister calls it.

Order! I think Sobukwe has already taken up sufficient time of this House.

But I do not want to speak about Sobukwe, Mr. Speaker. I want to speak about all the other people who may come under this clause. We understand that there are more than 700 political prisoners, or at least prisoners who have committed offences to which this clause relates. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what he plans to do with them? Does he plan to hold them under this clause?

Whom do you have in mind?

There are supposed to be 700-odd people in the various prisons of the country who have committed that sort of offences to which this clause relates. A lot of them are apparently on Robben Island. I want to ask the Minister how many people will in fact be detained under this clause? How many will be detained after their sentences have expired?

For the present no one.

I presume the Minister can say that because for the present none of them has as yet served their full sentences.

I have nobody else in mind.

So this is a “Sobukwe clause”?

Then we have a most extraordinary situation. Does the Minister’s answer mean that all the people who were members of the organization of which Sobukwe was the chief, will be allowed out and that only Sobukwe will be kept in?

But do you not know that all of them got longer sentences than he did?

I do not know …

Then you do not read the newspapers.

I think the worst clauses we have in this Bill, clauses relating to the power the hon. the Minister wants, are Clauses 27 and 29. Hon. members opposite have dealt with these two clauses together and very rightly so. That which is being provided for in these two clauses is something quite new in our law. Clause 29 deals with accomplices and the law of accomplices is that you may submit yourself to the court. That is the law to-day. You may submit yourself to the court to give evidence if you are an accomplice and if you give evidence to the satisfaction of the court and answer questions satisfactorily, you can get an indemnity from the court whether the accused has been found guilty or not. But in the section which it is now proposed to amend by Clause 27, it is provided that if a witness does not want to give evidence then the court can commit that person to gaol for eight days at a time, but note: eight days at a time and the proceedings of the court where that person is giving evidence, will adjourn for eight days at a time. Now this period is to be lengthened to one year. The Minister in trying to defend these clauses has not really succeeded in doing so. The best thing he could say in respect of Clause 29 is that the Cape Representative of the General Council of the Bar in South Africa has agreed to it, and the best thing he could say about Clause 27, which is the compulsive clause, is that the Bar has suggested to him, a suggestion which he accepted, to remove the words “fully and satisfactory”. This means that a person no longer has to answer any question “fully and satisfactorily” but merely has to answer any question put to him. The present position, therefore, remains unaltered. But this alteration effected at the behest of the General Council of the Bar does not alter the principles contained in these clauses one iota. What, now, are the principles contained in these clauses? Taking these two clauses together. it means that a person, whom the prosecutor thinks is an accomplice, can be forced into the witness-box to give incriminating evidence. And what if he does not give such evidence? As the law stands to-day, I interpret it that he does not have to give evidence. He can only submit himself. He must consent to give evidence, but he can never be forced to give evidence nor can he be gaoled for refusing to give evidence which incriminates him. That is the law at present. But now it is proposed to change this law because this Bill now provides that if you are an accomplice in the opinion of the prosecutor, he can force you into the witness-box and if you do not want to give any evidence, you can be put away, not for 90 days only, but up to 365 days.

Now I should like to ask the Minister whether when he said in the House the other day that he was thinking of getting rid of the 90-day clause, he had in mind the provisions of this Bill as a substitute?

Certainly not.

Because it seems to me he can do the same sort of thing under this clause.

What happens to the trial?

I am still coming to that. I ask the Minister this in all seriousness. There are two types of persons that can be dealt with under the 90-day clause. The one type is those suspected of having committed an offence and the second type those suspected of being in possession of information relating to the commission of an offence. In so far as the person suspected of having committed an offence is concerned, what is the difference between the application to him of these new Clauses 27 and 29 and the application of the 90-day clause? Except that it is now being clothed with the respectability of our courts which do not deserve to be called upon to put clothes upon a scheme such as this.

But I am concerned about what this clause means also for another reason. The law as it now stands in terms of the section which it is now proposed should be amended by Clause 27 is that this man should give evidence in that case. As I have already indicated, proceedings were adjourned for eight days and a witness having refused to give evidence, is put away for eight days. The wording in the Act now is that he may be committed to a gaol under a warrant, but under this clause it is proposed to sentence him to imprisonment. So the object has changed. This is now to be a punishment for not giving evidence when he is suspected of being an accomplice. Why has this changed?

Of course, as the hon. member for Ceres pointed out, this can be remitted by the courts if the witness decides that he will give evidence and answer questions put to him. But that is also the position under the 90-day clause. The hon. the Minister keeps on reminding us in connection with this 90-day clause that a person may be released as soon as he has answered satisfactorily all questions put to him by the police. It is one of the functions of the Minister of Justice to administer our courts. Here I want to say that we are very proud of our courts. We on this side of the House too, are very proud of our courts and we associated ourselves fully with what the Prime Minister said about our courts, i.e. how proud we all are of our Bench. But I do not think this hon. Minister is being fair to that Bench. The hon. the Minister can laugh, but what is he doing? How does he expect to get justice, to get the real evidence? Is he really going to place the courts in a position to know what happened in all these cases?

In so far as these clauses are concerned, the hon. the Minister said the courts were concerned with the truth and that the courts were entitled to have the truth. Of course the courts are entitled to have the truth but what sort of truth is the court going to get out of people if they are detained forcibly as they must be under these clauses? The Leader of the Opposition already put to the Minister the attitude of the regional magistrate of Cape Town, Mr. Slabbert, to a confession of a 90-day detainee. The hon. the Minister remembers that case. What the magistrate said was that although he did not believe that this person had been beaten up or ill-treated in any way, he nevertheless did not feel that he could allow the confession as having been freely and voluntarily made in the circumstances in which these persons were being held.

