Last night when the House adjourned I was replying to the allegations which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made during the no-confidence debate and which were repeated last night by the hon. member for Durban (North). These allegations were to the effect that when the Prime Minister appointed a commission of enquiry in connection with the allegations, about R50 million, which the hon. member for Ermelo made at a meeting, the hon. the Prime Minister was thereby embarrassing a political opponent. I should just like to place the true facts before the House. At a meeting the hon. member for Ermelo said that a special account of R4 million was established for security services but that he had heard that in reality the amount would be very much nearer R50 million. Sir, the hon. member for Innesdal went very much further. At a subsequent meeting he was asked whether he associated himself with that and he said that he not only associated himself with that, but he could not divulge the source of his information because that person’s life would then be in danger. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition blames the Prime Minister for having appointed the commission of enquiry in respect of this matter. The implication of this allegation is not only that the Prime Minister misled Parliament, but also, much worse than that, that there are senior officials in the Department of finance who must also have been guilty of fraud in order to have given the hon. the Prime Minister the opportunity of making R50 million available for security services, instead of R4 million. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that a commission of enquiry should not have been appointed. Last night the hon. member for Durban (North) told us with a very elaborate gesture that after 22nd April the United Party would constitute the Government of South Africa. I now want to make the allegation that if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as a Prime Minister, were not to appoint a commission of enquiry in these circumstances, the country would not only hold it against him, but his actions would then almost be criminal.

Is this the speech you were briefed to make before the commission?

Sir, the hon. member for Durban (North) is feeling the pinch now. Let us investigate this allegation. If this allegation is true it is absolutely necessary for the country to know about it, because then there is corruption in high circles. However, if it is untrue it is absolutely necessary for this to be shown up. Any responsible Prime Minister would immediately have appointed a commission of enquiry to have this matter investigated. I now want to tell the House that the importance of this commission of enquiry lay in the fact that the Bureau for State Security, from General Van den Bergh to the bookkeeper, were present before the commission of enquiry and were prepared to be cross-examined in connection with this matter. Now the hon. member for Durban (North) must listen for a moment. For this I have received a brief. [Interjections.] It is so, Sir. It does not help to run away now. The Security Bureau was present in court to the last man. They would have gone into the witness stand and made themselves available for cross-examination. What opportunity did the hon. member for Ermelo have? As a responsible ex-Minister and a person who, at a meeting, should really not divulge facts which have no foundation whatsoever, he had the opportunity of going into the witness stand and saying: Here I stand. Now I shall divulge my sources. I shall answer for the statement I made at a meeting. What do we find. Sir? The South African Bureau for State Security is ready to give evidence, but the hon. member for Ermelo refuses to do so. What was his reason for this, Sir? His excuse was that at that stage he did not have a legal representative with him. But, Sir, do you know what I found strange? The newspapers took photographs of the hon. member for Ermelo arriving at the court, and again when he left. The hon. members for Ermelo and Innesdal are large as life on those photographs, with a lot of their lieutenants, plus an advocate and an attorney. These people were with them when they arrived and when they left. While we were sitting in court an attorney approached us with a certain question. When we asked him who he was representing in order to be asking us questions, his reply was: “I represent Dr. Hertzog.” Then, only three minutes afterwards, we had to hear that the hon. member for Ermelo did not have any legal representation. The commission continued with its business and we called all the officials …

You must stay closer to the truth.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ermelo made an interjection and I would be very glad if he would repeat it so that I can hear what he is saying, because I would like to reply.

You must stay closer to the truth.

I challenge the hon. member for Ermelo to get up in this House and to tell me where I have now said something wrong. I challenge him to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I accept the hon. member’s challenge. My request to the court was that I was entitled to have an advocate and not an attorney.

Mr. Speaker, I am once more going to make the statement that the hon. member for Ermelo arrived there with an attorney and an advocate, that the advocate was present throughout and that they were all subsequently photographed together. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon. member for Durban (North) whether he is with us or still in the dining room. Afterwards the commission continued and gathered all this evidence. It gathered evidence from the Security Bureau as well as from the officials, and subsequently came to the conclusion that …

Were you paid for your brief?

The hon. member asks if I was paid for my brief. I was paid for it and what does the hon. member want to do about that? I was paid for my brief, but what about that hon. member. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for South Coast must cease making interjections. The hon. member for Prinshof may continue.

What were the findings of this commission of inquiry? The findings of the commission were that, wherever Dr. Hertzog and Mr. Marais got the information from, if they ever did receive such information, which they refused to disclose, that information was absolutely without foundation and there was not a grain of truth in it.

But I want to go further this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that I believe that it was impossible for the hon. member for Ermelo not to have known that that information was absolutely untrue when he made the allegation at a meeting. I say that it was impossible for him not to have known, and I shall say why. Early in March of last year the Estimate of the Prime Minister was printed and in the Estimate of Expenditure under the Revenue Account there was, under the heading “Secret Services” an amount of R4,063,000 indicated. Next to that amount there was a star and the hon. member for Ermelo, as an ex-Minister, is as aware as I am—I was not aware of this before, but now I am—that that star means that not a cent can be added to that expenditure without the special permission of the State President and thereafter this House. In other words, it is definite that not a cent more can be used unless this Parliament is aware of the fact and has voted for it. But that is not all. If one looks at the hon. member for Ermelo’s speech one finds that he said that he heard in Pretoria at the beginning of the year that the hon. the Prime Minister was supposedly engaged in establishing an enlightened dictatorship. He said that subsequently he had heard nothing more about that, but then suddenly in May the Security Bureau was established as a separate Government Department. He said that this happened suddenly. In other words, according to the speech—and I have it here—the hon. member wanted to imply that at first he had only heard a rumour. The hon. the Prime Minister supposedly kept everything quiet up to a certain stage and then suddenly came forward in this House with this new Bureau for State Security. What is the truth? On 21st April (Hansard, column 4397) the hon. the Leader of the Opposition queried and debated the R4 million. The hon. the Prime Minister replied in full. He explained fully here in the House (Hansard, column 4408) how the new State security services would function, why the services were divided up and everything else. The hon. member for Ermelo was aware of that speech. I shall tell hon. members why. I do not know whether he was present in the House, but he was aware of that speech, because at that time the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made an allegation against the hon. member for Ermelo in connection with his Calvinistic speech. The hon. member for Ermelo replied to that on 22nd April. In other words, he was either in the House to hear what the hon. the Prime Minister was to have said about the Bureau for State Security, or he had read the previous day’s speeches in order to be able to reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s allegation. But that is not all. On 23rd April the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote, with that amount of R4,063,000, was approved. It was unanimously approved. Not a word was said about it. Subsequently, after a long speech by the Leader of the Opposition and by one of the other Opposition speakers in which the whole situation was accepted, there was again a unanimous decision in this House to accept the establishment of a new department for the Bureau for State Security. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition still treated us here to quite a bit of information in connection with the American C.I.A. The Act was then amended. These decisions were all unanimously accepted and the hon. member for Ermelo must have been aware of that. Subsequently the R4 million was transferred to the account of the Bureau for State Security. This was once more unanimously accepted by this House and endorsed by the hon. member for Ermelo. Everything considered, I say that it is my considered opinion that when the hon. member for Ermelo made that allegation he must have been aware of its being an absolute untruth. I can only endorse what the judge in the commission of inquiry found, i.e. that this whole allegation was devoid of all truth. But I want to emphasize once more that it is very illuminating that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Durban (North) are becoming prompters for this kind of thing in this House.

I should just quickly like to raise another point if I still have the time in the few minutes at my disposal. This has a bearing on something the hon. member for Wonderboom said last night. He said that it was better for the economy of the country to be held in check than for immigrants to be obtained in order to stimulate it. I am coming back to this point because, in my humble opinion, it is very important for the workers of South Africa to take note that such a checking of the economy could possibly lead to a recession. One does not know how far a recession could go once one begins to check the economy. A recession could possibly lead to a depression.

Speak about something you know something about.

That is the conceit of the Herstigte Nasionale Party. I must now speak about something I know something about. Let the hon. member reply to this question. Did he not say this last night? I state that it is possible that the economy will experience a recession and that the workers would be without jobs. That is the implication of their policy. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, although I should have liked to react to what the hon. member for Prinshof said, it is not customary in this House, and the House can now look forward to a few minutes of peace and quiet, this being a maiden speech.

It is probably the greatest privilege of my life to take part in this debate in this House. Nevertheless it is with a great deal of humility that I am making my maiden speech here. The personal quality, integrity and ability of my two hon. predecessors, the late Messrs. Tom Bowker and Colin Bennett, are well-known. Mr. Bowker left a deep impression and laid firm foundations in this hon. House over a long period. Mr. Bennett built on them and made a contribution which few people would be able to better, over a shorter period of time which came to an end so tragically on 26th May, 1969. Therefore it is no wonder that I am making this speech with a sense of humility and even of admiration. These two hon. members were friends of mine. I worked with them for many years. I know what they expected of themselves in the service of South Africa. This is also what they would have expected of me if they had still been with us.

What I am going to speak about to-day, hon. members of this House have already heard several times from my two predecessors. Therefore it is perhaps fitting, and at the present moment extremely necessary, that I speak about it again. The application for a second faculty of veterinary science at Rhodes University in Grahamstown has just been turned down in a letter signed by the Secretary for Agricultural Technical Services and addressed to the Secretary of the South Eastern Areas Development Association. In this letter figures are mentioned from Dr. Mönnig’s report to the Minister in support of the decision to extend Onderstepoort and to double the intake of new students there. I want to come back to these figures a little later, and I shall try to furnish the hon. the Minister and hon. members with proof that these figures are only a smokescreen and that the arguments in fact do not rest on a sound basis. Let us be clear and consistent in the argument that Grahamstown does have a stronger claim to a second faculty than, shall we say, Stellenbosch or Pietermaritzburg. I do not want to take up the time of the House with a long dissertation of quotations from various memoranda which are at my disposal and which are in the hands of the Minister and his department in any case.

I want to confine myself to six points only. The first is that it has been clearly proved that the area to be served by Grahamstown is larger than that in the case of Stellenbosch or Pietermaritzburg. The second point is that the stock population of this area is far greater. Thirdly, this stock population will greatly increase with the advent of the Orange Fish River Scheme. The fourth point is that plus minus 80 per cent of the irrigation land under this scheme will be in the area served by Grahamstown. Fifthly, Rhodes University has repeatedly laid claim to an agricultural faculty or a veterinary science faculty under various and successive governments ever since 1905. My sixth point is that although many of the stock diseases of the Transvaal are the same as those of the Cape Province, there is in fact a larger variety in the Eastern Cape, especially in the line of certain types of plant poisoning. These six points have all been proved in this House before, as well as in correspondence and in interviews with various Ministers and the department.

I should also like to mention a few other important considerations here. The Universities of Pretoria, Stellenbosch and Natal are all so situated as to be able to include a medical faculty or an engineering faculty, or both, Grahamstown is not so situated as to enable the Rhodes University to lay claim to such faculties. Moreover, in view of the development and expansion of the University of Port Elizabeth, it is highly unlikely that this position could change. Agriculture or veterinary science therefore appears to be the only direction in which balanced expansion can take place at this university. Secondly, and this is of the utmost national importance, such a faculty, with the research associated with it, will be a further stabilizing factor for the farming community of the rich grasslands of the Eastern Cape. In my humble opinion the future of White South Africa depends on the stability of the Eastern Cape and the Border farmers. It also depends on the establishment of additional industries throughout the area between Port Elizabeth and East London in order to absorb our superfluous Bantu population.

Let us now return to the letter which I mentioned earlier on. It was written in English. If I may quote the relevant part, it reads as follows—

Then the cost of training these students is dealt with. The letter continues as follows—

I do not know whether the Royal Commission on Medical Education inquired into veterinary science. Although it is not stated in the letter, it probably did. But I can see no reason why we should accept the norms of Britain and the United States. Conditions in South Africa differ from conditions in those countries. Is it then necessary for us to copy overseas countries? Although it might be necessary, as a result of the increase in population, to boost the intake of students, educationists will all agree that the quality of the product of a smaller class is far better than that of the larger class.

Let us now come to the cost per student which was mentioned here. These figures cannot be used to draw a comparison between Onderstepoort and Rhodes. Rhodes is an existing university and has hostels, laboratories and, to a certain extent, staff who can be incorporated in a faculty of veterinary science. It is not a bare piece of land which has to be built up from scratch. Moreover, the diagnostic laboratory of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is being built at Grahamstown. It will serve as the headquarters of the district veterinary surgeon and could also be incorporated.

In my opinion the difference in the cost per student and the cost of extensions to this university will be minimal. We can accept that the post-graduate training of students which is mentioned in this letter can be undertaken by Onderstepoort during the change-over period. We cannot accept, however, that more clinical material will be available at Onderstepoort than at Grahamstown. I want to ask the Minister in all seriousness to reconsider this matter with a view to the future, and not only with a view to the present requirements of the country and our agriculture. We know that Onderstepoort has the right to have its vaccines and veterinary preparations registered, and that the institution receives a substantial income from this source. We can understand that Onderstepoort will fight for its vested interests. We can give the hon. the Minister and Onderstepoort the assurance that neither Rhodes nor Grahamstown intends to reduce or steal these interests. It is the right of Onderstepoort and they can retain it.

In connection with the population projections for the year 2000, of which we to-day repeatedly hear in this House, over the radio and in newspapers, it is clear that long before that time it will be urgently necessary for a second faculty to be established. The year 2000 is only 30 years hence. The time to lay the foundations is now, and the place is at Rhodes in Grahamstown. In conclusion I just want to say that I am grateful that I have been able to raise this matter at this stage so that both the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition could take note of it.

While I am about to resume my seat, I want to express the hope that I shall in future have a larger share in the debates of this House.

Mr. Speaker, it is my very special privilege to congratulate the hon. member for Albany most sincerely on his initiation speech. It must be clear to each of us that he is a man with background. The hon. member has already served in the Provincial Council. He knows the procedure well. The hon. member stood up here and in an atmosphere in which we are conducting one of the hottest political debates this House has known, he abstained from taking part. In a very levelheaded and competent manner he brought the needs of his constituency to the attention of the House and the Ministers concerned. I think that one may also appreciate the hon. member’s bilingualism. We know that he is English speaking. He nevertheless stood up here and made his first speech in Afrikaans. It is not that we want to go around boasting by implying that this is how it ought to be and that it should specifically have been in Afrikaans. It is nevertheless a good thing for the hon. member to have addressed us in such clearly pure and fine Afrikaans, particularly with a view to the fact that he is English speaking. We want to congratulate the hon. member most sincerely and hope and trust that he will enjoy a long period in the House and that his good influence will contribute to the good of his party as the years pass. Heartiest congratulations and a very big welcome.

Mr. Speaker, Waterberg is in the limelight, like many other things and people. Waterberg must fall! I was informed that at a meeting at Naboomspruit the other evening, the sun having long ago set, Mr. Goosen called out: As sure as the sun is shining Mr. Marais will become Prime Minister of the Republic of South Africa. [Laughter.] Allow me now to make the following brief quote from the magazine Personality. It reads—

It is said that Waterberg will fall, but I just want to give the warning that the waters of Waterberg will swamp Dr. Hertzog and his people and the mountains of Waterberg will fall down on them.

Calvinism demands of Dr. Hertzog, as well as all other people, that his philosophy of life and his principles shall be determined by the principles of Calvinism. A Calvinistic leader, in particular, must have a good grounding in Calvinistic principles. I now want to look more closely at some of the principles of Calvinism, and I want to do so with reference to Dr. Hertzog and his supporters, his publications, his speeches and his activities. In making demands in regard to Calvinism, which we ourselves do not measure up to, on Dr. Hertzog, I just want to remind hon. members that we are not the ones who are laying claim to any special measure of grace. Dr. Hertzog is laying claim to a particular measure of grace, because they are the first and only people who are Christian nationals and the first and only people who are building on the infallible word of God. People who lay such claims to a special measure of grace must be able to answer for a great deal.

It is the basic principle of Calvinism that one shall base a groundplan for each aspect of life on the Bible as a revelation of God. Now, it is a fact that the starting point, the middle point and the farthest point of this groundplan must be to preserve the glory of God. I looked in vain for this in the issues of Die Afrikaner, because one would expect it to feature very pertinently there. We looked in vain for it in Dr. Hertzog’s speech on 14th April, 1969. No, lack of integrity is rampant in Die Afrikaner. Unbecoming slandering of the Afrikaner is taking place while Dr. Hertzog, ironically enough, extolled uprightness and righteousness as principles of Calvinism in his speech.

The theocentric principle of Calvinism also warns us that there is no neutral terrain in life and that God cannot be excluded at any point. And therefore, Dr. Hertzog, not only politics but Christian politics, according to your own principles. The Calvinist should, therefore, make sure of his own decency, competence, morality, integrity, strong moral fibre and uprightness before he goes and accuses his previous associates of, and I quote from the Beeld of 12th October, 1969 (translation)—

True to the principle of Calvinism, i.e. to avoid chaos and to maintain order, Dr. Hertzog did his duty in helping to pass the legislation relating to the Bureau for State Security. But shortly afterwards he came to the fore with staggering duplicity. He labelled the measure the most tyrannical legislation ever placed on the Statute Book. Then Dr. Hertzog, our Calvinist, cheerfully went and associated with Alex Hepple and MacBride. Those two were among South Africa’s arch enemies. What a comic trio! That comic trio consists of, firstly, Dr. Hertzog, the conservative Calvinist, who professes that he and his people are the ones who are guarding South Africa specifically against the diabolical onslaughts of people such as Hepple and MacBride. The second member of the trio is Alex Hepple, a former leader of the Labour Party in South Africa who, in the monthly publication The World To-day, published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, speaks of the alarming power of the Bureau for State Security which is a total mystery to the outsider. The third member of the trio is MacBride. MacBride is the editor of the International Jurist mouthpiece Review and in it he states that under the Bureau for State Security there are no longer any fair trials.