The hon. the Minister himself referred to the Rivonia trial and he referred to what happened there, to the difficulty they had with statements. I now want to read a portion of what the Judge said in that trial—

This is what the hon. Judge had to bear in mind all the time. He continued—

I quote this because the first quotation would otherwise be out of context. He spoke about the evidence he has had that traitors were suitably dealt with and said—

Sir, this is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. Here we have a very senior learned Judge finding himself in this position. But though he was able to cope with it, is this burden not much greater upon those who are not so learned as he is, who are not so experienced as he is? I have in mind the magistrates of this country who hear most of these cases. I sincerely want to put this to the hon. the Minister: How does he salve his conscience in this regard, i.e. that the court is going to get the sort of evidence it deserves to have? It is quite obvious that the hon. the Minister is contemplating that he will only have accomplice evidence here, otherwise he would not have to force people into the witness-box. So you are going to have one accomplice corroborating another accomplice.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to Clause 46 in connection with this same thing. This clause provides that a person who makes a statement to the police whilst being detained under this clause, shall not have the right to see that statement. Now, the hon. the Minister himself has practised in the legal profession. Is it not so that the first question he asked his client in a criminal case is: Have you made a statement to the police? And if he has made such a statement, he gets a copy of it. But here these people are also going to give evidence as accomplices. If they are going to give evidence for the State and if that evidence is to be relied on in any way, then surely they must be allowed to have a look at the statement they did make to the police? Surely if they are the accused, their legal representative must be entitled to have that statement? It is of no use the hon. the Minister saying that he does not have that in mind. Fact is that he provides for it here. But if he does not have that in mind then he must say so and accept an amendment or propose one himself to that effect. This must be added to the picture of the sort of thing the courts will have to deal with, the difficulties the courts will have to decide whether evidence is acceptable or not.

I am very pleased the hon. the Minister has given the explanation he did give about trials in the absence of accused persons. I examined it with a very jaundiced eye when I first looked at it because of what the Minister had said. During the recess he indicated that he was going to provide for trials in the absence of persons and then he indicated that he was going to provide for the preservation of evidence against persons who were no longer in the Republic. I also put a question to the Minister about it this Session to which he replied that he would introduce such legislation this Session. But I do not see it here …

In view of the advanced stage of the Session, I dropped it.

I am pleased to hear it. The explanation the hon. the Minister gave when he introduced this Bill seems to explain this clause and I am glad to hear what the hon. the Minister now says.

There are only two more clauses of this Bill I should like to deal with. There is the 12-day detention clause. My hon. leader indicated to the hon. the Minister how honest he was in saying that the majority of the Attorneys-General were in favour of its retention and some of them were not. I wonder whether one of the reasons for this is not that last year we provided in the General Law Amendment Bill that magistrates should have a discretion in all cases as to whether or not they should grant bail to persons …

That was only after the preparatory examination. They were compelled to give bail …

But now there is to be no compulsion at all. Now they have a complete discretion. They then have had a complete discretion in all cases since the General Law Amendment Bill of last year. If that is so, then as this clause provides for the Attorney-General holding someone without bail for 12 days at a time, will the Minister indicate why he still needs this clause? Now magistrates have an absolute discretion …

It never had anything to do with the magistrate’s discretion whatever.

But of course it has something to do with the magistrate’s discretion, bail has something to do with a judicial officer’s discretion? He is taking away the discretion of the judicial officer to give bail, for 12 days at a time. Surely that is what this clause means? If not, then I hope the Minister will say so. Perhaps he can tell us why it is that he feels he still needs this clause.

The last matter I want to deal with is a matter raised by the hon. member for Houghton, i.e. the question of training for sabotage and the attitude to that of this side of the House. The hon. member was personal but I do not take that amiss …

You were more than personal; you were abusive.

I said nothing, Sir. It was the hon. member who made the speech. I have not spoken before now so I could not have been abusive …

On the hustings.

Well, if one looks into what one said about another on the hustings I do not think this debate would be concluded on the high level on which I am sure it is being concluded. But I want to ask the hon. member whether, when looking at Clause 15, she can tell the House what the difference is between training for sabotage in Zanzibar or Dar-es-Salaam and training for sabotage in Pretoria, or Rivonia or at Lilie Leaf Farm?

Or in Houghton!

What is the difference?

Can you tell me where we can find the words “training for sabotage” anywhere …

I shall show the hon. member what I mean. The section of the Act to which we are referring says that anyone who has “undergone any training outside the Republic, or obtained any information from a source outside the Republic which could be used to further the achievement of any of the objects of Communism or of any body or organization which is being declared to be an unlawful organization under the Unlawful Organizations Act”…. Now let me ask the hon. member whether one of the objects of these organizations is not sabotage?

No.

It is not! Let me ask her whether it is not so that one of the objects of these organizations is violence?

May be, and may not be.

May be, and may not be! The hon. member quoted the words of Dr. Percy Yutar when he opened the State’s case in the Rivonia Trial. She quoted his words and used these words to bolster her argument to the effect that the A.N.C. went underground and decided on a course of violence. The hon. member must make up her mind: either she supports these organizations and sabotage or she does not. We made it very clear last year that we were not in favour of this sort of thing; we wanted it stamped out root and branch. It makes no difference whether a person trains for sabotage outside or inside the Republic; it makes no difference whether you command someone to commit sabotage or whether you are the tool used to do it. You will be doing something, in either case, which in no circumstances can be justified.

Are you in favour of Sobukwe …

I am not in favour of what Sobukwe stands for. Is the hon. member in favour of what he stands for…

No, I am not. But I opposed the clause and therefore I oppose this.

Order!

The hon. the Minister must do more than just come to this House every year for more powers of this sort. The Minister must persuade his colleagues that he cannot in the end cope just with powers of this sort. He has to keep control and he has to maintain law and order—that is primary. Without law and order none of us will be able to discuss our affairs and none of us will be able to solve our affairs. It is fundamental that we should have law and order. And while we still have this chance, let the Minister instead of bringing laws like this before this House every year, tell his colleagues in the Cabinet that force is all well and good, that force is working well at the moment, that it is succeeding at the moment, but let him also tell them that when it fails it will fail only once. Then it will not only be the hon. the Minister or the Cabinet or the Government that will fall, but the whole of White South Africa also if this Government does not immediately change its whole attitude to what is happening.

I do not want to take part in the quarrel between the hon. members for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) and Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). I think they should kiss and make up.

I want to deal with one or two clauses of this Bill. The reason why I am not dealing with the other clauses is because I think they have already been adequately dealt with and because I think time is getting on. I shall, in any case, have my say in the Committee Stage. I firstly want to deal with Clause 22 and tell the hon. the Minister that he will have to consider very seriously some sort of amendment because, as this clause is framed at the moment, it is going to fall very hard on the Coloured people who can ill afford the costly procedure of obtaining a record. The way this clause is presently framed it says they can at reasonable times go and have a look at the record.

If he cannot pay for it, it must be supplied to him.

People would say if he can afford to have a lawyer, he can afford to pay for the record, and if you cannot afford a lawyer, we shall give you the record.

Order! Those are details that can be discussed in the Committee Stage.

Sir, I want the hon. the Minister to consider an amendment before we reach the Committee Stage so as to help the poor Coloured man who cannot get that record even if he wants to.

The next point I want to deal with is Clause 35, which deals with the question of criminal proceedings against people who contravene the Group Areas Act and have to be ejected. As the clause reads, the position is that while the owner of the property may be guilty of an offence in that he has not complied with the Group Areas Act, any person who lives with him, a person who may be completely innocent of what has been going on may find herself or himself thrown out on the street without any knowledge of the contravention on the part of the owner of the property. I raise this matter now, because I want the Minister to consider an amendment in the Committee Stage, so that innocent people who may be living in such a property will be protected. It says—

He may be a sub-tenant. I want the hon. the Minister to consider bringing in an amendment.

I just raise this point at this stage because I think it is important.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I have quite a number of inquiries in regard to Clause 45 which deals with the question of the Population Registration Act, and its amendment in this clause. I think it is only right that I should allay the fears of the very many people who are affected. The Minister did not deal specifically with this clause when he introduced this Bill, I am informed. I should like him to confirm that this clause is being introduced to protect the people who are at present registered and that it is not intended that there should be a re-hash of the registration; that it is for the protection of the people and not for the re-opening of their cases. That is the information I have received and I hope it is right. If it is not right then I think we shall have to deal with it a much more effective and a much more detailed manner. Those were the few clauses I wanted to deal with. I may have more to say during the Committee Stage but I do ask the Minister to give consideration to the matters I have raised between now and the Committee Stage in order to improve these clauses to protect the very people that I have pleaded for this evening.

Mr. Speaker, when I opened the second-reading debate I said that that was not an occasion to argue with hon. members. I said that I had always regarded an omnibus Bill—and this is the third one I am introducing—as a measure in connection with which an explanation was only called for at the second reading of those clauses which required explanation but that the clauses themselves should be discussed in the Committee Stage; that each clause stood by itself since the principle underlying each clause was different. In view of what I said when I introduced the Bill I do not propose this afternoon therefore to reply in detail to each hon. member. Hon. members will understand that if I did that, I would only have to do it all over again in the Committee Stage because hon. members are going to advance precisely the same arguments again when we come to the Committee Stage. Whatever replies I give at this stage, precisely the same arguments are going to be advanced in the Committee Stage, and that is what I want to avoid.

There will be many more.

In that case I shall wait until I have heard all the arguments; it will then be worthwhile replying. Hon. members must understand that if I do not reply at this stage to every hon. member, it is not because I want to offend any hon. member but because of the reason which I have just given. In that connection I refer to the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) and certain other hon. members. I want to ask hon. members in all friendliness—I do not think they will take it amiss if I put this request to them—to make sure what we are talking about before we come to the Committee Stage and, if they want to raise legal aspects, to read not only the clause concerned but also the preceding and the subsequent clauses as well as the principal Act. If we follow that course we will not make the mistakes that we made in the second-reading debate. Alternatively, let us give a little more thought to this matter.

Let me just give two examples. Sir—because I do not want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily—of the sort of argument which has been advanced in this connection. I refer in the first place to the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) and, secondly, to the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller). The hon. member for Durban (North) says that he is convinced that the 12-day provision is no longer necessary because we passed a measure last year which gives magistrates the right to withhold bail in all cases. Surely that is no argument. If the hon. member pauses to think for a moment he will find that we passed a measure last year giving magistrates the power to refuse bail after preparatory examinations. Formerly they had the power to refuse bail at any time but they had to grant bail after a preparatory examination after committing the accused for trial at the criminal sessions. Surely the hon. member recalls how they opposed that measure, the very measure on which they now rely to support their attitude? But I leave it at that; that is just a debating point. The 12-day provision has nothing to do with the conclusion of a preparatory examination. The Act provides that an accused person must be charged within 48 hours and he then becomes entitled to bail immediately, except in the case of murder, treason, etc., but otherwise he is automatically entitled to bail once he has been charged. We now say that he can be detained for 12 days without automatically becoming entitled to bail, if the Attorney-General so decides. The hon. member will realize now that there is no substance in his argument with regard to the question of bail in connection with which we gave this power to magistrates last year, because the question of bail only comes into the picture at the end of the preparatory examination, not within 48 hours and not within 12 days or within a fortnight. I mention this iust as an example of the sort of argument that has been advanced in this debate.

Let us look at the arguments advanced here by the hon. member for Florida. The hon. member stated his case very convincingly, and let me say at once that I was impressed by his argument; he impressed me until I had another look at the section. The hon. member put up the following argument: he said. “In heaven’s name, if you have to lay down anything, why not lay down that the evidence must be read out to the accused by the magistrate?”. The hon. member will remember that that was his argument. It was a very fine-sounding argument. Let us have a look at the original section that we are amending here. Section 60 (2) reads—

It does not say that it has to be read out to him by the magistrate …

But it must be read out.

Of course, and that is in fact what we are providing for here.

Why are you altering the Act?

I am not altering the Act; I am making an addition …

What is the addition?