Mr. Speaker, you see how many pages I am skipping simply in order to satisfy the requirements laid down by the Whip. I must admit that it is a little difficult.

In the same breath in which Dr. Hertzog recognizes versatility as a basic principle of Calvinism, he seeks unity between English and Afrikaans-speaking people on a basis of selfishness and division, with inadequate recognition of what belongs to the English-speaking people. As far back as 30 years ago, on 27th January, 1939, the late General Hertzog wrote to Dr. Hertzog in the same connection; General Hertzog wanted co-operation and strove for it as much as Dr. Hertzog and others, but General Hertzog would never have lent himself to its accomplishment by way of deception, false grounds, selfishness and division. You know, Mr. Speaker, that Dr. Hertzog is so unashamedly Afrikaans that he is, probably unconsciously, humiliatingly aggressive to every other people in this country. “May a Calvinist dance?”, asks a friend here beside me. Mr. Hans Abraham told me that the Reformed Church Synod once decided, “You Doppers may dance, but Oom Joos, take that glint out of your eye—you must dance with your backs to one another”. [Laughter.] With the standpoint of Dr. Hertzog I think they are digging a national grave with the trowel of tradition instead of building with it on the basis of what is fine and lovely in the past.

These days we so frequently hear, “Back to Dr. Verwoerd”. In the latest edition of the Observer Brown quoted certain passages from Dr. Verwoerd’s speeches. I am merely mentioning these for Dr. Hertzog himself to reply to in the light of his own actions. On 8th February, 1961, at King William’s Town, he said—

Dr. Hertzog’s reply to this is. “We are in revolt against this view of Dr. Verwoerd ‘unity although we may still have our differences’ ”. Only those English-speaking people who are so flabby and spineless that they are willing to accept Dr. Hertzog’s humiliating conditions, i.e. being an empty shell and giving up what every person loves and cherishes, will be accepted. On 10th October, 1961, Dr. Verwoerd said at Vereeniging—

Dr. Hertzog’s reply to this is, “We are and remain ‘of differing and at all times contradictory elements how now with “back to Dr. Verwoerd”? On 7th October, 1961, already after the referendum, Dr. Verwoerd again said—

Dr. Hertzog’s reaction to this is that it is surely absurd to speak of unity and to lead us “without sacrificing or compromising of principles”. Of course, the English-speaking people must sacrifice everything. On 20th May, 1960, after the abortive attack on his life, Dr. Verwoerd once more said—

To this Dr. Hertzog and his people who, at all hours of the day, come with the cry “back to Verwoerd” say, “We still want to see the wordly thing that ‘overrules everything and predominates over differences of origin, language and outlook’; we are, as you know, unashamedly Afrikaans, without any consideration for the English-speaking person’s origin, his language and his attitude to life”.

I just want to say that Waterberg will take note of these things, of the fact that the cry is “back to Dr. Verwoerd!” while the doctrines of Dr. Verwoerd are all ignored and trampled under foot. Therefore we cannot leave the matter there. We therefore want to warn our esteemed friends that they are being awaited in Waterberg. Waterberg will not allow Dr. Hertzog and his people to take that constituency. for which they will perhaps be ready to sacrifice R100,000. We want to ask those who have been mislead—because we may regard it as such—to return home, because there is still a place for them at home. Within the National Party there is admonition for the dissentients, as well as advice for the afflicted; there is punishment for the rebellious and comfort for the distressed; there are rebukes for the intractables and rest for the flustered, there are thrashings for the presumptuous and cures for the tormented.

In addition, I just want to say this, and then, regretfully, I must conclude. We find that Dr. Hertzog and his people and Mr. Brown, who clung to one another so timorously in the days when we wanted them to join us in repudiating him, which they did not do, have now apparently broken off their relationship. Now it is Mr. Brown who stealthily comes along with “South African means this and it means that”, inter alia, “side by side and two cultures in South Africa”. The reply of Dr. Hertzog and his people is “away with your side by side; we know only an Afrikaans side and an Afrikaans culture, and that is the end of it”. “We must build bridges over the chasms” he says soothingly. But the standpoint of Dr. Hertzog and his people is that the bridges that have already been built must now be demolished. They say: “We have only two outstanding problems in this country: On the one hand the English and on the other hand the Nationalists, and it is now our primary task to ensure that we counteract the United Party policy of the National Party.”

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity. I just want to say once again that I can reassure this side of the House on behalf of Waterberg: we are waiting for the election on 22nd April. I can understand that Waterberg is a valuable gem that Dr. Hertzog and his people would very much like to capture, at whatever cost; but as far as we are concerned we are going to defend aggressively, whatever the cost. There is talk of “save Waterberg”. No, it is: “come on Waterberg” and let Dr. Hertzog and his people understand once and for all that the Strydom spirit is not on their side as their cries state. On the contrary, it is the Strydom spirit in Waterberg that will wipe out the Hertzog group.

The debate this afternoon seems to have taken a turn to a high educational plane. As far as I am concerned, I should like to join in the congratulations already extended to the hon. member for Albany. He has really set a high standard for us this afternoon and has raised this debate to a higher plane. The hon. member for Waterberg is an old colleague of mine. He has set a pace which I am afraid I cannot follow. In any event, far be it from me to get involved in a family dispute between hon. members on the other side and my friends here. It has been described as a “broedertwis” and I have learned from childhood not to interfere in a family quarrel. Therefore. I do not intend doing so. I do not want to take part in this political quarrel. The hon. member for Waterberg has even gone further. He suggested that I should take part in a religious disputation. I do not wish to do that. I do not wish to discuss Calvinism. That is the last thing I would attempt to do in this House, except that later I hope to mention a great Calvinist in this country for whom I have the greatest respect. The hon. member said that the height of improbability would be for the hon. member for Innesdal to become Prime Minister. That raised a laugh, but stranger things than that have happened in South Africa. Ask the hon. the Prime Minister. Stranger things have happened in our history, and I would be the last to predict the end of the career of the hon. member for Innesdal. I should like to say that I regret very much how a member of this House, a South African, has been treated at some of these political meetings. I think it has lowered the whole tone of our political life.

And when you people gave me such a battering at Kensington?

Seeing that we have raised this debate to the level of higher education, I think it is my duty and pleasure this afternoon to extend a welcome to our new Minister of Education. I think it should come from me, but I am surprised that it has not come from other parts of the House. He has joined us and I should like to congratulate him. I also want to congratulate him on his meteoric rise to the highest rank in his own party. He was a cultural leader, a member of Parliament, and a distinguished ambassador, and now he is a member of the Cabinet; I think that is a great achievement; not only that, for he has not only one portfolio but two. He is Minister of Education and also Minister of Cultural Affairs. I should like to say a word to him to-day about the department he has taken over and what our views are about that department; I wish to recall certain of our criticisms of the past.

One of our criticisms of that department has been that the organization of his department is the perfect example of the application of Parkinson’s law, that work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion. It is an overstaffed department. In addition to that, we did not need two departments. One was sufficient, but we now have two. I think the hon. the Minister should take that into consideration. He will remember perhaps that we had at one time while he was here the National Advisory Council for Education, and he may recall what our criticism was. It was not of the personnel of the Council, the individuals, but our criticism was of the imbalance in the constitution of that Council. We had an executive of five members, three of whom were distinguished Afrikaans professors; the fourth was a retired educationist, who had been the headmistress of an Afrikaans-medium high school, and the fifth member was an English-speaking member who had been headmaster of a private school. They were five great educationists, but why should the English-speaking members be in such a minority? It is this imbalance that we discussed. There were eight professors in the Advisory Council, seven of whom were Afrikaans-speaking and one was English-speaking. I think that was going a bit too far. Now that we have the National Education Council, it has been pointed out that the executive consists of seven members, six of whom are Afrikaans-speaking, and one is an English-speaking member who is connected with technical education. I think that is another exam Die of the imbalance and I hope the hon. the Minister will try to see whether he can put it right.

The next thing I should like to ask him is this: Did he appoint this National Council? I seem to remember that he had not arrived in South Africa when the names of the members of the Advisory Council were announced. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development was the acting Minister of National Education. Did he appoint them or were they appointed for him either by his predecessor or by other members of the Cabinet?

Or by die Broederbond.

I am not speaking about the Broederbond; I am speaking about the constitution of this body, a constitution which I think is not fair towards English-speaking people. I hope he will reply to that.

Having said those few words, Sir, I should like to appreciate the situation in South African education. The hon. the Minister addressed this Council, as he was naturally expected to do, and in addressing the Council said they should not be perturbed about this imbalance. He took the example of choosing a Springbok sports side. Well, I want to suggest before I finish that we should select not one sport side but two sport sides in education. However, I will come to that later. Sir, in trying to appreciate the situation in education I want to refer to a speech made by the Administrator of Natal at an education function, a celebration of a hundred years of private school government in South Africa. This function was held some 18 months ago. In his speech he referred to sociological research being conducted in Johannesburg into the ethnic attitudes of Whites towards the other races, but especially of Afrikaans-speaking youth towards English-speaking youth in this country. The Administrator mentioned what the findings were. I should mention that the selection was made from provincial English-medium schools, English-medium private schools and Afrikaans-medium high schools. A considerable section said that they would debar the other section from living in the country. It is not one section against the other; I am giving the general picture of both sections. Eighty per cent were opposed to admitting the other language group to their schools; they did not want them in their schools; and then in reply to the question, “Would you admit to your homes as personal friends members of the other side?”, the highest affirmative reply in one group was 26½ per cent. Nearly 80 per cent said “no”. The Afrikaans-and English-speaking youth did not want members of the other group in their homes. Only 50 per cent were willing to admit members of other groups to close kinship by marriage—only half of them; one group had only 35 per cent. What was the reaction of the Administrator? He naturally found it depressing and he decided to blame the parents. There is just a faint element of truth in that because to-day we have parents who themselves were educated under this system. The separatism, the division, has now proceeded so far—I am speaking now of white apartheid—that we find that these are the reactions of these young people.

Sir, I want to take this a step further. We had a report recently of a great “volkskongres”. When I speak of a “volkskongres” it is not a people’s congress; it is a “volkskongres” with a special meaning. I am not criticizing this; I am just appreciating what has happened. If my hon. friends on the left here will bear with me I should like to quote a short paragraph from Die Beeld; they say this—

A very strong body—2,500 people invited, 1,500 school boards, school committees, church councils and so on—and then follows a list of those who will deliver papers. The first on the list is a man for whom I have the greatest respect and whom I admire in South African education, Prof. Chris Coetzee, former professor of education and later Rector of Potchefstroom University. I have not seen his paper; I should like to see it because I read whatever he writes. He is not only a strong representative and advocate of Calvinist education but also a man who follows the argument to its logical conclusion, and that is what I want to do this afternoon. I am a great admirer of his.

Sir, it is not only at this “volkskongres” where one section of the people has come together. This emphasizes again the separatism we have in South Africa. I want to go a little further. This time I want to quote a very distinguished South African educationist who is now chairman of the National Educational Council, none other than Professor Thom, who, I think, has held every post in Afrikaans cultural organizations and has been rector of a university. I should like to tell the House what he said in one of his speeches about 18 months ago. The report on his speech reads as follows—

That is fair, of course. The report continues—

He says that we are not alike and that we are divided into two sections. His interpretation is that there is a homogeneous, although not completely so, Afrikaner section and then another heterogeneous section consisting of Jew and Gentile, Catholic and Protestant, immigrants. descendants of the old population, a heterogeneous people, who call themselves South Africans. There are the two groups, he says. Professor Thom does not wish to have the two confused. He represents one group. I have no objection to that, and neither has Professor Coetzee. That is why we have common ground. That is the picture as I see it. We have heard a great deal about Calvinist education. I intend to refer to this question if I still have a few minutes left at the end of my speech. There again I have no objection. We must look at this whole question in South Africa objectively as far as we can.

Now I want to take the other side of the picture. How do these “Engelse”, these English-speaking people feel about it all? I attended a graduation ceremony at the English-language Training College in Johannesburg last year. I heard Professor J. J. Mulder, a senior official in the Education Department, speak. He delivered a very fine speech, in which he told English-speaking people that they should do more about entering the teaching profession. Now I should like to give the House the reaction of Dr. Halliday, who is the chairman of the South African Council for English Education. The report on what he had to say about this matter reads, inter alia, as follows—

In other words, they have no confidence in the Education Department. Possibly the hon. the Minister has heard of the examination papers which were set for the Std. 10 examination in December last year. There were two language papers, of course, namely the Afrikaans paper and then a translated language paper that they said was the English paper. I will not say that the people who presented the paper were illiterate, but in English they were just semi-literate. Eleven-year-old children in Std. 4 could have written better English. The question of the examination papers was reported in the English Press, with extracts from the paper. This was most humiliating for the Education Department. They said that the translation had gone wrong.

Then there is the question of the teacher shortage in the Transvaal. I am speaking particularly of the Transvaal because I know the conditions there. The other day the Rector of the Training College said that, of 100 young men presenting themselves for the four year course, 75 per cent would drop out. When these people are well qualified, they are offered better posts outside the Education Department. They do not find the atmosphere of the department congenial. They do not like it. Many English-speaking people who can afford it, decide to send their children to private schools. They do so because they are dissatisfied with the Government system.

They have always done that.

I quite agree. A large number of people have done so for a very good reason. The reason is that they can get in a private school what the Afrikaans-speaking child can get in a Government school, namely, the religious atmosphere which they are anxious to obtain. They can get that and they are anxious to do that. Practically all our private schools have this religious background. But what do we do about it? What is the cause of the “present discontents”, as Burke said? We are dissatisfied with the constitution of these boards. The hon. member for Durban (North) has carried out some splendid research not only in regard to education boards but in regard to all these Government boards. Had he not been a good citizen and made his research work public, had he sent it to a university, he would probably have had a doctor’s degree conferred on him for his research. He has done a very good job. In other words, there is this dissatisfaction; and what do we do about it? I want to do something constructive. I want to make a constructive suggestion. In making my suggestion I feel rather as Dr. Verwoerd felt when on 10th April, 1961, in this House he announced his Bantustan policy to the astonishment of all his followers and to the astonishment of the Opposition. He said: “It is not what we would have liked if we could have avoided it. It is a “verbrokkeling” a fragmentation, a disintegration, a disunity—which we would not have wished for.” He said that because of the pressure he felt that we had to do that. That is what I feel about making my suggestions. These are my suggestions: I want a system in our organization and administration of education where we have a bifurcation, where we will have the two sides represented. Let me illustrate this with the example of the Witwatersrand. There we have a central school board, an eastern school board and a western school board. I want two school boards, one for English-medium schools and one for Afrikaans-medium schools. That will be fair; they will be able to make recommendations to the department independently. But what about the Department of Education? In the Department of Education we have a director, a deputy director and various other highly placed officials, secretaries, a general staff and the inspectors of schools. I want the department to have two sections. I would like to see an Afrikaans department of education as well as an English department of education for the Transvaal. [Interjections.] Hon. members must not be in a hurry as I will come to my other suggestions presently. The hon. the Minister now has a National Council of Education. I should like him to appoint two such councils but if he cannot appoint two, he can have eight members of that council, four of each group, reporting to him independently. That is fair. He will not object to that.

I come now to cultural affairs. The most important movement in cultural affairs is the South African Broadcasting Corporation. Instead of having only one broadcasting corporation, I want two: one for Afrikaans broadcasting and one for English broadcasting. In the same way when we get television I want two television bodies. There is nothing new in that. In Britain they have the B.B.C. and I.T.V. and in America they also have more than one such body. It ought to be easy to organize that.

We also want a publications board for English literature and one for Afrikaans literature. [Interjections.] Hon. members do not seem to like this, but this is the election of slogans: You have it, we want it. The Transkei has it and this Government is prepared to give it to every African group in this country. Why can they not give it to the English-speaking people of this country? Surely that is fair enough. This is my suggestion.