May I ask a question? Should the Minister not compare this with 65bis? That is the section which provides that it must be explained by the court. That is my point.

In other cases it is laid down that it must be done by the court, but in cases of this kind it is so obvious that it is not even necessary to say so. This wording was not necessary in the old section therefore, and similarly it is not necessary in the new section.

Why add something then if you are not changing it?

Mr. Chairman, I have already explained the position; surely it is quite obvious. We are dealing here with a summary trial, and what we are doing is to apply the same principles to summary trials as those applicable to preparatory examinations. Does the hon. member not follow that? After all, we did pass this legislation and hon. members know that the effect of it is that in certain cases we can dispense with a preparatory examination and charge the accused summarily. We are now making provision for the same principle to apply in the case of summary trials as in the case of preparatory examinations; and if this is right and fair in the case of a preparatory examination—and that has been the position since time immemorial—then surely it is also right and fair in the case of a summary trial where you dispense with a preparatory examination. That is the point.

Now I come to the other argument advanced by the hon. member. The hon. member is very purturbed about the fact that we have the audacity, if I may put it that way, to call an accomplice as a witness. The hon. member raised a great hullabaloo about this. I do not hold it against him that he raised a hullabaloo because, after all, the hon. member has to do what he said he was going to do according to last Sunday’s Sunday Times. I do not therefore hold it against him; I give it to him as a present; it is his affair. But let us get down to earth. If an impartial person had listened to the hon. member, he would have come to one conclusion only if he knew nothing about our law, and that is that an accomplice has never been called as a witness in any court of law in the legal history of South Africa but that this Minister and this Government, for the first time, now go so far as to call accomplices as witnesses.

That is perfectly clear.

No. That is the impression which the hon. member created. After all, it has always been possible, throughout the centuries, to call an accomplice as a witness. I explained the position very carefully to the hon. member. He now says that we dare not force an accomplice to give evidence. Why dare we not force him to give evidence? After all, we force the ordinary member of the public to give evidence, the ordinary member of the public who is innocent and who has nothing to do with the case. The hon. member and I, for example, cannot tell the court that we refuse to give evidence. If anything is within our knowledge and the court wants us to give evidence, then the court can force us to give evidence if we refuse to come along voluntarily, unless we have a good excuse for not being able to come.

Unless you implicate yourself.

Yes, I am coming to that. In other words, an innocent person can be forced to give evidence. Why then should we grant protection to an accomplice; why should we not be able to force him? Let me go further: There is only one reason why an accomplice was not forced in the past to give evidence—one and one reason only. If the hon. member knows of another reason I should be glad to hear it. If he can give me another reason I give him the assurance that it will be news to all of us. I think the hon. member will concede that that is so. The only reason why an accomplice cannot be called as a witness is because we cannot allow him and we do not want him to give incriminating evidence against himself, evidence which may get him into difficulties and as the result of which he may be punished. The principle of our law is that such a person cannot be forced to give evidence against himself. That is the only reason. But that reason falls away because, after all, I now say to the man, “I am not going to prosecute you; I give you indemnity”.

That has always been the position.

If that has always been the position, why then does the hon. member quarrel? It has not always been the position. The hon. member’s whole argument was that we were introducing a new principle into the Act; that is why the hon. member is quarreling with me.

It is a new principle to force him to give evidence.

Yes, naturally. That is what I said to the hon. member. The only reason why he was not forced in the past and why you could not force him in the past was because there was no provision for indemnity. Let me put it to the hon. member this way: If you give indemnity to an accomplice, is it immoral then, is it wrong or does it offend one’s sense of justice to call him as a witness? I put that question to the hon. member; I am not trying to trap him; I am arguing the case with him and I want to know from him whether it is immoral to say to an accomplice, who may have played a very small role in the whole matter, “We are going to call you as a witness; we want you to tell us what happened but we are not going to prosecute you for your participation in the crime”?

As you correctly said, those are arguments for the Committee Stage. (Laughter.)

The hon. member is right, of course, and I leave it at that. I do not propose to take that point any further.

Sir, you will not permit me to go into the question of the Broederbond again, and I do not propose to do so. As a matter of fact, it is not necessary for me to do so now that the hon. the Prime Minister has entered the debate. What I do want to say, however, is this: The Opposition struck a peculiarly discordent note in this connection. A well-known Opposition personality, when he was asked on one occasion why he had said one thing the day before and now said a different thing, replied, “But yesterday is not to-day.”

He was a prominent Nationalist.

No, he was a United Party supporter. In the case of the present Opposition it is not even a case of “yesterday is not to-day”, it is a case of “this afternoon is not this evening”. What was the argument advanced by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in connection with the proposal to hold the sittings of this Commission behind closed doors so as to protect the confidence of these organizations, as explained here by the hon. the Prime Minister? What was the attitude of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? His attitude was that it would be a useless commission and that he would want nothing to do with it. He even refused to co-operate further with the hon. the Prime Minister. Am I correct in saying that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition thinks that it will be a useless commission?

I never insult your judges.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that he never insults my judges. But he thought so little of this commission that he said that if the sittings were not held in public and if members of the public could not come to their own conclusions, then he wanted nothing further to do with it. That was the attitude of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In any event, we need not quibble about words now. The essence of the whole matter is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition felt that this was a useless commission. That is the impression which he made upon me and I think that is the impression which he made upon everybody.

Not that the commissioner is useless.

No, I did not say that. I did not say that he suggested that the commissioner was useless. But he did say that such a commission would be valueless because its sittings would not be held in public.

It will not achieve its object.

Yes,

What is its purpose?

To find out the truth.

Why one cannot find out the truth unless the public is also dragged in I simply do not know.

Why do you have public trials?

I will tell the hon. member why we have public trials. This is something which did not originate in South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition gave the answer himself. The reason for public trials is to be found in the primeval history of Britain. [Interjections.] Hon. members are trying in vain….

I hope the hon. the Minister is not going to reply to all those questions.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to reply to them. I come back again to the argument advanced by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that this would be a useless commission; that was the impression he gave me. The hon. member for Durban (North) now comes along, after dinner, and he says that this is not going to be a commission but an inquisition. He is very concerned about the poor Broederbonders who are going to be bullied by an inquisitor. In spite of the fact that it was alleged this afternoon that this commission would be worthless, the hon. member thinks that we should put an end to the whole thing because people are going to be bullied terribly by the commission which it is proposed to appoint in terms of the Commissions Act. Surely both these arguments cannot be valid; either the one or the other must be correct.

Both can be correct.

Yes, the hon. member is right at that; both can be correct when one sits in a Party, as the hon. member does, in which there is always discord.

Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to give another example apart from the Denning Inquiry to which reference has been made here. We have the example in America of the commission which had to institute investigations after the shooting of President Kennedy. Can one imagine any more important matter forming the subject of an inquiry than that particular one?

What were the findings of the court?

But we are dealing now with the procedure; surely we are not dealing now with the final outcome of the commission’s investigations. Let us come back now to this commission. What happened? Certain hon. members on that side, in season and out of season, made charges against a certain organization. Hon. members are now going to have an opportunity to substantiate those charges before a Judge of Appeal—and that is not going to be so easy. You see, Mr. Speaker, it is an easy matter to raise a hullabaloo in this House; it is easy to sow suspicion against an organization; it is easy to make propaganda against it but it is a different matter when it comes to substantiating certain allegations under oath before a commissioner. Let me put this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Is he making propaganda in advance to keep away from the commission the members in his own ranks who made these accusations? Or is evidence going to be given before the commission by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and by members such as the hon. member for Orange Grove, who are so fond of making these charges? That is the question that I should like to put to hon. members on the other side; I leave it at that.

I repeat, Mr. Speaker, and I conclude on this note, that there is nothing unreasonable whatsoever in this Bill; there is no provision in this Bill that is unfair; having regard to the circumstances of the country, there is nothing in this Bill which cannot be supported with a clear conscience by every person who is on the side of South Africa.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—66: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; Fouche, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, A. I.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.: Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Odell, H. G. O.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever. D. J. G.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; von Moltke. J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—44: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross. D. G.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

During the second-reading debate we raised points in regard to the shocking wastage of the manpower which is being absorbed into the Defence Force, and whose exemption from training is determined by this clause—the question of the use of gymnasium personnel, of specialist personnel, etc. Would the hon. Minister give us an answer on that subject now.

In addition to what the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) has just said would the hon. Minister in his reply add also the answers on the points I raised with regard to the call-up under this particular type of section in respect of a large number of university students, a call-up in direct contravention to the principle of exemptions as applicable to them?

My answer to the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) is a statement by the exemption chief. He says this: University students will not have to interrupt their studies for military training, even though they have been drawn in the ballot for next year. This was issued in Pretoria yesterday by Mr. A. S. Treurnicht, chairman of the Exemptions Board, following a report that many students in Cape Town and Johannesburg had received an urgent call-up during the past week. Then he goes on to explain that they have only got to ask for exemption.

Is that under the new system or the old?

Under the old system. All he says is that they are just changing the way of balloting to a certain extent.

Then the hon. member for Durban (Point) asked whether I would be prepared to say something about the shocking wastage of manpower. I take it that he is reverting back to the question raised by him yesterday of a young lad who got four A’s in his matric.

As an example.

It is our policy to make use of these people in the spheres for which they are fitted. I said so last night. I asked the hon. member to give me the name of that young student.

He will be victimized.

Oh no. I know of a young student in the Navy who passed his matriculation and he was medically fit, but when it came to the actual training they found that he could not distinguish certain colours. He could recognize blue but not the shade of blue, and he could distinguish red, but not the shade of red. He was taken out of the section in which he was and put in a different one. Whether it is true or not I do not know, but the people with military experience say that it is very important that a man should be able to distinguish colours in the Defence Force to-day. But it is the practice to put every scholar or student into the section in respect of which he has an aptitude. But if the hon. member gives the name of the case, I will look into it, and I will not allow that person to be victimized later.

Not deliberately, but surely you know the Army.

I want to give the hon. member the assurance that if I am given the name of this young man and I go into the matter I will not allow him to be victimized. If I were to allow that, I would not be worthy of being the Minister. I have told the Defence Force that no member of it may approach me except through the ordinary channels, but I allow any member of Parliament of any party, if he knows of an injustice, to come to me. Unless I do that, certain things may never come to my ears.

Naturally I accept the explanation in regard to university students that the hon. Minister has given, but there is still something wrong in the State of Denmark. These boys have filled in the pink form applying for exemption and these forms have gone to Pretoria. In return they have received a notice stating that they have been drawn in the ballot and they were instructed to take their medical. In some cases they have done so. Whilst the statement appears to be perfectly straightforward and simple, I see no reason why such a complicated way should be applied to bring into force exemptions which are so clearly provided for under the legislation. I would ask the hon. Minister again to cause the matter to be further investigated in order that those people who have been affected and have been thrown out of their stride in their educational studies at such a critical time, some of them in their final year, be notified now that a mistake has been made and that they will have their deferment extended for the ensuing year.

Put the matter clear, so that they are in no doubt and that Defence is in no doubt. Do this and I think the whole situation will then be resolved.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I do not wish to traverse the ground that I covered with the hon. Minister at the second reading stage, but the hon. Minister has made the point which I think was the first admission we have had that he intends to keep a balance between the number of volunteers who will be accepted into the Commandos and the number of men whose names have not been drawn in the ballot, but who will be posted to a Commando for service in the Commando. I drew the Minister’s attention to the fact that the White Paper indicates that of the total strength of 51,000 of the Commandos, there are presently 8,000 bailotees who are serving. I also made reference to the point that the volunteers in the Commandos at present do not undergo the same training which bailotees in terms of the Act will be required to undergo.

That is correct.