Now, Sir, I come to the Calvinist side in education. Here I wish to quote Professor Chris Coetzee. I have quoted him before. He was anxious to have this “C.N.O.” system introduced. I have no objection to it. This is what he said—

Finally, I want to quote him on probably the most important and most serious occasion in his educational career. I want to quote from his “intreerede as rektor van P.U.K.”—

We want right to prevail. We want a say in the control and administration of education in this country. I find myself this afternoon speaking to Afrikaans-speaking people. What is the criticism? We are too “liberal”. When people talk to me about being liberal, I do what the Speaker does. I go to the Book. The prophet Isaiah tells us in the Book that “The evil person shall no more be called liberal.” If hon. members do not like that, they can go to the Proverbs. We are told in the Proverbs that “The liberal soul shall be made fat”. He shall be made prosperous. I should like the hon. the Minister to give very serious consideration to what I have said. He does not need a new law. I am not criticizing the law. The Speaker would not allow that. I am criticizing the administration of our system and organization in education; I should like it to be improved. You have it, we want it, as they have it in the Transkei and throughout South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I intended to take part in this debate. I felt that, even if a maiden speech were not expected of me, I would after all be expected to make a newcomer’s speech in this new capacity. However, I never thought that it would be one of this nature. When the hon. member for Kensington rose, I was glad that he was speaking about education matters. I thought I would be able to say straight from my heart how I think and feel about his efforts in the past. I still want to say something about it. But I must say that I am astonished, I can almost say shocked, at the way he acted here this afternoon. I shall try to reply to some of these matters. In this swan song which he sang this afternoon, the hon. member brought up all sorts of things. I am very sorry that he had to take leave of this House in this manner, because, let me admit it, if there is one hon. member on the other side who knows something about education, then it is the hon. member for Kensington. Why one has to give one’s farewell performance in the manner the hon. member did, passes my comprehension. It is known that I was originally trained as a teacher and that I did in fact stand before the class for many years. However, I want to say that anybody, and even any member of this House who has not in the recent past been in continuous contact with education, does not know much about education. I include myself here. I am accepting this new responsibility with by no means the knowledge I had of the education of the time when I myself was teaching. This is not what counts. What is of extreme importance in education is the attitude, and that is why I am shocked at the attitude the hon. member for Kensington revealed here to-day. I just want to refer to this in passing in order to bring this point home more closely. For many years I served on the school board of Witwatersrand (Central). There was a time when I was the most senior member of that board. The hon. member will recall that at a certain stage a struggle developed about the fact that the then Administrator of the Transvaal had not nominated any English-speaking person to that board. For the sake of the relationships in education, and because I knew that whether a parent was English-or Afrikaans-speaking, it did not make any difference to the concern he felt about his children or what he expected from them, I, who was the most senior member of that board at the time, resigned. Subsequently it was possible for the Administrator of the Transvaal to nominate two English-speaking persons. The hon. member has now appealed to me to bear this fact in mind when boards are constituted. I want to tell the hon. member that it is not necessary for me to take this into consideration at his instance. I think the attitude I revealed towards education in the past, ought to be a guarantee to him and like-minded people.

I might as well dispose of the finer things before I deal with the criticism. In my personal capacity and also on behalf of this side of the House I should like to thank the hon. member for Kensington for what he has done for education in the past, in the first place, as an official and subsequently as a member of this House. He could really have made a positive contribution. Although he has been critical in many respects, he has, by doing so, made a positive contribution since his criticism was never of a negative nature. Therefore I find it all the more astonishing that the hon. member could take all these things together to-day in an attempt which, in my modest opinion, was a truly negative one.

He is angry with the U.P.

I think there are more things that worry the hon. member. The hon. member expressed sympathy with the hon. member for Innesdal for the treatment he allegedly received at meetings here and there. I want to tell the hon. member that I express the same sympathy with him for the way his party is treating him at the moment. I shall forgive the hon. member for a great deal of what he said here to-day because I assume that he is perhaps not in a very happy frame of mind.

After this introduction I should like to go into a few points raised by the hon. member. In the first place, the hon, member congratulated me on being nominated as Minister of National Education. I want to thank the hon. member for it, because I know it comes from his heart. We have known each other for many years and I appreciate it, coming from a friend and a front-bencher on the other side. However, what I find inconsistent in the speech made by the hon. member, is that he congratulated me on the two departments which were being entrusted to me, but then he said in the same breath that these should never have been two departments, but one. But later in his speech he pleaded for two bodies in all the further spheres I have to deal with. I really do not understand his logic in this matter. However, this is not a very important matter. I mention it in passing. I do not regard the question of the separation of the two departments as such a terrible issue with which we need to take up time this afternoon. I should like to deal with the hon. member’s question about the National Education Council. I want to give him a reply to it by saying that this council was constituted by the Cabinet before I had arrived in South Africa.

I am glad to hear that.

I do not think this is a secret. I think the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, who was acting Minister of National Education at the time, probably said this in his announcement. As far as this council is concerned, I was therefore confronted with an accomplished fact. I want to go further by saying that the hon. the Minister who in the final analysis bore the responsibility for the constitution of that council, although the Cabinet had approved that council, was also confronted with an accomplished fact. He was confronted with the accomplished fact with which I would also have been confronted if I had had to constitute that council. What is that fact? The fact of the matter is that the Act laid down certain provisions in regard to the constitution of that council. For instance, under this Act representatives of various provinces are to serve on that council. What can the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development acting as Minister of National Education, or what can I or any other Minister of National Education do when recommendations are received from the provinces and no names of English-speaking persons appear in that list? What option does he have in such a case? What can he do when even a province in which predominantly English is spoken, recommends Afrikaans-speaking people for appointment to that council? Is he to ignore their recommendations and appoint other people merely to satisfy this requirement?

I am referring to the seven members of the executive committee.

I just want to complete my argument; then I shall return to that point. As I have said, we were confronted with an accomplished fact because some of the bodies which make recommendations, had recommended Afrikaans-speaking persons. How can the hon. member expect a responsible Minister of National Education to appoint a person just because he happens to be an English-speaking citizen, after that hon. member’s party has over a period of years contributed nothing towards enhancing the status of the teaching profession and has also done nothing to persuade or influence their English-speaking fellow-citizens to allow their sons and daughters to be trained as teachers? Over a period of many years that side of the House has, through its actions and criticism, brought the teaching profession to an inferior position. They should not expect us to produce results now. What is the position in the English-medium schools to-day? The majority of those teacher are Afrikaans speaking. Afrikaans-speaking people have to help them. I do not want to sound a warning, but I want to tell the hon. member that if this kind of suspicion-mongering against the teaching profession continues and if in addition people proceed to throwing suspicion on those Afrikaans-speaking persons who are granted just recognition for the service they have performed in the teaching profession, he should not be astonished when there comes a time that the Afrikaans-speaking teachers, male as well as female, will no longer want to go to English-medium schools. Then they will have to fend for themselves. I repeat that this is not a threat. However. I want to ask those hon. members to take this into account.

Now I want to return to the executive committee of the Education Council. The executive committee of the Education Council is also subject to certain restrictions. There are, in addition, certain stipulations. There must be certain people who have knowledge of teacher training. Others are concerned with school matters of a general nature. What is the position in the provinces? If one wants to appoint a person to the executive committee of the Education Council, one cannot appoint a teacher who studied at a training college for only one or three years. One must have an experienced and well-tried person. It has to be a person who has a good grounding in philosophy and education. His relations with his fellow-man must be such that he can take the lead. What did the acting Minister do? He appointed a very prominent English-speaking educationist to that council. I trust with all my heart that the hon. member’s remarks about this matter—and I should like to read up his Hansard since I am not quite sure that I distinctly heard what he said— imply no reflection on that English-speaking member of the executive committee of the Education Council.

No. He is an excellent man for technical education. The best in South Africa. He is not the only one.

It goes without saying that he is not the only one. There is, in addition, the question of the availability of these people. You must not think that these people are over-eager or that any educationist in a high position would break his legs to serve on a body such as the Education Council, which is being disparaged in such a manner by the members on the other side of this House. In other words, my predecessor also had to consider the availability of people for that particular work.

I want to conclude with the point the hon. member made when he referred to “separatism”. I find it astonishing that the hon. member has now, upon his retirement, become such an ardent supporter of apartheid, and that he now wants everything to be separate. The hon. member quoted from the speech I made in Durban on the occasion of the opening of the first meeting of the Education Council. I explicitly said there-—and it is a pity the hon. member did not quote that instead—that the Education Council was not there to plan education for Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking children; the council was there to plan a national pattern of education for all of us. Since I know the hon. member so well, it would have been more fitting for him if he had linked his argument to that and pleaded that I keep a watchful eye on that matter, instead of adopting the attitude he did.

The hon. member referred to a “wonderful” survey which the hon. member for Durban (North) had made in regard to the composition of various bodies. I have read those articles by the hon. member. I do not have them here since I did not know that the hon. member would refer to them. In any case, I want to tell you that he did this with a biased attitude. He chose those councils because they fitted in with his biased attitude. I now want to tell the hon. member that I can also make a survey of other bodies and councils in respect of which it will be possible to prove the opposite of this so-called wonderful survey. I am not even referring to the fact that in Natal numerous councils and bodies have been constituted in which no justice has been done to the Afrikaans-speaking person at all. I recall that in the course of the no-confidence debate the hon. member for Kliprivier quoted particulars in this regard. Therefore, I want to suggest that the hon. member really does not have much cause to complain about these matters. I want to make further reference to the so-called separatism about which the hon. member complained. In any case, by having done that the hon. member does at least admit one thing, i.e. that our South African population does come from different backgrounds. The hon. member complained about it, and the other day there were complaints about it in the Other Place as well. In the booklet of the United Party entitled “You want it, we have it”, it is also stated that we are separating the children through our policy of mother-tongue education. I now want to ask the hon. member whether he can name me one single case of an English-speaking citizen of South Africa who wanted to place his child in an Afrikaans-medium school.

That is against the law.

I am not talking about whether it is against the law, but I am asking the hon. member whether he can name me a case of a person who …

Yes, I can.

Surely that hon. member did not want to send his child to an Afrikaans-medium school?

He himself was sent to an Afrikaans-medium school.

I should like to have proof to that effect. The fact of the matter is that by virtue of their background and their history the English-speaking people in this country like to send their children to private schools. In many cases they prefer to send their children there if they can possibly afford it. I do not want to quarrel with them about it. If they feel that way, fine, let them send their children to private schools. But we have in this country Government schools which are just as good as, if not better than, most of the private schools. A short while ago there was a discussion on this very same topic in the Provincial Council here in Cape Town. The majority of the schools are still parallel-medium schools, and as far as the Cape Province is concerned, only one-tenth of the schools are single-medium schools. What is more, these single-medium schools are divided further into English-medium schools and Afrikaans-medium schools. The majority of the schools are parallel-medium schools, but why do they not function as parallel-medium schools? They do not function as parallel-medium schools because hon. members who are sitting on the other side and people who think as they do, do not send their children to parallel-medium schools, but to the private schools in the cities and the larger centres.

You are missing the point.

No, I am not missing the point. On the contrary, I am very much on the point. Therefore, the people who are to blame for this separation, are none other than our friends on the other side and those who feel as they do. I repeat, I have nothing against it if they feel that more justice will be done to their children in a private school and that they can afford to do it. Let them send their children there, but then they should not level at me the reproach that we are separating the children or that we are driving the children into separate camps.

I did not say so.

No, the hon. member did not say it, but the hon. member’s party says it repeatedly and in the booklet of the party which you endorse, it is also said repeatedly. Is this perhaps the reason why the hon. member has been kicked out of his seat? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Kensington was an active member of the teaching profession for a long time. He knows the practical side. He knows just as well as I do that a parallel-medium school can only function organizationally when the two language groups are reasonably balanced, so that one does not need group classes for English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking children. The moment it becomes necessary to combine standards in one class, the children are taken out of that school; and the hon. member knows just as well as I do that this is one of the main reasons why the English-speaking section in this country would rather take their children out of parallel schools and send them away to larger centres and prefer to place them in private schools. I am not concerned with that at all. I want to tell you that I myself do not like group classes. If I had children who had to receive their instruction in group classes, I would not have felt happy about it either, but I repeat that in that case the hon. member for Kensington as the main Opposition speaker on education should not level the reproach at this side of the House that we are trying to drive the children into separate camps. It is the facts of life, the realities with which we are dealing, which make this separation possible, and the hon. member will agree with me that the system we have works excellently. We who are Afrikaans speaking do have difficulty with the English language, but what is strange about it, is that we do learn it and that we do speak it, and I think I can honestly say that in spite of what Professor E. G. Malherbe tried to prove, the Afrikaans-speaking people in this country are more bilingual than the English-speaking people are.

I should now like to come back to the so-called “white apartheid” or separatism which the hon. member advocated here. He pleaded for two school boards, he pleaded for two education councils and he pleaded for two broadcasting corporations. Everything has to be dual. I have already said that I never knew the hon. member was such a great champion of apartheid. But the hon. member did not motivate his point of view. I stated my point of view to the Education Council by saying: You are not planning for Afrikaans-speaking or for English-speaking people, but you are planning a national pattern of education. And why this hon. member must now advocate a division of this nature, I do not know.

That is not the way we know the hon. member.

I wonder how it would work out in practice if his system were applied and one were saddled with an English Department of Education which, for instance, might not have teachers, because the Afrikaans-speaking teachers, in turn, would not want to go to the English Department of Education. I can only be astonished at the hon. member’s point of view in this case.

The hon. member said here that the teachers had no confidence in the Department of Education. He quoted what Dr. Halliday had said, but he knows just as well as I do that Dr. Halliday is a person who is disappointed about many things. These are, of course, matters which are mainly concerned with the provincial departments of education, but how the hon. member now wants to lay this at our door, is not quite clear to me.

I want to raise one other point. The hon. member referred here to Calvinist education and quoted from what Professor Chris Coetzee had said. I left this country in 1967. Does the hon. member deny that in the year 1964. it was explicitly stated in the constitution of the United Party, of which he is a member, that their education policy was Christian National?

I do not deny it.

This is the case. Now I should like the hon. member to tell the House, if he still gets the opportunity to reply to this, why the words “Christian National” were omitted from the constitution of the United Party. Who was behind it? Was it Professor Chris Coetzee, or was it the newcomers in the United Party, such as the hon. members for Hillbrow and Durban (North) and those people?

It is Jacobs.

What was the reason for those two words being deleted from the constitution of the United Party? This is a very important matter.

They are in the Education Act.

I am not referring to the Education Act now, but to the constitution of the United Party. [Interjections.]

I am sorry that I could not make the speech I should like to have made to mark my return to this House, but you saw, Sir, that the hon. member for Kensington left me no alternative. Now that I have come to the end of my reply to the points raised by the hon. member, I nevertheless want to thank him very much for the way he has helped to allow justice done to education in this House. I want to thank him for what he did when he was still an official in the teaching profession, and I trust that he will make his influence felt amongst his younger friends on his side of the House so that we may truly make education a matter about which one can argue constructively and that it will not become a point at issue in a no-confidence debate.

In the brief space of 15 minutes allotted to me, it stands to reason that I can touch upon very few aspects of the problems and must limit myself a great deal. What is very striking to me, and probably to every thinking person as well, is the moral collapse of the National Party leadership and also of certain—fortunately, I say, only certain—of its followers. On almost every occasion one sees that moral collapse. For example, one sees it in the twisted smear-stories which are told on every occasion and which are added to on every occasion. We have seen it here continually. I have no time to prove it to you, Sir, but analysis will show that every one of them is a smear-story for the most part. One sees it in the brutal actions against members of the party, members who for years had helped to build up that party and who were then simply kicked out of that party in a wink and in the crudest way. One sees it in the violent breaking-up of meetings, which is just absolutely repulsive. One sees it in the abuse of legal power against persons who dare differ with the hon. the Prime Minister. One sees it in the open threats made here in our House of Assembly against ..’.

Order!

Let me then use the word “warnings”, but warnings which are interpreted outside as being threats—threats against an hon. member who dares to show here how much telephone tapping is taking place. One sees to-day that police are sent to a Member of Parliament to catch him in public and to search him in a room there. All these things are proof of the moral decline of the leadership of the National Party, and all these methods which I have mentioned, are repugnant to every decent person. They are repugnant to the public and to the electorate. The confidence of the people in the National Party is being destroyed rapidly and on a large scale. In order to save the situation for themselves, they are now building up a new instrument, a secret force, a police force, in the name of BOSS, a force which, if they want to, they can use against their opposition, a secret force which is so extraordinary that one finds to-day that one man, the Prime Minister, has virtually complete power over it. He appoints to this body whom he wishes; he controls them as he wishes; he pays them what he likes; he orders them to do what he pleases. And those poor people must simply carry out his orders blindly and submissively. I say that he can do just what he likes with BOSS.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No, I unfortunately have only 15 minutes. The Prime Minister or any successor of his can do just what he likes. Neither the Public Service Commission nor the Treasury nor the Auditor-General, who is the watch-dog over the country’s money, has the power to exercise supervision over it. The Auditor-General must be satisfied with a certificate or a brief letter issued by the Prime Minister in which he states that it is in order. In other words, the Prime Minister has the statutory right—let us understand one another clearly: I am not saying that he is doing this, but I am saying that he has the statutory right to do it, and if a man has the statutory right to do it, it is no protection for the public—-the Prime Minister has the statutory right to use that money for himself if he wishes. He has the statutory right to go even further: he can take that money and use it to bribe people. If he wishes, he can take RIF million of it and give it to one of his Press chiefs and order that Press chief to destroy, for example, “Die Afrikaner” or any other company. He has that power. [Interjections.]

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

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member for Ermelo allowed to say that money which has been voted by this Parliament, may be used by the Prime Minister in order to bribe people?

The hon. member is going too far now. He is criticizing the Act.

No, I am not criticizing the Act.

Order! The hon. member must not argue with the Chair. He must abide by my ruling; he must stop criticizing the Act.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to criticize the Act. I merely want to criticize this institution which we have in the country to-day. The position to-day is this: Orders which are given to a body such as BOSS must be carried out by them. It is a secret body, and because it is a secret body, it is a body which can have its agents everywhere. It can have its agents in businesses, in homes, in Offices and in family circles. Those agents can be present everywhere and they will everywhere be able to carry out the policy which they are ordered to carry out by the man who has supervision over this body, namely the Prime Minister or his appointees. Mr. Speaker, nobody knows how many of them there are; nobody knows what they do; nobody really knows what they have in mind, except that they have in mind the security of the State, but the security of the State can mean anything. Everything is shrouded in the greatest secrecy. The danger of such a situation is this: even it you grant this power to the best people in the world, the fact that one person has at his disposal such power, a police force, a secret force over which no one else has any control …

Order! I must interrupt the hon. member. This is an Act of the country.

Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about the Act; I am talking about the position which we have to-day. The position is that one has a body here which the Prime Minister has at his disposal—and I am talking about the fact that he has it at his disposal, not about the Act …

Order! The hon. member is criticizing the Act and he must abide by the ruling of the Chair.

We have to do here with an institution known as BOSS. Surely I am entitled to say what the dangers of BOSS are in its application and use? Sir, what makes such a position particularly dangerous is this: You will remember that BOSS was compared in this House to the C.I.A., the Central Intelligence Agency of America. The Minister said that in reality there was a measure of agreement. But we must never forget that the C.I.A. in America has often been accused, and very correctly accused, of causing revolutions and rebellions in the world. They have been accused of having caused the revolution of the French generals in Algeria; of having been responsible for the invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs; of overthrowing governments and murdering leaders who stand in their way. I say that if BOSS can be compared to the C.I.A., then we have to do with a Frankenstein monster here which is a terrible danger to our country.

Order! The hon. member had the opportunity to say those things about the Bill when it was before this House. That Bill is to-day an Act of the country and the hon. member must abide by that. That is my ruling and it is final.

Mr. Speaker, it is not in the least my intention to criticize the Act. [Interjections.] Every Act surely has consequences in society …

Order! The hon. member should have discussed those matters when the Bill was under consideration here.

No, then he voted for the Bill.

Order! My ruling is that the hon. member is criticizing the Act and he must abide by it.

I shall try not to criticize the Act; may I just enquire how far I may go in my criticism of BOSS?

You must just not gossip.

I am not gossiping. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will be patient with me. I shall try not to criticize the Act.

I have been very patient up to now. I allowed the hon. member to go very far, but he is going much too far.

If one sees what misdeeds are taking place to-day—and this has nothing to do with the BOSS Act, but is in fact concerned with abuse of the Police and the Security Service—if one sees that the Security Police is to-day being used to trace and to give a lecture to young Afrikaners who wrote a sarcastic letter against the Prime Minister (and we are all criticized and sarcasm is used against us), then it is surely abuse of the power of the State.

That is untrue.

If one sees that political opponents are being spied upon—this was proved here by the extracts which the hon member for Innesdal read out; that telephone conversations are being tapped on a large scale; that the conversations of citizens of this country are being tapped; if a warning is issued to a Member of Parliament here in this House, and if he is persecuted outside, then one really begins to tell oneself that the position in South Africa is alarming. It is alarming that there are all kinds of powers which can be used against citizens of the country by a government, the Security Police or whoever it may be, without Parliament being able to exercise any control and without any guarantee of the security of the individual. The full significance of this institution, BOSS, has been considered from all angles by our legal experts. I am not talking about the Act now, but about the significance of BOSS. I want to read out what the legal position is in our country to-day, according to legal experts. They say (translation)—

Order! The hon. member is now using another method to circumvent my ruling. The hon. member may continue his speech, but he must stop this now.

Give him advice, Vause!

Order! I should like to hear what the hon. member has to say and I cannot hear if hon. members make a noise.

Mr. Speaker, I did not follow you properly. Did you say that I must sit down?

No, I said the hon. member could continue his speech, but must stop criticizing an Act of the country.

Mr. Speaker, let me say at once that I do not in the least want to criticize the Act. It is only the situation that I want to criticize. I am referring only to the situation and not to the Act at all. We find that our advocates and judges are very worried to-day about the situation in the country. Mr. Justice Kowie Marais …

By reading out their opinions here, the hon. member is circumventing my ruling.

Then I shall leave their opinions aside. Allow me to raise another matter now. When I said at Worcester on 10th November that the situation was an abominable one. I revealed that it was calculated in certain circles that BOSS, when in full operation, would cost not R4 million, but closer to R50 million. Sir. you will understand that in my speech I referred to this in only one or two short sentences. I did not explain it. I touched on it hastily. [Interjections.] When I said that, it was virtually at the beginning of the financial year. When one speaks at the beginning of a financial year, one cannot say that something has already cost so much. One looks into the future and says that it will cost so much. [Interjections.] I said that this year an amount of R4 million had been provided for this purpose on the Estimates, but I merely said that it had been calculated that BOSS would cost R50 million. When one says that BOSS will cost R50 million, one is not referring to the present time. Surely it is absurd to say at the beginning of the financial year exactly how much it will cost. When one says that it costs exactly so much, it is at the end of a certain period. [Interjections.]

Order!

My words were: This is what BOSS will cost when it is BOSS, not in its initial stage. Attacks were then made on me, without it being examined what my words in reality could have meant. As I have explained, this was said hastily in a short sentence, but then words and a meaning were seized upon. A certain interpretation was attached to it. Then this extraordinary position arose. I spoke on 10th November. At midnight on 11th November a dramatic announcement was made. This dramatic announcement was that, because I had said what I have just explained to this House, I would be summoned to appear before the commission. The next day, on 12th November, a proclamation was issued. By means of this proclamation he interfered with the proceedings of a judicial com. mission which was already sitting. He instructed the judge to hear the case; to hear it urgently; and to report on it urgently.

Who is he?

The Prime Minister actually changed the regulations of that commission of inquiry, which was already engaged in its task, and he changed them just to make them applicable to one person. This judicial commission had an Appeal Court judge as its commissioner, and one must not forget that in South Africa it is a principle of our administration of justice, as it is of the administration of justice of every civilized country, that a government or administrative body never dare interfere with the judiciary of a country. It dare not do that. The moment it does that, it shocks the confidence which the public has in that judiciary. Then more harm is done to that judiciary than ever before. The public then automatically feels that if a government can issue instructions to judges, it may just as well tell them what to decide and then a lack of confidence in the judiciary develops. The action of the Prime Minister in interfering in this matter, which was practically one of administration of justice, is something which the judiciary of our country will take a long time to recover from. [Interjections.] There is a second point which we must bear in mind.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, an hon. member on the other side said, “You are lying”.

Order! Did any member say something like that? [Interjections.] Order!

I said so, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, what did the hon. member say?

I said what the hon. member stated that I had said.

And what was that?

“You are lying”, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot withdraw it, because it is the truth that the hon. member is lying.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it immediately.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, there is a second aspect which one must bear in mind. When one has a political opponent and he makes a public statement on a public platform, one expects him or any political opponent to reply to you in the same way. But the hon. the Prime Minister did not reply to me on this point. He made use of his rights and powers as Prime Minister to interfere in a judicial inquiry in order to get that commission to try to discredit me. This is what the hon. the Prime Minister did. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I see that my time has expired.

Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of entering this debate, but I am doing so now in consequence of the speech made by the hon. member for Ermelo. Then, too, since I am on my feet, I shall deal with the matters the hon. member for Durban (North) and I differed on yesterday evening. It was noticeable to me, as this debate wore on, how the members of the Hertzog Party were being taken under the protection of the official Opposition. It is noticeable to me that they are always parrying when attacks are made by this side of the House on those members of the Hertzog Party. I can well understand it too. According to Press reports the hon. member for Yeoville took it amiss of me that I had referred to these gentlemen as his “allies”. I want to go further and say that before we come to the 22nd April, we will still see the day when there will not be a hair’s breadth separating the United Party and the Hertzog Party. I want to pay the hon. member for Yeoville a compliment. On saying this, I do not want to suggest that the Uni tea Party will move towards the Hertzog Party. I want to suggest that the Hertzog Party will move towards the United Party. This is also very clear from the way in which it has revealed itself in this House. At the very first opportunity the Hertzog Party had to show its colours, it voted for the motion of no confidence moved by the United Party in this House, and not for its own motion. So eager was the Hertzog Party to vote for that motion of the United Party that the Whip of the Hertzog Party forgot his Afrikaans Calvinistic principles and called out in English in this House: “Divide”! It Was probably with great satisfaction, too, that the hon. member for Kensington observed what fond treatment the statement by the hon. member for Innesdal received in the Sunday Times from the designated candidate of the United Party in the Kensington constituency, Mr. George Oliver. Fine, brotherly co-operation was shown in this newspaper, which has in many respects become the mouthpiece of the Hertzog Party.

I made a statement here and the hon. member for Yeoville queried it. I shall prove that statement of mine to the hon. member for Yeoville out of the mouth of the Leader of the Hertzog Party. The Sunday Express of 4th January this year published a verbatim report of an interview which the member for Ermelo had had with the Sunday Express. I am quoting two sections from it. The first reads as follows—

These are the words of the hon. member for Ermelo—

[Interjections.] I now hear that the hon. member for Innesdal said by way of interjection that this was true. But, Sir, it has always been the standpoint of the United Party that, if you want to read the truth, you must go to the English and not the Afrikaans newspapers. How lovely it is for me if brothers can live together like this! No wonder then that Mr. Joel Mervis in last Sunday’s Sunday Times referred to “Oom Jaap”. After all that has been said and done, let none of us say that there is no courtesy in politics. One compliment always deserves another. [Interjections.l I have nothing to be acid about, because I am not a member of the United Party. I have no need to mope over the coming election. I also want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Deposition that I have not made such a hash of my party as he has made of his.

See what they look like now!

But let us go further. Let the hon. member for Durban (Point) say “See what they look like”! if he likes. What does the hon. member for Kensington next to him look like! Has he ever glanced in that direction? But let us proceed. The hon. member for Ermelo would do well to give me his attention now. What was the charge the member for Ermelo levelled at me? The charge the member for Ermelo repeatedly levelled at me was that this side of the House, this party of which I am the Leader, has in a period of three years under my leadership adopted a course which has become liberal, and then in addition all the adjectives he likes adding. But for two of those three years the hon. member for Ermelo was a member of my Cabinet. Now I specifically want to say to him again: On no single occasion, in public or otherwise, did he take up the attitude that any course which this Cabinet had adopted was the wrong one. On the contrary, he endorsed it each time. He endorsed it at all times. What my friend the Minister of Transport said is true. If I had not asked him to leave the Cabinet, he would still have been sitting there now. He would not have left of his own accord. To tell the truth, Sir, I had to ask him twice to leave.

[Inaudible.]

Does the hon. member want to tell me now that he would have resigned at some stage or other? Is that what he wants to tell me?

Of course!

When would you have left? I am now repeating my accusation against the hon. member, and he stands branded for one of two things, either that it is true that he had objections on matters of principle, and if that is true, he did not have the courage to express them, or that he clung so firmly to his Office that it was worth more to him than his principles. That is the only conclusion one can arrive at. I want to tell the hon. member again that in the time that lies ahead he will find that it is easier to intrigue in the dark than to fight in the light. Let us now analyse this matter further. The standpoint of the hon. member is that in these three years I have led the party so far astray that he could not endure it. Yet during those three years he remained in the party. I am again asking the hon. member what price one must put on the integrity of such a person. Let me analyse the matter further.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon. member wants to make interjections, he must please make them loudly enough for me to be able to hear them. The hon. member is not in a dark room now, but in the open House, and I should like to hear what the hon. member has to say. The hon. member can pretend to be writing again, for he is writing the same words over and over. It did not remain at three years, for we heard it said as a slip of the tongue that this party had gone astray as far back as 1960. That is what was written by Robert van Tonder and the Konserwatiewe Studiegroep, which is close to those hon. members. Reference has already been made to it in this House. Let us now see, however, what the hon. member for Ermelo, the writer, said in the Sunday Express of 4th January. He said—

This was said by the hon. member who places himself on the pious pedestal that he stands by Dr. Malan, Mr. Strydom and Dr. Verwoerd. Does the hon. member for Yeoville see now where all this is heading, i.e. how that hon. member is moving closer to him?

Strange people can speak the truth.

I want to concede that the hon. member for Yeoville is right; this is a strange person. For years it was the United Party’s accusation against the National Party that for 21 years it had been governing South Africa in such a way that South Africa had been led into the abyss. For 10 of those 21 years the hon. member for Ermelo was a member of the Cabinet. Now, however, he speaks in the Sunday Express with great delight and much courtesy of “21 years of mismanagement under the cloak of the so-called Nationalist Party Government”. Can one imagine anything worse? Surely the hon. member for Ermelo does not wish to deny that he granted the Sunday Express this verbatim interview? He does not wish to deny it. I know the hon. member is capable of denying a great many things, but here it stands under his name.

Surely you know how the newspapers often distort the interviews.

I was looking for that. The hon. member for Ermelo has just said that one can only believe what the English Press writes. I want to read to the hon. member what he said: “It is incredible that after 21 years of Nationalist Party rule one is forced to turn to the English Press for the truth.” What is more, these words appear between quotation marks as the verbatim words of that hon. member. This report appeared on 4th January. To date that hon. member has not published any denial in any respect to the effect that what they say here he said is not true.

Must one publish a denial of every report in the newspapers?

That the hon. member can go and tell his friends in his party. But he will not be able to confirm it before the country and before this House. Let us see to what extent the hon. member is prepared not only to repudiate his former leaders, Dr. Malan, Mr. Strydom and Dr. Verwoerd in public, but also to repudiate himself. The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has already indicated this to the House. But I also want to indicate this now by referring to that hon. member as the former Minister of Health. I have here a pamphlet which is being distributed by that hon. member. The title is “Die Volk se klagstaat teen die Vorster-regering”. (The charge sheet of the people against the Vorster Government.) In the first charge he lays against the government he at once refers to himself. One cannot say that he is not taken up with himself, for he begins at once with himself by saying (translation)—

But that hon. member was the Vorster Government’s Minister of Health. He was in charge of the section dealing with medical services.

Only the national part thereof.

You were in charge of it. You had to advise the Government. You had to do whatever was necessary in this regard. But that hon. member does not mind humiliating himself in that process.

That hon. member attacked me here and made insinuations. But let us just see how honourable that party is and what value one can attach to their credibility. We know what appeared in their little newspaper Die Afrikaner in regard to Robert Sobukwe. Let me now mention an example to the House of the propaganda the Hertzog people are making in this connection. I have a letter here written to me by one of them. It was written by a person whom I know. He signed the letter too. He has the following to say about Sobukwe, and this is also the propaganda which this truth-loving Calvinist is bruiting abroad through his people (translation)—

Sir, have you ever heard a more mendacious deed of propaganda than this? Now, what are the facts? In the first place it is alleged that he has been released. Surely the Hertzog Party knows that he has not been released. He is under restrictions in Kimberley.

The letter from which you are reading …

It is from one of your people.

Is it a candidate?

No, it is not a candidate; it is one of your members. But that is the propaganda they are disseminating.

It is sad if you make use of that kind of argument.

I am linking it up with the report in Die Afrikaner ...

Do you link up anything with reports in Die Afrikaner?

… for this is the kind of propaganda which is being written on the one hand and whispered on the other. Let us go further. “He is now working for Bantu Affairs and was immediately appointed as a senior clerk.” It is of no concern to the Hertzog Party that he has never worked for Bantu Affairs. He has just never had a post there.

But you are getting this from a letter. Why must you accuse us?

Because I now want to tell you that your gossip is beginning to catch up with you. That is the fact of the matter.

[Inaudible.]

Although he has never worked there, the story is simply fabricated that instructions have been given to address him as “Sir” and that Whites must take their jackets and leave if they do not do so,

You are so short of arguments that you have to take strange letters to …

We go further. We come now to the newspaper Die Afrikaner, and specifically its edition of Friday, 6th February. This newspaper is edited by a certain Dr. Lubbe who places himself on a terribly high moral pedestal. He is not to be compared with us mere mortals. He is a man who stands altogether above us as far as the truth, Christianity, and everything pertaining to that, are concerned. What is the heading to this article? It reads: “Vorster shocks the nation with Sunday laws.” I am reading the first paragraph (translation)—

But they have not been suspended. It is a lie which is being told here, and you are allowing Dr. Lubbe to tell these lies. They have not been suspended.

Can I charge you with everything that is stated in Dagbreek? [Laughter.]

If Dagbreek contains lies, he can feel himself at liberty to charge me with that. But now I am asking him: Does he admit—and I would be grateful to him for the admission—that what Dr. Lubbe wrote here is a lie? Do you admit that? Do you admit that it is a lie? After all, you can only say one of two things, i.e. either it is true or it is a lie. I am giving you that choice. You can decide whether it is a lie or whether it is true.

You can decide for yourself.

If I can decide for myself, then I do so gladly and I say it is a lie and the hon. member knows as well as I do that what Dr. Lubbe said here is a lie. But it is not the only lie he wrote in that same report. He went even further. He said (translation)—

But this is another lie. They have not been suspended.

You are dealing in technicalities now.

It has become a technicality for the hon. member to lie.

[Inaudible.]

Has it become a technicality for the hon. member?

But let us now come to the accusation the hon. member and the Leader of the Opposition made against me. The Leader of the Opposition accused me specifically, in the previous debate, of having instructed Appeal Judge Potgieter to investigate this matter of the Bureau, as far as the member for Ermelo was concerned, simply in order, as he put it, “to embarrass the member for Ermelo”. In other words, the accusation is that I simply wanted to embarrass the member for Ermelo. I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Can a man who speaks the truth ever be embarrassed? Surely that is not possible. If one speaks the truth, then surely one cannot be embarrassed. Let us now test what the hon. member for Ermelo says. Hon. members heard this afternoon what he claims to have said at Worcester. That is not true either. That is not what he said.

You did not listen to what I said.

I could not help listening to what the hon. member said. As you know, it is not true. The hon. member said the following, and there was a tape recording to this effect which was played to the judge. He said—

This is what the hon. member said, but it is not what he said here to-day.

This is not different from what I said at Worcester.

The hon. member said that it was only being used, and I quote, “to finance secret operations”. Surely the hon. member knows that that is untrue. Surely the hon. member knows that the staff has to be paid out of that R4 million. The hon. member knows that the cost of renting Offices and everything connected with that has to be paid out of that R4 million.

That was not the point at issue. The point at issue was the question of whether it was R4 or R50 million.

The hon. member must not keep on interrupting me if I cannot hear a thing he says.

It is out of sheer politeness.

Yes, the hon. member oozes politeness.

His nerves are shot.

Order!

The hon. member knows that salaries, Office rentals and everything connected with that, has to be financed out of that amount. Let us now look at the base insinuation the hon. member made by means of which he implied that I would be able to hide away the money. Before coming to that, however, I again want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: If an hon. member has made an allegation of corruption, and that is what the hon. member for Ermelo made at Worcester, must I investigate it or not?

There were no allegations of corruption.

His allegation was not only one of corruption, but also one of fraud. The allegation was that while it was being pretended that Parliament had voted only R4 million for this purpose, the costs in actual fact amounted to R50 million. In other words, the allegation is that fraud has been committed in respect of R46 million.

The hon. member for Ermelo accused me of having had the terms of reference of the Judge amended. That is true; the State President, on my advice, amended the terms of reference. The original terms of reference of the Judge, which have nothing to do with this matter, were to study the set-up and examine recommendations in regard to the set-up and the legal matters pertaining to it. Then came this allegation of falsity and fraud, and it was made by the hon. member in public. I had badly miscalculated the hon. member. I had thought that he would at least have had the courage, because he gossiped so prodigiously at political meetings, to substantiate this under oath before a Judge. That is what I expected; that is all the Judge wanted to know from him and would have asked him, i.e. whether he had said this, and he cannot deny that he did say it, because a tape recording was made of it, and he would have had to state from whom he had supposedly heard this. But he did not have the courage to go and say this, because he would have been under cross-examination there, and that is what the hon. member wanted to escape. The hon. member did not see his way clear to giving evidence, or coming under cross-examination, because he knew that it was an infamous lie he had told in Worcester.

But I did come under cross-examination in the magistrate’s court.

Yes, you did, but not in respect of these allegations, because these allegations were in no way relevant. But since the hon. member has such a lot to say for himself now, is the hon. member prepared to make this statement about the R4 million and the R50 million under oath somewhere? If he is prepared to do so, I am prepared to accommodate him and to appoint another commission. If that is the way the hon. member feels, he must just tell me. [Interjections.] I accept full responsibility for what I did. Here a charge had been made in public which not only reflected on me, but which reflected on Parliament and on senior officials, and I would have been neglecting my duty if I had not had that allegation tested in public; for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I can differ on many things and argue with each other, but one thing cannot be tolerated here in South Africa or in any other country in the world if one wants a good government, and that is corruption. That we dare not tolerate. And because the hon. member had made those allegations, I had them investigated, but his courage failed him when he had to go and testify there.

But now the hon. member comes to light with this insinuation and states that only I can dispose of this money. I can do with it what I like; I can go and blow it if I want to. But surely the hon. member knows as well as I do that all that one has done in the case of this Bureau is what one has done in the case of all Government Departments handling secret funds. Sir, for many years I served as Minister of Police in the same Cabinet with the hon. member for Ermelo.

Yes, but then you did not handle the money.

For many years I was the Minister and at the end of each financial year, in the same way as my predecessors, Mr. Erasmus and Mr. Swart before me, and in the same way as their predecessors, Mr. Lawrence and Dr. Colin Steyn before them, issued a certificate as Minister to the Auditor-General in respect of the secret funds of the Police, and the Minister of foreign Affairs has issued a similar certificate, and the Minister of Defence has issued a similar certificate. After all, it has been the position all these years that all these Minister handling secret funds issue such certificates, and surely the hon. member knows this.

But that does not detract from the fact that you have that power. [Interjections.]

Since that power has existed all these years, why make this base insinuation?

Because this is a base institution.

We are coming to the base institution.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that word. It is casting a reflection on an Act of the country.

I withdraw it.

I just want to make the principle very clear, because what he wanted to insinuate here, is that only in this case is a certificate issued, while it has been the practice under all governments that all these Ministers issue certificates. Nor is it merely a question of issuing a certificate; there are statements one must submit, and surely the hon. member knows this; these are audited. Why publicize this lie in order to deceive and to besmirch? Why publicize it? But what is more, in this case the hon. the Minister of finance has a joint say.

The Act states the Prime Minister has the final say.

Yes, in consultation with the Minister of finance, and you know that.

It does not say there should be consultation in regard to the say.

But the Minister of finance is brought into that Act, and the hon. member knows this is so. I am not referring now to the reflections the hon. member made on the Act concerned, but this Act was discussed at length and great publicity was given to this Act through the speeches of the hon. member for Durban (North) and others. Why did the hon. member for Ermelo vote for this Act? Did he not know what was contained in the Act? Did he simply just vote?

Why was it not submitted to us in the caucus?

I have nothing to do with the caucus now; I am dealing with the act the hon. member committed when he voted here. Apart from the fact that the Minister of Police explained this matter, does the hon. member simply want to put the matter on a different basis now? What is the inference one must draw now? He says the most unpleasant things outside, and if you, Sir, had not called him to order in this House, he would have said the same things here. The Act was on his table and it was discussed here. The hon. member is a jurist. One of his agents in Brakpan, Mr. Badenhorst, said he was the greatest jurist South Africa had ever produced. The hon. member is a jurist. He has the Act before him on his table. Did the hon. member read the Act before he voted for it in this Parliament, yes or no? [Interjections.] It is a simple question. Did the hon. member read the Act, yes or no? What are the inferences one can draw now? That the hon. member had voted for an Act he had not read, and he wants to be the leader of a party! He says the most terrible things outside about that Act. He came to the divisions in this House when there was a fierce dispute in progress on the Act, and he voted for it, and now he says it is the most tyrannical Act which has ever been passed here. That is what he is now saying outside this House, and every one of those hon. members voted for that Act.

But you saw to it that we did not discuss it in the caucus.

Sir, now I find this becoming even more interesting. The hon. member is now making the accusation that I saw to it that it was not discussed in the caucus. But apart from the untruthfulness of that statement, surely that was all the more reason for him to have read the Act very thoroughly here and to have voted against it in this House if it offended his conscience.

But you know that in that party you may not do that. [Interjections.]

The hon. member is telling us that this Act offended his conscience to such an extent that that was one of the reasons why he established a party. It offended him so much. But the hon. member violated his conscience in voting for the Act in this Parliament, and the hon. member would have gone on violating his conscience if we had not expelled him from the National Party. That, after all, is the only conclusion one can come to. The hon. member for Innesdal may put a question to me if he wishes.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon. member wants to put a question to me he may do so now.

Order! Does the hon. member want to put a question?

I have put it already.

Stand up and put your question.

I had expected more courtesy from a member, but apparently this is not to be found in the hon. member for Innesdal. Sir, the hon. member says the most terrible things about this Act. He had the Act before him; he had it in his possession for, I think, at least 14 days; he voted for the Bill here and now he states that he could not have done anything else because he was a member of the party. In other words, I must deduce that his conscience mattered much less to him than his membership of the party …

He has no conscience.

… and a party, Sir, which has been misleading this country for 21 years! For 21 years this party has been misleading the House, but his conscience, which is very sensitive and easily pricked, does not count for more than this party which has been misleading the country for 21 years!

I come now to the question the hon. member for Innesdal put to me by way of interjection. I welcome the fact that the hon. member wanted to put a question to me. I gathered that he put a question in regard to the question of Maoris. I am glad he has asked me this. Because the member, except in my presence, goes about gossiping everywhere outside about what I had allegedly said and what I had allegedly not said …

He is a gossipmonger.

I now want to read out to the hon. member—and I must place this on record because this is the theme of most of the speeches made by the hon. member for Innesdal—what I had to say about the Maoris at the conference in Pretoria in August, 1968. I shall now read out to the hon. member what I said on that occasion. I said (translation)—

This is what I said, and this is from the minutes. But, Sir, I go further. There were altercations between the member and myself, and the minutes go on to read—

That is not what I said. I challenge you to play the tape recording of that conference before competent witnesses.

Sir, I am now reading to you the verbatim minutes. The minutes then go on—

That is just as false.

I read further—

These are the minutes, Sir.

I challenged you to play that tape recording before competent witnesses.

Sir, I am giving you the verbatim minutes.

I say it is not. If you play the tape recording, you will see that it is not correct.

Sir, I want to keep my promise. I think I have dwelt long enough on a party …

Which is worth nothing.

… which cannot lay any claim to integrity; on a party which has denied its entire past, a party which for the sake of some cheap publicity is prepared to belittle its previous leaders in the way in which the hon. member for Ermelo has done.

I want to come to the hon. member for Durban (North), and I shall keep my argument brief. The hon. member for Durban (North) refused to accept my argument that there is legal uncertainty at the moment after the Appeal Court’s decision in the case of Calitz; therefore it is necessary that we just take a look at the course taken by the case. I referred to the Redelinghuys case which was heard in the Transvaal in 1963, and I shall read only the relevant section from that judgment—

Was that in 1936?

No, it is a case of 1963. It was the standpoint of the courts— and it was in line with our common law— that the Minister decides; that he has the final say, and not the court. In the meanwhile, there have been other decisions which cast doubt on this, and just for the sake of the record I must read only the relevant section from the judgment in the case of Naicker which gave rise to this uncertainty.

That was in Natal.

That case was heard in Natal in 1965, and there the court said this—

You therefore see that the head of a department had the right to claim that privilege and in section 29 we take it away from the head of a department; we take it away from an Administrator; we take it away from any official, while formerly, according to our common law, an official and a head of a department had that right without any reference whatsoever to the Minister. The hon. member will concede that it was our right. But the judgment goes on—

In other words, Sir, there was a conflict between those two judgments. Then we had the case of Calitz. For the sake of the record and for the sake of those who do not have the law-books readily at their disposal, allow me just to read this relevant section from the Chief Justice’s judgment in the Calitz case. It reads as follows—

What the Duncan decision was is not relevant now. It would take me too long to go into that.

Which court is this? Is it the Appeal Court?

Yes, it is an Appeal Court case of 1967. These are the words of the Chief Justice.

What court is being referred to when it is said that this Appeal Court understood the decision in a previous case? Is it an inferior court?

I cannot say at the moment whether he was referring to the inferior court of the Free State. I am not prepared to say that now.

Do you have the page number?

It is on page 258. I read further: “It would appear that this court understood the Duncan decision .. ”, and I now surmise that the appeal came from the inferior court. I continue with the quotation—

It is therefore very clear, according to the judgment of the Chief justice, that there was no agreement. He proceeds—

I focus the Leader of the Opposition’s attention on the word “generic documents”. It is an indefinable word which is used here, and the Chief Justice confines himself only to the document concerned which was involved in the Calitz case. I quote further—

The hon. Leader of the Opposition will now notice that we are here concerned only with generic documents which affect the public welfare. The Judge says that in that case he prefers the court to have power. But then he continues as follows on page 260—

The hon. member must now listen to the next paragraph. It reads as follows—

These are the words which I want to point out to the hon. member for Durban (North). The Chief Justice leaves it quite open. He gives no decision on the matter. The Chief Justice said: “It may be that in such cases the court must without question accept a properly raised objection, or must of its own accord exclude the document concerned even if no such objection is raised. I need not pronounce on that.” The Chief Justice does not pronounce on that. He says it is possible. In other words, here we now have legal uncertainty on a scale which we would otherwise not have had. Not only the Supreme Court is involved here. The magistrate is also involved. It is not farfetched to say that theoretically he too may be called upon to give judgment in respect of documents which affect State security and other State matters. Therefore, in view of this history which I have now tried to sketch as briefly as possible, in view of the conflicting judgments, and in view of the fact (I say this with great piety and with respect) that in this case the Appeal Court concerned itself only with the facts of the case concerned, and did not give a decision on the principle of the matter, legal uncertainty existed, and that legal uncertainty was removed in no uncertain way.

This terrible legislation which the great jurist of South Africa, the hon. member for Ermelo, is criticizing so heavily, merely gives expression to what our common law has allowed all these years, and to what the Transvaal court said is correct. This legislation does in fact take away the right to withhold evidence from people who had that right before. That residual right still remains vested in the courts. The courts say very explicitly, as they have also said in the past, that if they think there is a good reason why evidence should not be allowed, they may look at it. They have not been deprived of that residual power.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Ermelo should not even talk to me about an Act, He still has not read it. He voted for the Act without having read it. How would he be able to understand it now? He did not even read it at the time and he still does not know what the Act contains. He will vote against it without knowing what it contains, in the same way as he voted in favour of it, because for the hon. member that does not matter.

I conclude by saying that there was legal uncertainty. I take it very much amiss of the hon. member for Durban (North) and others, it does not matter who they are, that they completely ignored the legal position in respect of this matter and simply took the view that it related to the Bureau. I take it very much amiss of them that they went around outside and talked of all the people who could now be arrested and detained by the Bureau, while the members of the Bureau have no powers of arrest or detention whatsoever. I take it amiss of them that there is talk of a host of people who are being detained in order to be misused, as the hon. member for Ermelo said, while it is the task of these people to colect information.

About smear letters.

The hon. member compels me to continue. I intended sitting down, but I dare not allow his interjection to pass. What did that so-called smear letter purport to be?

A piece of satire.

No, it purported to have been written by a communist. One of those people who purported to be communists is the Hertzog candidate for Rissik. Another is a Hertzog candidate in Brakpan. I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville this: Why is he suddenly so interested now? After all, this matter occurred many years ago. Why has the hon. member for Yeoville never attacked me in this House about this matter? [Interjections.]

There was also the case of the Sunday Times, the investigation in connection with Broederbond documents which had come into the possession of the Sunday Times.

Why did the hon. member not attack me on that? Now that those hon. members are his allies, the hon. member is suddenly concerned about it. I want to make an appeal to hon. members. I know that the nearer an election draws, the hotter the blood becomes and the stronger the temptation is to spread untruths. But I want to say this, and I do so in the full realization of my responsibility: Let us not allow this election to descend to a level which can cause infinite harm to our national life. Let us guard against that. Let us differ with one another, but these slanderous stories about bribery … Why does the hon. member use that word? Is it because he has bought so many people in his time and is buying people now? Is that why the hon. member uses these words? I am doing my best, but it is not easy for me to descend to the level of the hon. member for Ermelo. I say, let us remember above all that the security of our State is of importance to all of us, no matter to what party we belong. When this election is over, it will be of even greater importance than what it is to-day. The hon. member for Ermelo takes it amiss of me that I warned the hon. member for Innesdal. It was necessary for me to warn him. This applies to any hon. member, whether he sits on my side of this House or on whatever side of this House. If an hon. member starts fiddling with these matters, then I shall warn him.

Who is fiddling?

Since the hon. member now asks who is fiddling, I say: The hon. member. But I want to add nothing more because this is neither the time nor the opportunity to say anything more in this connection.

Mr. Speaker, for 45 out of the 65 minutes that the hon. the Prime Minister spoke, we had to listen to the cat and dog fight between that party and the Herstigte Nasionale Party. One would at least have expected the hon. the Prime Minister to avail himself of the opportunity to say something about the amendment moved by this side of the House, the real matters at issue in South Africa to-day. The hon. the Prime Minister spent between 45 and 50 minutes of his time discussing the hon. member for Ermelo and the hon. member for Innesdal. The most important debating point made by the hon. the Prime Minister was that the United Party and that party have now become allies. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, there we have the rest of the choir joining in the chant that we and these people have concluded an alliance. I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister to-day that he and the members of his Cabinet are the best publicity agents those hon. gentlemen of the H.N.P. have. Everytime the opportunity presents itself, the hon. the Prime Minister and the leaders on that side of the House throw the door wide open for those hon. gentlemen to get the best publicity in South African politics. Precisely three years ago the hon. the Prime Minister said that it was merely a “holiday episode”. To-day we had an example of what this “holiday episode” had developed into. There is no need for the hon. the Prime Minister to tell us what happened in the Nationalist Party caucus or what happened at their information conference in Pretoria. That is not news anymore. That is why he expelled these people from his political party. He expelled them on four political points, but he now says those people are our allies, allies on the basis of whether Maoris will come or not; allies on the basis of whether we will have immigration or not; allies on the basis of whether we should move outwards or not and allies on the basis of whether we want national unity in South Africa or not.

And allies in the election.