Yes, that is very clear from the Minister’s statement of the 29 May. If I am correct there, then I want to draw the Minister’s attention to what he said in his statement. The Minister said in his statement that certain of these Commandos will be compelled to train up to 21 days but other members of the Commandos will be required to train for seven days. My plea to the Minister was that a larger proportion of these men whose names are not drawn in the ballot, should be included in the Commando strength as opposed to the more elderly men who are not as fit and as able-bodied as the younger men, and a larger percentage of our young men should at least have the rudiments of military training, because primarily the Commandos are the security forces should the occasion arise. Now my point to the hon. Minister is: He stated that he intended to absorb a larger number of the so-called escapees from the ballot into the Commando system. Proportionately then there would be less volunteers. The Minister said he always wanted to retain the volunteer principle attached to the commando system. With that I am in full agreement, because they are experienced men in many cases who make up the officer corps and who are the non-commissioned officers. But the point is this: If the commando system is going to operate as a disciplined force under the system that it does operate under, we know, and the hon. Minister knows that presently with the volunteer system commanding officers call these men out for a week-end shoot or for a week-end bivouac and they get not even 10 per cent of the strength to undergo the necessary training. They come when they want to and they don’t come when they don’t feel like it. But the ballotee, this man to whom the White Paper refers, if he does not turn up when he is called is subject to military discipline and he must face the penalties. I put it frankly to the Minister: How can any commanding officer of a Commando operate an efficient unit if part of his men say “Well, we are not going to turn up” and the other part does turn up? There is bound to be friction, there are bound to be points of view in any unit where that sort of thing occurs. Because surely what is good for one soldier is good for another soldier, even though he is a Commando man. That is what concerns me. I would like to see the Commandos an efficient body, as efficient as our financial resources and the commitments of the Permanent Force will permit. I don’t think it is going on the right lines if the Minister is going to continue with the principle that he is going to keep a minority of these ballotees in the Commando system and a majority of volunteers of an unput age group. I want to ask the Minister this: He has indicated last night that he is going to absorb a large percentage of these men whose names are not drawn in the ballot in the Commandos. Will the Minister indicate now, if possible, the percentage? Is he going to have it on a 50/50 basis, or is he going to have 30 per cent volunteers and 70 per cent ballotees, or is it going to be just a loose arrangement? I think the Minister must offer us clarity on this point because it is most important even from the internal security aspect, for which purpose the Commando system fundamentally exists.

I would like to add to what the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has said: The hon. Minister quite recently made the statement, very rightly, that the Commandos are to play a far more important part in the overall defence picture of the country than hitherto has been possible. Now they are the people who are dealt with by the particular clause now under consideration.

Order! The question of Commandos is not under discussion.

Sir, this particular clause deals with the drafting to the Commandos of certain people who are receiving, if I may put it that way, a qualified exemption from the call-up. Instead of being exempted altogether, or their service deferred, they are drafted under the provisions of the clause we are dealing with now to the Commandos to do a certain portion of their training there, but spread out over a longer period. Those are the people concerned where the two standards of discipline apply, as the hon. member for Turffontein has said, and if, as the hon. Minister has stated, the Commandos are going to be used in this more important sphere of National Defence, which we entirely support. Then I would also like to stress the need for one standard type of discipline and service conditions to apply to all the particular individuals in that Commando. Otherwise it will be quite impossible for anybody any officer to have any control at all over it.

We are not changing the allotment to the Commandos, we are not changing the principle. The principle was always there that certain of the bailotees were handed over to the Commandos. All that we are doing in this Bill is to say that the Exemption Board in this case can also say that a certain chap who asks for exemption should be committed to a Commando. We are not changing the principle. But the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) says: How can an officer operate a unit efficiently when there are two types of discipline in his unit. That has always been the same too. We have always had two types of discipline. We always had the volunteers and the bailotees. We are not changing that principle. Any Commando officer always knew that a certain percentage of his men would not come for a bivouac. It will be the same now. A certain percentage won’t come. But a bigger percentage must come. That is the difference.

In terms of your White Paper it might be a minor percentage.

It will always be, I think, a minor percentage. I think the volunteers will always form the majority.

Why not place them under discipline?

When they are called up they are under discipline. If we have an emergency to-morrow and we mobilize them, they are immediately under discipline. But the Commandos are the free part of our forces, and we cannot put the volunteer section under the same discipline, as we are doing with the bailotees. I am not prepared to do that, because many of these men are in a difficult position. They are businessmen, they are farmers of standing, but they want to do their bit. They cannot afford to go to camp for three weeks every year at a certain time, at a specified time.

Order! Hon. members must confine themselves to the amendments proposed in the clause, i.e. the portions that are underlined. The question of volunteers and bailotees is not under discussion.

Mr. Chairman, the clause reads that “Section 35 of the principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution of subsection (1) by the following sub-section …”. In other words, the sub-section as it appears in the Act of 1957, as amended by Section 6 of the Act, of 1961 is entirely being substituted for what at present appears in the Act.

The only points that are under discussion are the three amendments as indicated by underlines in the clause.

With great respect, Sir, what is underlined in this clause are the new insertions.

That is all that is under discussion, and the hon. member must confine himself to that.

Sir, I ask for your guidance here. It says “the principal Act is hereby amended … by the substitution of sub-section (1). … It is a completely new sub-section what is being included here, and what is underlined here are the additional provisions that are added to the re-substitution. I have given this matter a great deal of study, Sir.

The portion that is not underlined is not new. It is only the underlined portion that is new.

On a point of order, the point the hon. member is trying to make is that the three amendments underlined in the clause before us fundamentally change the principle and the application of the whole of the section to which they refer. They are a new addition to the section which makes a fundamental change in the set-up of that section.

The hon. member for Turffontein wishes to discuss the whole principle of setting up the Commandos and that is not under discussion now.

I do not wish to discuss the whole principle, Sir. I will confine myself then to the second proviso: “Provided that any service which a citizen in respect of whom any such exemption board has directed that he be so enrolled with a Commando …”. In other words that applies to a man who is serving in the Citizen Force, and who has applied for an exemption to the Board and the Board has then posted him to a Commando.