If those hon. members would only recall the speeches they had made, they would find that that was what they actually said. There are really no differences in principle between the hon. members of the H.N.P. and those hon. members. The H.N.P. members are merely frustrated. They could not keep their posts in the Cabinet and the hon. member for Innesdal could not get a post in the Cabinet. The hon. member for Worcester is too big for his boots while the hon. member for Wonderboom has not been long enough in politics to know where he is going. That is the position, but it is now being said that we on this side of the House and those gentlemen are allies. Let me tell the hon. the Prime Minister why I say he is the best publicity agent for his former friends in the Nationalist Party. Only last week we had an example of this. The Police paid the hon. member for Innesdal a visit and told him: “We want a certain document from you”. The hon. gentleman then replied: “You can get it from me next Tuesday when I come back from Port Elizabeth”. This they accepted, but after the hon. member had come back last Tuesday, the first person that confronted him was a police Officer, by whom he was searched. What did he find? He found then that the hon. member for Innesdal was right and that he did not have the document with him. The document was at his attorney’s. I am asking you now, Mr. Speaker, what must the ordinary man in the street be thinking now; who is the honest person under these circumstances: the hon. the Prime Minister or the hon. member for Innesdal? In this way he creates the opportunity time and again for that hon. gentleman and his party to get the best publicity for their party.

But I know of another reason why the hon. the Prime Minister is worried. He is worried because the Nationalist Party has changed its basic philosophy over the past five or six years. That is why those hon. gentlemen left the Nationalist Party. They went back to the old principles for which the Nationalist Party have always stood. When they see those hon. members, they see their own political conscience. And every time they see their own political conscience, they must attack those hon. gentlemen.

Allies!

To tell us that the United Party, whose policy was taken over by that party and the hon. the Prime Minister during the past few years, is an ally of the H.N.P., is merely a transparent political subterfuge. Nobody will take any notice of that.

I should like to come back to the hon. Minister of National Education, who also spoke in this debate. We had to hear from him, as well as from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance once more that it was the policy of the United Party to separate our young people into different groups. If we did not fence off our young people into different groups, some of the members on this side of the House would even be prepared to send their children to schools of a different medium. What is the situation? This Government has made it increasingly difficult for our Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking boys to draw closer together. The only reason why some of the parents are in the position to-day to make their children more bilingual and to give them the opportunity of getting to know those belonging to the other language group, is to send them to schools of a different medium. But the hon. the deputy Minister has objections against that. I now want to ask him: Does he object against English-speaking people attending Stellenbosch University as students, for example?

I object against your education policy.

If that hon. member objects against an Afrikaans-speaking person attending an English-medium school, he should be consistent and also object against an English-speaking person attending an Afrikaans-medium University. But the hon. the Deputy Minister of finance has shown himself in his true colours quite clearly again. We have always thought he is a good South African. No, Sir, he is not a good South African when he objects against the actions of some parents in this regard. He is really a bigoted, small-minded political verkrampte. He should repeat the things he says in this House in places such as Queenstown where he knows numerous Afrikaans-speaking people send their children to English-medium schools for the very reason I have advanced a moment ago. The intention is not to anglicize the children, but to give them the opportunity of meeting each other and learning to understand the other language. The hon. the Deputy Minister is objecting here because Afrikaans-and English-speaking children come into contact with one another. But where is his own son? His own son is attending a parallel-medium school where Afrikaans-and English-speaking children are together. But he objects to my sending my child to a school where he is able to mix with the other group. But he does not object when the hon. the Minister of the Interior sends his child to an English-medium school. Neither does he object because the hon. member for Brakpan attended Selborne College, which is an English-medium school in East London.

I do not object to that.

Why should he have objections against me?

He had objections against me, but he has no objections against that hon. member. The hon. member said that I was isolating my child. People who think as I do, are supposed to isolate their children and want to send them to English-medium schools. But that hon. Minister is a good South African. He is allowed to do it. I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to repeat this story in Queenstown. If he did that, he would not lose by 50 votes but easily 400. I know what the feelings are of the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people in his constituency. But because the hon. member wants to compete with the Herstigtes for the vote of the Afrikaners, he made this statement and he made it for no other reason.

I was only speaking about the propaganda you make. [Interjections.]

Have you found out who is the mother of my child?

I know the father of the daughter. He is sitting in front of me here. Surely that suffices. Surely the hon. the Minister did not object to it in that case. However, there is no need for me to mention the hon. the Minister as an example. I shall not use him as an example. I shall take a former Minister of the Interior as an example, i.e. the late Mr. Eric Louw. I can take the children of Dr. Abraham Jonker, who was a member of that party, as an example.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I finished dealing with the matter now. I am very fond of the hon. Deputy Minister of finance. I have not finished with him yet.

The hon. the Deputy Minister also said yesterday that they had introduced a completely new taxation principle. According to him everybody will now pay tax as a result of the sales tax that was introduced. But they have also introduced yet another principle.

Who are “they”?

Those hon. members. It goes much further than that, and that is that the rich people in South Africa have received tax benefits. But what benefits have the lower income groups received, those people who did not pay in the past? Now they have to pay too. I am, therefore, not surprised at all that Mr. Koos Liebenberg had to say the following in Dagbreek. (translation)—

Who said that?

You heard me. You are merely trying to make a joke.

Order! The hon. member must addresss the Chair.

I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. The report goes on to say (translation)—

Then we come to the most serious accusation of them all (translation)—

This is the kind of criticism we get, not from the supporters of the United Party, but from Dagbreek and Landstem of 14th December, 1969. However, the hon. the Deputy Minister of finance says that everybody is satisfied with the sales tax. He says everybody is satisfied with the new principle they introduced, that is that everybody has to pay tax now. However, that is only half the story. The problems experienced by the people outside are ignored completely.

I now want to deal with a matter I have dealt with briefly before, and that is agriculture.

Are you against sales tax?

The matter was dealt with in this House by the hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member also knows what attitude the United Party adopted last year. It was made quite clear by the hon. member for Constantia and that hon. member only need to take the trouble to read it.

May I ask the hon. member a question? What we on this side of the House wants to know, is whether the hon. member is against or in favour of sales tax.

I want to give that hon. member the same advice. He reads but very little; but there is something interesting the hon. member should read, that is the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Constantia at the time that matter was discussed in this House.

On a previous occasion I said that agricultural financing could be described as one of the major shortcomings in our agricultural industry. I want to say this in the light of a report I read in the Landbouweekblad recently as regards the position in our agricultural industry. In that report it is made quite clear that the creditworthiness of the fanner is being affected a great deal to-day as a result of many present-day circumstances. The report appeared in the Landbouweekblad of 10th February, 1970. This is what “Manie” said in his column (translation)—

That is one of the solutions that has been suggested. Agricultural financing has become the Achilles heel of our agricultural position to-day. On behalf of this side of the House and on behalf of the agricultural group I want to say immediately that I welcome the additional amount of R15 million the hon. the Minister of finance is going to make available at 2 per cent interest to the Land Bank during the coming financial year. I just hope the farmers outside will not get the impression that they will be able to borrow that money at 2 per cent interest. The Land Bank borrows the money from the State at 2 per cent interest and they will, in turn, lend the money at 6 per cent or 6½ per cent interest. One may ask immediately how far this amount of R15 million will go. I want to put the question in the light of the following considerations. This money is hopelessly inadequate, and according to the present financing programme of the Land Bank means an improvement of only 5 per cent. How far will this R15 million go, therefore?

That is not the only money they have at their disposal.

If the hon. the Minister had listened, he would have known that that was what I said. It means only 5 per cent. According to the hon. the Prime Minister, the Land Bank granted approximately R292 million in the form of loans and assistance. However, this amount has now been increased to R15 million, which means a 5 per cent improvement. I anticipated that the Land Bank will have to extend its powers considerably, and this was described by the hon. the Prime Minister as the future policy. The farmers of South Africa are not interested in the future at present; they want to know what the present position is. When replying, the hon. the Minister of finance should tell us in greater detail what the hon. the Prime Minister meant when he said that the Land Bank would be granted more powers and that this would be the future policy. After all, the Government had ample time to put these matters right over the last few years. However, the matter had to be held in abeyance until shortly before the election to be used as an election promise. I recall the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing holding in prospect something similar as long as two years ago. For that reason the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister last week does not differ greatly from what was said about two years ago. The hon. the Minister held in prospect that proper machinery would be created for agricultural financing. The policy of this side of the House is that a department or division of agricultural financing should be established to include the Land Bank, agricultural credit, and so forth. Neither is there any other solution than that the State should have a greater share in our agricultural financing. However, this will have to happen soon because too much time is being wasted.

I regard it my duty to-day to deal with a matter which was raised last week, that is the loan granted to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs by the Land Bank. It is quite clear to us that the loan granted in this case has caused far-reaching repercussions. This loan gave rise to many questions. One of the questions the hon. the Minister of finance has to answer, is whether the Land Bank still stands by its policy basically to assist farmers only. What type of farmer is entitled to approach the bank and what type of farmer has to make use of other financial institutions?

All bona fide farmers.

The hon. the Prime Minister said that we were making insinuations in this House. None of us made any insinuation. In view of the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister in this House last week and the way he replied to us, I say that I am entitled to make certain deductions. And this is precisely what I am going to do now.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, the hon. member must give me a chance.

Did you apply too?

No. At the same time the hon. the Prime Minister said there was absolutely nothing wrong with that and that there was nothing immoral about the actions of the hon. the Minister. But the hon. the Minister is now going to pay back that loan. Did we not make it quite clear that Minister Haak and other people Who have financial strength should make use of other institutions? I have made that statement perfectly clear. I do not want to compliment the hon. the Minister unduly. It is not necessary. He was described by various newspapers as one of the wealthiest men in the country. All of us are proud of him as an Afrikaner for having achieved so much. But at present we have thousands of other farmers Whose cases are equally deserving and whose place was taken by the hon. the Minister. Surely, the hon. the Minister did not use his discretion. What did he have in mind when he applied to the Land Bank for this loan? Has he realized now that he acted unwisely and that his loan could lead to dissatisfaction and misunderstanding? That is why he repays the loan now. He did not repay it for fear that, as the hon. the Prime Minister put it, this matter will result in our getting a few meagre votes. I want to put a question to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. It often happens that somebody wanting to raise a loan with the Land Bank approaches an M.P. to put in a good word for him. If the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs were to approach the hon. the Minister of Agriculture asking him to recommend him to the Land Bank, would the hon. the Minister of Agriculture do it?

No.

We have an interesting position now. The hon. the Minister says he will not put in a good word for the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. Why not? I will tell the hon. the Minister why he will not do it. It is because he will think the same thing as I would under these circumstances. He will tell the hon. the Minister the same thing the Land Bank tells so many farmers, that is that he is financially too strong. Many farmers are told that they should keep to other institutions.

That is not true.

I am glad that clever member for Graaff-Reinet made that interjection. I want to quote him an example now. One of the gentleman sitting on this side of the House also applied to the Land Bank for a loan. I will mention his name, because he gave me his permission to do so. Two years ago the hon. member for Gardens decided to buy a farm 12,000 morgen in extent. He needed a bond of only R16,000. He approached the Land Bank and asked them whether they would help him. He wanted a loan of R16,000 from the Land Bank because the rate of interest was so low.

Did he submit an application?

Of course he did. The only reply the hon. member got was a neat reply consisting of one paragraph telling him that they were very sorry but that they could not help him. In this way I can quote one letter after the other to-day of people whose applications for loans were turned down.

We shall go to the Deeds Office and look up their records, and then we shall be able to mention a whole lot of names here.

Oh, you can do what you like. We are only interested in the fact that this institution is a national institution. One cannot have one policy for (a) and another policy for (b). The Land Bank was established in 1912 to serve the farmers. Since that time the Land Bank was able to spread its wings further afield and play a greater part in agricultural financing. We do not want to stir up any suspicion against this institution, because the agricultural industry in South Africa needs an institution such as this. It will still have to play a decisive part in future. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, we have just listened to a long argument consisting of gossip at its best. I want to say to the hon. member for Newton Park that we invite him to stand in a farmers’ constituency with that gossip of his. After that we can discuss this matter again.

In Graaff-Reinet.

He is welcome to stand in Graaff-Reinet. He may as well try Fauresmith too. He is welcome. The other day the same matter was raised in the Other Place by Senator Louw. When he was confronted by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the latter asked him whether he would have objected had he, the Minister, asked for a loan, he said: “No, I would not have objected.” But because another Minister is involved, a campaign was started against that specific person.

In addition, questions are being put to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture in this House. The questions were put toy the hon. member for Durban (Point), but for the sake of convenience they were withdrawn at a very opportune moment. He was hoping that there would be something in the reply which would refer to Minister Jan Haak, but when he found out that there would be nothing there, he withdrew the question.

It was withdrawn at the request of the hon. the Minister.

No, the facts are that that hon. member asked a long series of questions because he was hoping that Minister Jan Haak could then be accused of having guano islands at Saldanha. When the hon. the Minister told him that he had a long report in this connection and asked him whether he could lay it upon the Table, the hon. member’s first question was: “Is the name of Jan Haak in it?”

Shame!

That is untrue.

It is the gospel truth. That is the kind of people with whom we have to do. Such people will, however, not win an election with gossip. Let them put forward a definite policy. Let us go to the country, as we shall do in fact, an oppose one policy against another.

The hon. member for Newton Park was sowing doubt again when he said that the Government had given the Land Bank a certain amount, i.e. R15 million at a rate of interest of 2 per cent, but that the farmers need not think that they would also get it at 2 per cent interest. They would have to pay 6 per cent interest. That is what the hon. member said.

It is true, is it not?

It is the truth, but why do you not tell the whole truth? Why do hon. members on that side of the House not say that the Land Bank uses that R15 million which they borrowed at 2 per cent interest, in order to obtain further loans on the open money market? On such loans they may then pay 7 or 8 per cent interest. The borrowed amounts, together with that obtained from the State are then made available to the farmers at 6 per cent. In this way the amounts of R15 million increases to an amount in the region of R60 million. Out of this large amount loans are then made available to the farmers at 6 per cent interest. Now those hon. members go and tell the farmers that they will not be able to borrow this R15 million at 2 per cent interest, but that they will have to pay 6 per cent interest. It is precisely the same as the “what have you” booklet of these people. When they talk to the farmers of South Africa they have two booklets, the one in Afrikaans and the other in English.

It is exactly the same as your membership cards.

Yes, but what is printed on our Afrikaans membership cards at least means the same as what is printed on the English membership cards. That cannot be said however, of their booklet. The English booklet reads as follows—

But when they are speaking Afrikaans, they have a different story; then they make a definite promise. Then they say (translation)—

These are the typical old United Party tactics which we know, i.e. one story for the rural areas and another for the people in the cities. To the citizen they say; “Farmers deserve the just reward of a reasonable profit.” To the farmers, however, they say: “Look, we shall calculate your costs and then give you something in addition to that.” The hon. the Minister of Agriculture dealt very effectively with it the other evening. He asked how they were going to calculate those costs, but hon. members have still to reply to that.

[Inaudible.]

But they come along with gossip. I said to that hon. member the other day that when we return after the election, he should rather take over the portfolio of agriculture of My burg Streicher since it is becoming impossible to listen to him every year. This is the way these people are carrying on here.

But we want to discuss a few other matters with them. So much is being said here about the Hertzog people. As far as the Hertzog people are concerned, Mr. Speaker, you must pardon me. As a medical man, I have reached the stage as far as they are concerned, where I do not want to give an opinion on them anymore. I think one must diagnose them. The Leader is already a little egocentric and speaks only of himself. He sees only one side of a matter. If that is not an sign of senility then I have never come across it in my life. Then there is the hon. member for Innesdal. If one may make such a diagnosis, I want to say that I have never seen anyone close to a political paranoia in my life. And then there is Grumpy. Need one say anything of him? Then there is still the hon. member for Wonder-boom. That hon. member’s wife does his thinking for him in any case. So why shall we say anything further to him? We therefore leave them at that, because we are on the eve of an election. Now I must point out that although we are looking forward to the days to come, one should also during election time look back on the years that have passed. Since 1912 there have been 63 political parties in South Africa. That is to say, if you can also call the Blyth Thompson alliance by such a name. Without him there have been 62. It is interesting to note that of those 62 political parties since 1912 only one, i.e. the National Party, is left. This National Party to-night still stands precisely where it stood in 1912.

Have you made no progress?

I am speaking of principles. Now this Herenigde Nasionale Party comes along with a programme of principles which contain all sorts of statements.

The Herenigde Nasionale Party?

Yes, these people.

The Hertzogites.

Yes, the Hertzogites, the Herstigtes. This “reconditioned” Nasionale Party. I quote what they say—

Mr. Speaker, I am standing with a very interesting document in my hand, i.e. “De Nationale Partij Beginsels en Constitutie uitgegewen namens ’t bestuur daartoe benoemd door ’t speciaal kongres gehouden te Bloemfontein, 7-9 Jan., 1914” (The National Party Principles and Constitution published on behalf of the committee nominated by the special congress held in Bloemfontein, 7-9 Jan., 1914). Section 2 of this constitution’s programme of principles of the National Party reads as follows (Translation)—

That was in 1914. For the sake of interest I just want to mention the members of the committee which drew up that programme of principles of the National Party in 1914. The chairman was J. B. M. Hertzog and the vice-chairman General C. R. de Wet. This is the history of the National Party. That is where it st-ms from, that is the lone road it has travelled. Now the Hertzog people come along and tell you that one now for the first time, has a Christian National Party.

The Hertzogites advocate one language only. The hon. the Leader of the House has already emoted from Hansard (Col. 3881) what the hon. the leader of this party said as regards the English-speaking people when he made his so-called Calvinistic speech. That hon. member said—

These are the words of the leader of that party. A few months later he comes along with a completely different story. But it does not end there. The hon. the deputy leader— I do not know whether I must say vice-leader or deputy leader …

No, definitely not deputy leader.

Aspirant leader.

Very well, then I say aspirant leader. In Hansard of 13th April, 1961 that hon. member waxed eloquent on special qualities of English-speaking people. He said in that argument of his that there were two pillars of strength of which the National Party was based. One of the pillars of strength was the then Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd. On the other pillar of strength he elaborated as follows—

Who said that?

It was said by the hon. member for Innesdal. He said the Rand Daily Mail reported the other day that the Prime Minister was the first Afrikaner leader “to make a major breakthrough to the English-speaking community”. Here are the people who say that others have no morality. Are they the people asking for the support of the electorate of South Africa?

But, Mr. Speaker, this programme of principles of the party is an interesting little document. On page 7 reference is made to citizenship and population growth. Now we must listen closely to what it says here. I quote (translation)—

If the Government must arrange things in such a way that by natural population growth the White population is to increase faster than the non-White population, then I think that the Leader of the Herstigte National Party should also lend a hand with this little job. Mr. Speaker, I do not know how these people are going to arrange matters, but it seems to me as if it may become quite a “jolly party”.

They have a young Whip.

They have a young Whip and one never knows what these people might be capable of in future. But I should like to leave that party at that and confine myself to the old traditional enemies of the National Party. I should like to confine myself to the cry which the United Party has been raising recently. This cry is that the National Party is taking over their policy. We know that the Hertzog people say that the National Party is taking over the United Party policy. I can understand it, because they think to attract people to their party in that way. How the United Party can, however, try to attract people by saying that the National Party is taking over their policy, is beyond comprehension, because the National Party at least does it better than they do. But I want to take a good look at this soap bubble. As far as immigration is concerned, this “what have you”, or this “they have had it”, says that the United Party encourages selected immigrants, and I should like hon. members to take note of the words “selected immigrants”, on a planned basis. It means, they say, that they will take into account whether sufficient houses and work are available for these people Have these hon. members now dispensed with their previous Leader, who at least was a proper Leader? Have they forgotten him? What has become of the story of “Let them come, let them come in their hundreds, let them come in their thousands, let them come in their millions and let the good and the bad all come, because we need them and we have room for all”? I now want to ask who has taken over whose policy? Is it not the policy of the National Party which is contained in that booklet? Who has now taken over whose policy? It will, however, not succeed.

What is their opinion on sport? The United Party says that the National Party has taken over their sports policy. However, that is out of the question. What is the sports policy of those people? The sports policy of the National Party has been discussed so often in this House that I have no intention of elaborating on it.

I do not understand it.

The policy is quite clear. I realize that there will be stupid people who cannot understand it.

Then I am stupid.

The hon. member for Orange Grove must not force me to make another diagnosis. What is the policy of these people? Their policy is quite clear. They say they leave it to the sports administrators, let them do what they want to and let them go where they want to.

Who said that?

It says so in your policy booklet.

Do you have no confidence in them?

Our policy is quite clear.

Is the Rugby Board irresponsible then?

Our policy is very clearly and very responsibly set out and I am not going to elaborate on it. But what are these sports administrators doing? What did one of the sports administrators, i.e. file hon. member for Johannesburg (North), do? He arranged a soccer match just beyond the borders of South Africa, i.e. in Swaziland, where White South African soccer players were to have pitted themselves against a non-White South African soccer team.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, when business was suspended, I was expressing a few thoughts about the accusation of both the Hertzog people and the United Party that the National Party is supposed to have taken over the policy of the United Party now. I was discussing our sports policy and I tried to point out the differences between the policy of this side of the House and that side of the House. I also spoke of how the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) arranged a mixed soccer match just beyond our borders.

It is not true.

You must marshall your facts.

After that there were various objections from the side of those hon. members when the Government suggested that it would not issue passports to people who were going to play in Swaziland, because the people were deliberately trying to circumvent the South African apartheid policy.

And when the Maoris play against the Springboks?

You keep quiet now! That is the way in which members of that side of the House are circumventing the apartheid policy. It reminds me of the great fuss which the hon. member for Durban (North) kicked up in the House in 1967 because the police had the temerity, as he put it, to stop a match in the Cape Peninsula between two school teams, the one a White team and the other a non-White team. They cannot bluff us with the story that we should be prepared to leave these matters in the hands of the sports administrators. Quite recently we heard a similar row being kicked up by the Opposition when the Government decided not to grant Mr. Ashe a visa, because, in terms of the sports policy of the National Party, this man would not have been coming here without any political motives.

We can continue in this way about various aspects of policy. We can look at how we differ in our approach towards communism. We can see where we stand in regard to our different approaches to education. A great fuss was kicked up here this afternoon and accusations made against what the hon. the Deputy Minister of finance was supposed to have said here. We can oppose one policy against another and we can go to the electorate with it. As far as separate university training is concerned, we know what the point of view of hon. members is. Now we are being attacked from both the Hertzog side as well as the side of the United Party because we are supposed to have taken over their policy now. This National Party is not afraid to go to the electorate. We are prepared to go to the electorate, because the National Party adheres to the same principles as the National Party of 1912 did. But over against that, that side of the House, the United Party, has a so-called policy for racial harmony and for Bantu Development, and what have you. They have that policy and are able to state it to-night for one reason only, and that is because the National Party has been in power for 21 years. [Interjection.] Yes, it is rather a long time, but otherwise they would have had no policy to state; their policy is founded on the achievements of the National Party. What was your plan? Extension of the franchise to the Indians and the extension of the Coloured vote in the Cape Province on the common voters’ role. Not a single member of the United Party in the Cape Province would have been sitting here to-night, except if he had been sitting here on the sufferance of the Coloured vote, and then I would still like to see how far the hon. member for Sea Point would have got with his cry of “Keep Sea Point White”. This National Party has a case to put forward, and it shall not allow itself to be put off by the gossip of the Hertzog people, those people who kick up a fuss here and ask the House for an adjournment in order to discuss a matter of urgent public importance. And why? Because the hon. member who wanted to discuss it, had made himself guilty of nothing less than the theft of a State document.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “theft”.

Sir, if a man is in possession of a stolen document …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word.

I withdraw it.

I must say I am very sorely tempted to take part in this internecine strife between the National Party and their step-child, the Herstigte Nasionale Party, but I am going to resist the temptation and I want to deal only with a few statements made by the hon. member, who I feel is more proficient with a loudhailer at meetings in Bloemfontein than he is with dealing with the serious affairs of South Africa. The hon. member who has just spoken, because he did not have a loudhailer and people to back him up, made an accusation against my colleague, the hon. member for Johannesburg (North), and for the record I feel it is necessary to put the matter straight. But before I do so I want to point out that these are the typical tactics which are being used to try to confuse the voters of South Africa. The hon. member accused an hon. member of this party of arranging a mixed football match in Swaziland. He ought to know that that match was arranged by the Swaziland Government and had nothing to do with the South African football officials, and yet he raises an issue like that in an attempt to mislead the voters of South Africa.

Sir, I said I was going to resist the temptation to enter into this brotherly strife which is going on, because I want to deal with an issue which, in the light of current world conditions and uncertainties, and dangers and threats to South Africa, justifies the people of South Africa asking where we, the Opposition, stand on the question of the security and defence of our country. The people have the right to know where we stand, particularly at this time, and particularly before an election in which the hon. the Prime Minister has stated that one of the issues, one of the reasons why he wanted to call an early election, was to refute rumours of an unstable Government and to show the world how strong we were. Therefore I think it is necessary to place on record the fact that we on this side of the House have recorded our policy on defence and that we regard it as a national matter which should be kept out as far as possible from the hurly-burly of party division and party politics.

We have stated, secondly, that it is our belief that we should have the strongest possible Defence Force within the resources of South Africa and its budget. We have stated that that force should be an effective deterrent against any enemies of South Africa. [Interjections.] We are sincere in that belief and we take this matter very seriously indeed, but it seems that hon. members on the Government side only take this debate seriously when they are dealing with their internal troubles and are not interested when we are dealing with the security and the safety of South Africa.

Thirdly, we offered our co-operation to the Government on a joint committee to deal with defence. The Government did not accept that offer for reasons which were stated at the time, but I make the point to show the extent to which we in the Opposition are prepared to go to treat defence as a national matter.

Fourthly, we have stated our right and our belief that it is our duty to act as the watchdogs of the people in regard to defence matters. We retain the right to criticize and to evaluate the results we are getting for the R260 odd million which South Africa is spending on defence every year. It is against this background that we have stated in unequivocal terms our condemnation of the arms ban by the British Government against South Africa. We believe that that ban is unreasonable and unjustified, and that it is contrary to the spirit of the Simonstown Agreement and of our longstanding understanding with Great Britain.

Are you a Nationalist now?

Sir, we have never had to be Nationalists or Nationalist Party people to be good South Africans. We have gone further and we have expressed our belief as an Opposition in regard to the part South Africa has to play in the world struggle against Communism. We have warned those who may have any ideas that they can attack us or threaten us or intimidate us to keep their hands off South Africa. We have warned them that they will find arraigned against them a united people determined not to be subjugated. This is the approach and the attitude of this party, and it has always been and will always remain the policy of this party. It has been the policy of this party in war and in peace.

Against the same background, we therefore supported the amendment to the Defence Act in 1967 which introduced a new national service system. We stressed at the time the importance of the man in our Defence Force, and the fact that weapons without the men to operate them would not help our defence; and now, after 2½ years have passed, we are entitled to ask whether we are making the best use of the sacrifice South Africa is called upon to pay in terms of one year in the life of every young man and in terms of the R260 odd million which this House votes for defence. We are entitled to ask whether we are getting, in fact, the strongest possible defence force from that sacrifice. We supported and still support the principle of national service. We had certain reservations, and in expressing those reservations we accepted the assurance given to us by the hon. the Minister and by the heads of the services in regard to the problems we foresaw. Now that it is time to evaluate the effect of 2½ years of the new scheme, we feel that regrettably it is not attaining its full objective.

The new system, which aimed at having a force of 100,000 men under arms, aimed at the same time at eliminating two major problems in regard to defence. One was the shortage of Permanent Force instructors who would be replaced by using Citizen Force instructors. Thereby, secondly, the scheme was designed to eliminate the time wastage which was such an unfortunate feature of the old training scheme—the fact that for the last three months of their training it was a general cry that their time was being wasted. There have been some improvements and we have some magnificent and dedicated Officers in our forces. There have been improvements in the border activities of the forces and in field manoeuvres, but it has not gone far enough and we feel that the present administration of the hon. the Minister is failing in four fields. It has not succeeded in dealing with the problem of the shortage of instructors. We had a case in Durban recently of a court-martial in which, in mitigation of punishment after a corporal had been found guilty, it was revealed by the defending Officer that there was less than half the required complement of Officers and N.C.O.s in the particular camp in which the offence took place, and that a corporal who had on three previous occasions been guilty of offences under the M.D.C. was in fact also carrying out the job of a sergeant, and was simultaneously carrying the responsibilities of a company commander. This was said by an Officer in mitigation when the person had been found guilty of maltreating a serviceman. Sir, it is not the isolated instance of the maltreatment which matters, but the fact that there was not the control necessary because of the shortage of Officers and N.C.O.s. We have therefore reluctantly come to the conclusion that the new system is not effectively going to replace the Permanent Force instructor by Citizen Force instructors.

Secondly, we feel that the system is failing in the utilization of the time of the trainees. There are exceptions; there are units which are keeping their men fully occupied. There are some camps which keep them fully occupied, but there are many camps where the old complaint of the last three months being virtually a waste of time still applies. Over all we are not satisfied that the time of our youth which is being given to our defence is being fully utilized. Thirdly, we are not satisfied that the aptitudes of our youth are being properly applied and that they are being used in the unit for which they are qualified by aptitude and by their civilian training, background and future plans. It seems that in a modern world, with modern armaments, men who are going to be engineers, chemists or doctors, or experts in other specialized fields—well, the doctors are being used, at least—should not be used to guard an installation, but should use the skills which they are learning at universities or through other specialized training. Fourthly, we are not satisfied with the control of Stores and Equipment. I have no time to deal with it in full, but reference to the report of the Controller and Auditor-General comes as a shock to anyone interested in our defence. We find that because of the shortage of inspectors, only limited inspections are made and only in the Permanent Force, in the army, and not in the navy or air force. We find that there are 372 inspection reports on 37 units inspected during the year under report. We find from this report that recommendations made previously had not been carried out; that 60% of inspection time is spent on correcting mistakes and not on doing inspection. I quote—

The Auditor-General reports that they found “an unsatisfactory state of accounting”; that they found some improvement, but that “unless suitable steps are taken timeously to ensure that Stores personnel are thoroughly trained in Stores Administration, many of the units where adverse conditions had been rectified, would slide back to the same chaotic state which had previously existed”. These are strong words, Mr. Speaker, and we say that is the fourth field in which we are not satisfied.

Then, Sir, we are concerned about the effect of this system. It is axiomatic that idle hands seek mischief. We feel that the new system, the three-yearly intermittent 26-day camps, has resulted in a loss of unit spirit, a lack of contact between the Officers and their men who only see one another every three years, and that by the withdrawal of arms the concept of a 100,0 men immediately available has been negatived. Therefore we believe that we must review the position, and we propose the following six steps which we will implement when we become the Government. We say that until we have sufficient instructors we will reduce the period of Citizen Force training from nine months in the first year to six months. Secondly, we say that we will concentrate the periodic camps into the first four years; thirdly, that we will keep the men on strength of unit for 10 years; fourthly, that we will fill the gap and the overlap presently provided by the nine months period by unit camps; fifthly, that we will have refresher courses where necessary and lastly that there will be consequential adjustments to the Commando training period. We believe that this will have the effect of rebuilding the unit spirit of our Citizen Force units, rebuilding the contact between Officers and men because they will not have to wait three years before they see one another again at camp; that it will eliminate the resentment of men against doing service because they will not have to look forward to ten years of a camp hanging over them, with the financial sacrifice that it entails. It will eliminate the frustration of idleness; it will strengthen morale and it will give us correspondingly greater security in that we will have a happier and more determined force. Finally, Sir, we believe that it will attract instructors because the present strain of having to do too much, of having to do more than they are physically capable of doing, will be reduced by reducing the period. Sir, I have no time to go into details as I wish to give the hon. the Minister time to reply. There are innumerable issues of detail which I should have liked to be able to raise. I have raised many of them in correspondence; I have sent in reports where in my opinion things are wrong. But, Sir, there are certain aspects that I must mention now. One is the aspect of censorship in regard to the gas incident at the Middelburg camp. Sir, in the debate on the Defence Amendment Bill we opposed the powers of censorship and the Minister said that we must trust him. But after that incident his own newspapers, newspapers of which he himself is a director, agreed that we had been right and that censorship was being overdone and that despair was being created by failure to give information. Similarly, when servicemen or Permanent Force members are injured or killed the withholding of information from their families creates worry and distress. It is not protecting us against an enemy; this is simply red tape which can be cut. We have had problems in some of the other camps where morale has dropped because of the difficulty of staff, the shortage of both senior Officers and junior Officers and therefore lack of control. We have, for instance, the specialized unit which is or was spending so much of its time last year, when I had information on this, on guard duty in another camp that it was undermining their own training. Here a specialist unit was spending so much of its time on guard duty at another camp that is was unable to continue with its full programme. Sir, there have been complaints about promotion. We talk here about security. Does the hon. the Minister know that Coloured convicts are being used in security areas in one of his camps? When those convicts are released, having worked in a security area, anybody can buy information from them with a bottle of wine. No, Sir, the Minister must not make so much noise about security when that sort of thing can happen and is happening; it happened this year and it may still be happening, for all I know. Coloured convicts were being used in a security area.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I want to say that we feel that these changes are necessary; that South Africa is making a tremendous sacrifice for our security and that these changes will help to give us a stronger Force, a better fighting force and, with it, greater safety for our country.

I regret that I did not take part in the debate earlier on so that I could have had the time to prove to the hon. member, by giving chapter and verse, where he went wrong. At this stage it is not possible for me to reply, for instance, to the last charge made by the hon. member. If the hon. member had brought this to my notice, as is his duty when prisoners work in a security area in which they should not be working, an immediate stop would have been put to it. But why the hon. member raises the matter here tonight under this policy, I do not know. I am not prepared to accept it as such, because as far as the security of our bases is concerned, I am satisfied that the best measures are being taken throughout the Defence Force and at all our bases.

The hon. member started by saying that in the light of the serious world position they as a party believed that in so far as South Africa’s interests were at stake, we had to enable our Defence Force to cope with a serious world position. Well, what the hon. member is advocating, is not a new policy; it has always been the standpoint of both sides of this House that in so far as the freedom of South Africa is concerned and in so far as resistance to Communism is concerned, the House is united, as the whole of South Africa is, and we are grateful for that. It is in that spirit that the Government has over the years acted in regard to the Defence Force, and I think the hon. member will concede that since I became Minister, I have proved both in word and action that I want to make the Defence Force a place in which every patriotic South African can feel at home, both Afrikaans and English-speaking persons. That is why the Supreme Command of the Defence Force has been constituted in such a way that their English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking Officers may sit there deliberating on the interests of South Africa in the military sphere. In other words, on that point we do not have any quarrel with each other.

The hon. member referred to the arms boycott which was being implemented against South Africa by certain Western countries, and he said that as far as his party was concerned, they took the view that the attitude adopted by the British Government towards this matter was wrong. I am glad to hear this from the hon. member. I hope that we will receive the Opposition’s support in public through the mouth of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition …

You have already received it.