The hon. member is in order.

The other one is in respect of citizens who in terms of 68 have applied for an exemption, but who can be posted to a Commando by the Exemption Board. It is these two classes of citizens that I am concerned with in regard to the matter that I have discussed with the Minister. The Minister has indicated that this percentage of these men who are escapees and who have been posted to a Commando will constitute a portion of the Commandos, and he has said that it is a small portion. My contention is that if he wants to make the Commandos efficient he must take a larger percentage. I took great interest in the statement that the hon. Minister made, because the Minister now emphasizes the volunteer aspect, but the statement that the’ Minister issued said clearly—

That indicated immediately to my mind a restriction of the volunteer principle, and therefore the absorption of more bailotees to make up the strength of the Commandos, because I can’t see how you can have the imposition of a restriction on a volunteer when the Minister made the statement saying that anybody who comes and joins the Commandos must comply with this new class of men who are given an exemption by the Exemption Board but are posted to a Commando. That is what I cannot understand. Immediately you say four years, a large number of these volunteers to whom we have referred will say “No, I am not going to serve four years. I am out”. The Minister must keep his Commando strength up and he will then be required to draw more and more of the other class of persons in.

Order! The hon. member is now discussing the four-year period. That has nothing to do with the amendment as underlined.

Sir, this class of persons— that is underlined—will have to serve four years. It says clearly that if he has not finished his period of service in the Citizen Force….

That is not under discussion here. It is merely a question of the recognition of the period of service.

Sir, it says “It shall be deemed to be service in the Commando in terms of this section”, the principle being that if he served a year in the Citizen Force, he will still have the remaining period of three years to do in the Commando.

That is in order, but the hon. member must confine himself to that.

That is what I am discussing. There are going to be numbers of these men. The first group underlined in the clause will have to do unequivocally four years. There is no argument about that. The second group will have to do a lesser period, determined by the perioid of service they have already completed in the Citizen Force. They will have to be posted to a Commando. What I am trying to ascertain from the Minister is whether it is his intention to absorb all these men into the Commando system as opposed to the volunteers. That is what is pertinent here, and that is what we are seeking clarity for from the hon. Minister. That is why I made reference to the statement of four years made by the Minister, because it seems to give a confusion of issues in respect of the period of training as a whole, and I would be grateful for clarity from the hon. Minister. [Time limit.]

You will not allow me. Sir, to speak about the new members joining the commandos to do four years’ service. I just want to say that it is not the intention to fill the Commandos overmuch with bailotees who have received exemption. Nor does the Act say that everyone who is exempted must join a Commando. It says that he may join a Commando, and if we have a large enough percentage of those people we may say that we do not need any more, and then they will not be able to join the Commandos because we cannot absorb them. I have no more to say about the matter. We will always allow volunteers to join the Commandos, and these young fellows may join also. We will take as many of them as we consider necessary. The Exemption Board has nothing to do with my Department. They cannot tell my Department: “We are giving you 10,000 men and you must take them”. I shall not take them. I shall take as many as I require.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I want to raise a point regarding the new period of service for which the Reserves of the Permanent Force can be called up. The amendment provides now that “the period of such training shall not exceed 105 days during any period of five years, or 30 days in any one year”. Actually it is an increase in training period of roughly 31 times of what originally applied: 30 days to 105 days. They are now called up for as long in one year as was hitherto covered the whole of their five years training. The people affected by this particular amendment are a type of experienced men or officers who have had previous service, a much more mature type than the trainee section that we have hitherto been dealing with. Men who have acquired responsibilities, house-ownership, families, professions, and there will be a fundamental change in their situation now by having to serve in defence units for a much longer period. The question I wanted to ask the hon. Minister is: In view of the changes in the conditions of service of your Permanent Force Reserve under this amendment and the long time since any emoluments for their services have been fixed, the changing conditions of service altogether, will the hon. Minister tell us whether any special provision is being made so that these men will not suffer financial disabilities as a result of the changing conditions of service which now apply and will be quite different to what they were when they originally signed on and accepted service in the Permanent Reserve Force.

When a member of the Permanent Force Reserve is called up for service, he is remunerated according to the Permanent Force rates, and if the remuneration, e.g. of a major, has been increased in the meantime, he receives that increased remuneration, and he is paid a major’s salary if he comes in as a major.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

This is one of the pertinent clauses dealing with the call-up system and in the main the powers of the Board with regard to considering exemptions and deferments. In paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) we now have the various reasons under which exemptions can be granted. Seeing that the whole responsibility is now transferred to the new Board, I merely want to ask the hon. Minister to ensure that the greatest discretion will be used, or rather the most sympathetic discretion applied, in the application of the exemptions, particularly in view of the value of many of these lads with their technical and educational training, to defence at a later stage when they have completed their professional qualifications.

I think that is the whole principle underlying the institution of this Board, so that they can give their full-time attention to these matters, and that is why the Board fails under the Department of Labour. They know what the manpower position is and the manpower requirements. The Defence people do not. They want soldiers.

I assume then that the Board as now constituted will not make quite so bad a slip-up as occurred in the earlier case I mentioned in respect of the call-up of the University of Cape Town trainees, and that they will take steps to rectify the mistakes that have been made.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 15 of the Bill put and negatived.

On Clause 16,

This clause provides for the establishment of a medical fund for the Permanent Force staff when they go on pension. In the past the Permanent Force could not contribute to such a fund, because free medical treatment was part of their conditions of service. This clause now provides that when a person joins the Permanent Force he will have to pay a levy, I take it, for the full length of his service, until he retires on pension. While he is then on pension he will still be entitled to medical treatment. For the rest, this clause provides that all pensioners who retire on or after January 1964 can participate in this scheme. Now it is clear that there are persons who will have to pay in money to become members of this fund. The longer the person has served, the less, I take it, will be the sum of money he has to pay in in order to become a member.

I want to ask here, Sir, that the Minister should not insist on the date, namely on or after the first day of January, 1964. I want to request the Minister to see whether he cannot evolve a plan to give all the pensioners of the Permanent Force who have already retired a chance to participate in this scheme. Of course, it cannot be done without payment. But just as those who went on pension since January will have to pay a sum of money in order to join this fund, a scale can also be evolved in respect of those who retired in the past. It is obvious that those who retired five years ago will have to pay more than those who retired ten years ago. Sir, I make this suggestion …

Order! It amounts to extra expenditure and therefore it is no use the hon. member discussing it, seeing that the matter cannot be taken any further.

Sir, I am not asking for a contribution by the State.

Order! The class of persons whom the hon. member has in mind is not covered by the clause as it reads at present. Therefore I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss it further.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 17,

During the second reading of this Bill, I raised the point that in terms of the provisions of the clause as it reads at present, a person found guilty of a contravention in certain respects must be sentenced to imprisonment. However, the hon. the Minister said that that is not so. I think the Minister said by way of interjection: “No, man.” But I nevertheless stand by my opinion. Section 89 (3) of the principal Act reads: “… is guilty of an offence”. Whereas in the clause now under discussion the words “and on conviction will be punishable by imprisonment for a maximum period of fifteen years” are added. It is my view that this provision compels any court which finds a person guilty of some contravention or other to send that person to prison. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to say whether that is his intention. I raised this matter during the second reading also, but the Minister did not reply to it. I therefore ask him again to study Section 89 (3) of the original Act. together with the words now proposed to be inserted. In terms of the provisions of the amendment which we are now asked to accept, a person will have to be sent to prison if he has technically committed a contravention, no matter how innocent he may be. I again want to say that this is unfair and unjust. The hon. the Minister did not reply to this; he simply said that the provision had been taken over from the Minister of Justice. If the Minister is prepared to reply now. I shall resume my seat. What I have said is simply to assist the Minister.

As I stated very clearly in my second-reading speech, this amendment is necessary to bring the section into line with the General Law Amendment Act. The hon. member has now pleaded for a man who has had a few drinks too many and has innocently landed in a certain place. That is how he put it last night. But I want to tell you. Sir, that in these times in which we live, where we keep very large quantities of stores, a man dare not get intoxicated and then find himself on a dangerous military terrain. If he does, he has to be punished. He cannot just get drunk and go there. He may not, as the hon. member put it last night, have a ioke with a few girls and find himself there. Then he must be punished. If there is a notice saying that it is prohibited terrain I cannot allow anyone to be there. Highly explosive materials are kept there. Stores to the value of tens of millions of rand are kept there. We cannot allow people to go there for any reason at all. If they go there they must be properly punished. I cannot allow a man to get drunk where we have large stores of petrol and set the place on fire and then simply make the excuse that he was intoxicated. If he is not allowed to go there and he does, he must be punished. That punishment must be a deterrent. If a man knows that a heavy penalty may be imposed, he will simply not go to that place, whatever his condition. Even a person who is under the influence of liquor does not commit murder, because he knows he is not allowed to do so. Even in his intoxicated state he knows it. Therefore even an intoxicated person should know that he dare not enter places of that nature. What will happen if a man illegally enters Simonstown? What harm can he not do to those expensive vessels we have there? He dare not go there, and if he does he should be punished properly. The previous penalty of R200 or six months was no punishment at all. If I want to cause damage to the State, I will not be deterred by six months’ imprisonment or a fine of R200. I will cause that damage. But if he is now found in such a place he will know that he can be punished by imprisonment even for 15 years. In regard to these things, we have to be very strict in these times in which we live. We cannot be strict enough.

The first point I want to make is to point out to the Minister that his reply during the second reading by way of interjection was incorrect and that I was right when I stated the position as I have repeated it now.

You were right.

The second point I wish to make is this. In terms of Section 89 (2) the officer in command of any camp, barracks, dockyard, installation, etc., can temporarily prohibit and restrict access of all persons. The hon. the Minister says that this amendment brings the punishment in line with the Sabotage Act. Of course it does nothing of the sort. In terms of the Sabotage Act an area must be properly proclaimed as a prohibited area. Here any second lieutenant who has a detachment of ten troops on a manoeuvre or on a guard duty, for any reason he likes, can prohibit entry to his camp. He can go and pitch a camp somewhere on manoeuvres and any officer, without reference to any other person, can declare that camp a prohibited territory. That means that any person who enters that camp must be sent to gaol without option. I say that we have confidence in our courts. Increase the maximum penalty by all means. Nobody objects to that, but do not make it compulsory for the court to send a person to gaol for what might quite easily be a purely technical offence. The reason for this is that this is not necessarily a strategic area, it is not a petrol installation, an ammunition dump. Simonstown or something of that nature. These are areas in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 89. This is any area which any officer however junior may at will determine “and may make known in such manner as he may like”. In other words a second lieutenant with ten people in a detachment can say this is a prohibited area and announce it on parade to his ten men. The father or mother of one of those ten men who may come to see him that evening at camp, may be arrested, and a magistrate will have no option but to send that person to gaol. He has no option, because the officer has made the position known in such manner as he considered sufficient in the circumstances. That is the original Section 89 (2).

The hon. member has made that point over and over again. He should not repeat what he has already said.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but you have perhaps foreseen what I am going to say. I said that any officer in charge of a detachment can proclaim an area and that there is no provision for the publication and making known of such prohibition. You are therefore condemning a person to compulsory imprisonment when it is quite likely in terms of the law as it stands that no notice of such prohibition is available to that person. I ask the Minister now to state clearly to the country that that is what he wants the position to be.

Sir, let me point out that this provision was worded in this way to bring it into line with the General Law Amendment Bill. If, however, this provision contains an injustice …

But it does.

…then I want to give the assurance to-night that I will devote my full attention to it and if necessary move an amendment in the Other Place to remove that injustice.

Thank you.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.