… that also in regard to Simonstown the British Government cannot go on playing the fool with South Africa as it is doing at the moment. I am saying this because I think that at this stage it is necessary for me to say it with reference to certain newspaper reports which appeared again tonight, i.e. reports to the effect that we are delivering ultimatums to the British Government. There is no question of our delivering ultimatums to the British Government, but there is in fact a question of appealing to the honour of the British Government to keep its word in terms of the Simonstown Agreement in letter and in spirit; that is what is at stake. Sir, in this regard it is strange that in recent times the British Government has placed itself in a very strange position. As the Simonstown Agreement provides that this treaty may only be changed or altered or terminated through mutual deliberations between the two contracting parties, it is strange that the British Government has been so consistently, since the resolution by the Security Council, intent upon invalidating the Simonstown treaty more and more. But, in the second place, it has not only invalidated the agreement more and more by refusing South Africa the equipment she needs for maintaining that treaty and meeting her commitments under that treaty, but the British Government has broken its given word. I am not going to mention the type of equipment, but I just want to read out one passage from a letter the British Government sent us as long ago as 2nd March, 1965. In that letter, written on behalf of the British Government, we were informed as follows—

The latter three words are words I inserted because I do not want to reveal the nature of this particular type of equipment—

The British Government continued to supply this particular equipment to us until we ordered replacement equipment last year and we suddenly had to discover that an export permit in this regard had been refused. On the other hand, the British Government did the very opposite in respect of other orders, the result being that it has placed South Africa in a position where we cannot plan ahead if we have to pin all our hopes on Britain supplying our equipment. One cannot on one’s part spend huge sums of money, launch long-term planning, invest large amounts in such planning, and then suddenly discover at a certain stage that essential equipment required for rounding otf one’s planning as a whole, will not be supplied by the British Government. Under such circumstances it is difficult for South Africa to plan ahead, if it has to pin its hopes on Britain. As planning takes a long time and has to be undertaken years in advance, and money has to be spent over a period of years until one obtains the final product, and as expensive training sometimes goes hand in hand with it in order that the equipment may be used properly and effectively, it is necessary for South Africa to take other decisions in so far as it concerns her maritime defence which is affected by the Simonstown Agreement. If the British Government does not want to supply us with that equipment, and if the British Government acts as it is acting at present, so that one does not know where one stands with it, and as Britain herself is in addition gradually stripping the Simonstown treaty unilaterally, we may say that the blame for stripping that treaty does not lie at the door of this Government. It lies purely and solely at the door of the British Government. South Africa has to plan ahead as far as its maritime defence is concerned. We know that the number of ocean-going ships in both directions past the Cape, is approximately 70 a day. There are approximately 2,100 of them a month. We know that fuel and oil are being conveyed around the Cape at a rate of 10 million tons a month. Although this sea route around the Cape is an artery for Britain and other Western countries, the one country with which we have a written agreement, and with which we have a gentlemen’s agreement, is standing in our way to defend this important sea route properly. For that reason I have in the recent past, pursuant to certain events, tried in a most responsible manner to persuade the British Government to change its views. I did not leave it at making speeches only. On two occasions attempts were made on the part of South Africa to arrange a meeting between me and the British Minister of Defence on this matter, and Britain denied us that opportunity on both occasions. This happened in spite of the fact that two or three years ago in the course of the talks on Simonstown, which were conducted on a service level, there was the greatest respect for the manner in which we conducted those talks here in the Cape, and there was also the greatest respect for the manner in which we treated the representatives of Britain here. That is why we feel that as a country we do not only have reason to complain, but also to adopt the strongest attitude against the way the British Labour Party Government has been acting. In view of what is happening in the Indian Ocean, the movement of Russian ships along our coastline—and I know what I am saying—the unsafe position in the Middle East, and the fact that there is penetration of communist forces in East Africa, it is extremely important for South Africa to have a defence force which will guarantee its sound economy and a stable Government. In addition, we must have a defence force which will enable South Africa to grant fly-over rights to the free world in times of emergency, and which will be able to sustain our industrial potential in times of real crises. If the British Government closes its eyes to this, it should not expect us to pin our hopes on it any longer as regards our planning, because in that case we must look somewhere else for a way of strengthening our maritime forces.

The hon. member for Durban Point went further. Against this background they agreed to our introducing the national service system. Now he wants to know from me whether this national service system serves its purpose. In his opinion this is not the case. He announced here a six-point plan on the basis of which he he wants to change the system. Let me tell the hon. member that the Defence Force belongs to the whole of South Africa. That is why I shall at all times be prepared to consider and implement any reasonable proposal which has a positive bias and which can lead to improvement.

Who decides what is reasonable?

Intelligent, trained, expert Officers who are in charge of the Defence Force decide on what is reasonable. They decide this in consultation with me, who bears the responsibility as Minister. I am prepared to consider any such proposal. The hon. member said that they had now decided that our present training system of a certain number of months up to a period of one year, had to be abolished. They say they want to reduce the training period to six months. If the hon. member wants to make such a proposal, I can tell him right now that I shall reject it. In these times of sophisticated arms, of electronic equipment in our ships and aircrafts, and in these times of modern weapons in our Defence Force, and in these times in which we are entering the age of the projectile, it would amount to murder to give a young man six months’ training only and then expect him to become an effective soldier.

I was referring to the Navy or the Air Force.

I want to give the hon. member the reply that was given to him by the Commandant General of the Joint Combat Forces in the course of a Select Committee meeting. I want to remind him of what the Commandant General of the Joint Combat Forces told him. He asked him, “Sir, would you, under such circumstances, send your son into a battle after six months?” He remained silent at the time, Sir.

That is not true.

I do not want to quarrel with the hon. member now. I am replying to him. I say that if he made such a proposal, he would not only do a disservice to the Defence Force of South Africa, but also to the youth of South Africa, because in most Western countries, excluding Britain, the service periods are longer.

[Inaudible.]

Please, my time is very short. In these times we must inspire our national servicemen, and we must encourage and motivate them. We must motivate their parents as well, because many of the difficulties we have with the boys, develop as a result of the behaviour of their parents. Some parents send messages of this kind over the radio: “My poor little boy, I shall receive you back in three weeks’ time. You are having such a hard time and I shall be glad to see you.” This is what is being done instead of giving these young men some inspiration.

That is the radio, not the parents.

No, it is not the radio; it is the parents. I want to appeal to the hon. member tonight to refrain from prompting young South Africa by saying that they should do less military service. I want to appeal to him to prompt them to display more exertion and sacrifice in regard to their national service duties.

We have 29,800 servicemen whom we are calling up this year. Of this number 3,000 are prospective full-time university students. Approximately 3,300 will go to the commandos; 2,757 of them will form part of the leadership group. In the 12-months group there are 6,957 of them who have to fill certain posts in the Permanent Force. In the nine-months group for the Citizen Force there are 11,400. Then the Navy and the Air Force must receive their quotas as well.

I say that I find it very pitiable that we have to hear every time in the Press and on the part of the critics of the Defence Force about the few cases where things go wrong, such as the gas death, which I regret, and the case to which the hon. member now referred in his speech. We must bear in mind that we have 29,0 young men under national service, and of that 29,000 national servicemen there are at most 100 cases a year about which it is necessary to complain. We are successful with the rest. The rest of them return inspired; the rest of them return with greater ability. The rest return physically and spiritually better prepared to wage the struggle. The rest return to take up their place in the citizenry in a better manner than they did before they underwent their military training. If one has regard to this, national service is a success, and I cannot agree with the hon. member that we are not doing our duty. As regards the manpower position, we have once again improved wages and improved housing conditions. We are ensuring, in respect of the Permanent Force as well, a new dispensation whereby it will be possible for us to maintain better control over the Citizen Force and the commandos.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 99 and debate adjourned.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill which is now before the House, contains a minor amendment to paragraph 20 of the Second Schedule to the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1945 (Act No. 38 of 1945). As is indicated in the long title, the amendment seeks to empower provincial councils to provide for the establishment of regional sewerage schemes and to provide for incidental matters. The Administrator in Executive Committee of the Province of Natal considered the possibility of establishing sewerage schemes in the province on a regional basis; mainly with the object of furthering public health, and also to promote schemes for housing and industries. It has been decided by the Administrator in Executive Committee to amend and adapt the provincial water ordinance of 1956 accordingly, subject to the approval of the Government. As regards the other provinces, it may be mentioned that they do not contemplate a scheme similar to that of Natal at present, because they are either not ready for it, or do not wish to have one because of domestic reasons. They have, however, no objections to it.

The Natal Water Ordinance already provides for the establishment of regional water supply corporations, only six of which are at present serving no less than forty-two local authorities. The idea therefore is to incorporate the establishment and control of the proposed regional sewerage schemes with the activities of the said regional water supply corporation, and to let them accept responsibility for it. They can then arrange for the proper implementation and administration of the proposed system. No practical problems are foreseen as far as the establishment thereof is concerned, since this, just as in the case of the water scheme, is a civil engineering project, and both can be handled by the same corporation on a local authority level. Only a minor extension of administrative personnel will be required.

The Regional Director of Public Health Services in Natal has on various occasions pleaded for the establishment of regional sewerage schemes as the only effective method properly to control sewerage schemes. The matter was referred to the Government legal advisers and to the Departments of Water Affairs, of Health and of finance by my department, and none of them raised any objections to it. With a view to ensuring that the provisions and regulations of the Water Act as regards the provision of water, the construction of water works and sewerage schemes, the re-using of water and pollution, etc., is not lost sight of, the Department of Water Affairs, however, suggested that reference should be made to it in this amending Bill. As hon. members will see, this was done for safety’s sake.

As a matter of fact, the Secretary to the Treasury also considers the proposed establishment of regional sewerage schemes as a step in the right direction, and indicated that he was approached by the Department of Indian Affairs on a previous occasion for a formula for financial support in order to be able to assist the Townships Board of Verulam in Natal with the construction of a sewerage scheme. He pointed out to that department that the provinces were in control of local authorities and that they themselves are responsible for such matters and for the financial aspects involved. In order to be able to proceed with the proposed amendment to the Natal Water Ordinance to provide for the additional regional sewerage scheme, it is essential that the necessary legal authority be granted to the province through the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1945 (Act No. 38 of 1945). In this particular case, as was the case in 1954 when provision had to be made for a regional water provision corporation, and as I have explained, it requires only a minor amendment to paragraph 20 of the Second Schedule to the above-mentioned Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident and expect that this Bill will have the full support of this House.

Mr. Speaker, we will support this measure which has been introduced by the hon. the Minister. As he has indicated, at the present time it has primary application to developments which are required in Natal and which have been asked for by that particular province. In the course of his remarks he indicated that there was some resistance as far as the other provinces were concerned as they did not feel that these particular provisions were necessary in the other provinces. I believe that this is a step in the right direction because with local authorities becoming more and more contiguous to one another I believe that one will have to look to the establishment of sewerage schemes which will cover a whole group of local authorities.

Although the hon. the Minister in passing mentioned the question of the purification and re-use of water as far as the sewerage schemes are concerned, I trust that he will be able to assure us that that aspect of the matter is receiving very careful attention from the Government, if not from his own department, then from the other departments which are concerned. This year is a Water Year and the purification and re-use of water is, I think, a matter of vital importance to the country and one which can be developed and built into this power which is now being given to the provinces to permit of joint sewerage schemes for local authorities which are situated next to each other. I think that also from the point of view of health, this is an important step, particularly where we are concerned with the establishment of well-spread-out residential areas—in the Cape, for instance, the large well-spread-out Coloured residential area being established on the Cape Flats. There are problems in providing an adequate sewerage scheme because of the geography of the Cape Flats, a scheme which would be beyond the financial and possibly even the technical resources of Coloured local authorities. For that reason I also hope that this is an indication that there will be some centralized control and development to provide adequate sewerage schemes for areas such as the Cape Flats. We know that in the years to come the Cape Flats will develop into an almost continuous urban area of considerable square mileage. The provision of adequate sewerage schemes in the light of the particular geographical problems of the sandy and low-lying areas, has become most important.

For these reasons we will support this measure. We trust that the aspects which I have mentioned will receive the full attention of the Government and that there will be proper attention to the purification and re-use of the water involved in these schemes.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Green Point, has said that we on this side of the House are supporting this Bill. From Natal we welcome it. The hon. the Minister, in his introductory remarks just now, dealt with the special position in that province. In 1945 or in 1946 an Ordinance was passed to set up our regional water supply corporations. It was envisaged then that we would like to take the next step in the direction of regional schemes in connection with public health which would deal with this question of sewerage. But we had legal difficulties. Where a sewerage scheme covers a single local authority, the Provincial Council has authority to legislate. There is no difficulty there. So it was possible, where local authorities were contiguous and had common boundaries, for an arrangement to be made whereby legal authority could be provided through a provincial ordinance. There was no great difficulty. We had this problem where we were dealing with the regional water corporations. It arises from the fact that in between the local authorities there are areas which are not yet developed and which are not under local authority control. They are for all practical legal purposes rural areas. We managed to overcome that with regard to the regional water supply corporations, but it was not so easy with regard to sewerage. In the particular Bill very wide powers are conferred upon the provincial councils to legislate. While it is perfectly true that the other provinces at the present time may not be very happy about accepting the provisions of the Bill such as we have before us here, that may stem from the fact that they do not have regional water supply corporations. Had they started with regional water supply corporations, this would have been seen as the logical consequence.

My colleague has dealt with the question of the recovery of the water, as well as the solids from the sewerage schemes and the practical, economic use of the products from a modern sewerage disposal scheme. It includes organic fertilizers, which is becoming of immense value to us in the agricultural industry, and the recycling and the re-use of water. That all flows from it. I am not going to deal with the part which I hope the Provincial Council will play. I should just like to say that because this provision will be applied probably along the whole of the east coast of Natal, more or less from Ponta d’Ouro right down to the Cape border at Port Edward, a distance of over 350 miles, I hope that the Provincial Council will see to it that by and large sea outfalls are no longer permitted for untreated sewerage. That should be a thing of the past in South Africa today. Those who participated in the debate on Water Affairs last night will realize that one of the reasons why I hope it is a thing of the past, is because the vast volume of water that is going to be used in this type of communal sewerage scheme is water which ought not to go to waste because it has been used once. A modern urban sewerage scheme is most prodigal in its use of water. It uses highly purified water. There again other arrangements may have to be made to prevent the cost of purification of water which is going to be used for a sewerage scheme. That is a matter which will have to be borne in mind. Here is what I was hoping for—I believe it is here—namely the very wide authority conferred upon the provincial councils to permit and to legislate, so that they can cover a rural area which happens to fall between existing urban areas under the control of a local authority. That, I believe, can be covered by this measure. The type of scheme, with all the modern techniques in its administration can be, I believe, provided for. The money which is necessary, in the form of rates, can be provided for in exactly the same way as to the regional water supply corporations. There will then only be the practical side of giving effect to the scheme. I am sorry the Minister of Water Affairs is not here. At the appropriate time I hope it may be possible for the Department of Water Affairs to get the Government with its technical advisers to assist the people who will be controlling such schemes with the designing of the appropriate plants and the technical and professional care to ensure that they work efficiently. Perhaps the hon. the Minister in charge of this Bill could see his colleague on that score. This provides the legal machinery, but human beings still have to administer the scheme. These bodies, by and large, are not in the financial position to be able to get the best in the way of technical and professional advice. That is not provided for, but in their early days, particularly, they will not have the financial resources. In so far as the widest legislative approval and authority is given here to the provinces, I must say that from the point of view of Natal we are extremely pleased to see this power being conferred on our provincial councils.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that this measure is being dealt with in this House with such a large measure of agreement. I think the hon. member for South Coast stated quite correctly a moment ago that what we are dealing with in this House to-night, is only the legal provision for the establishment of regional sewerage schemes such as those that are now being envisaged for Natal. The hon. members for South Coast and Green Point will realize full well that what I am dealing with here tonight is merely the legal provision and not the practical application of the matter.

Your colleague can take care of that.

Yes, the Minister of Water Affairs can assist with that.

The hon. member for South Coast is a practical person, and so am I. I can imagine what the result might be of these powers we are granting the provincial councils at the second reading of this Bill to-night. Because he can imagine how these powers are going to be applied in practice, he is asking himself certain questions, that is whether the necessary technical advice will be available and whether the necessary financial resources will be available, etc. I must say in all sincerity that I do not believe the provinces to have any problems on that score. I think we can leave the application of a regional sewerage scheme with a large measure of safety in the hands of provincial administrations, because they have adequate funds and technical assistance at their disposal under modern circumstances to enable them to make a success of schemes of this nature. Nevertheless, the fact was welcomed that, from the point of view of health and other considerations, we have to establish sewerage schemes on a wider scale than has been done in the past, that is on a regional basis and not merely on a local basis.

I think hon. members are correct in saying that the Department of Water Affairs will have to be drawn into the proper application and administration of sewerage schemes of this nature to a large extent. From the nature of the case this is necessary, and for this reason provision is being made for this to be subject to the provisions of the Water Act.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

This Bill contains proposals which affect four principles and which are chiefly designed to ensure that the approaching general election of members of this House will take place in an orderly manner, and to make it easier for voters to record their votes, i.e. proposals—

Clause 1 (a) makes provision for this—

Clause 1 (b) makes provision for this—

Clauses 3, 4, 6 and 7 make provision for this; and —

Clause 4 makes provision for this.

Before proceeding to a detailed explanation of the reasons for the aforementioned amendments of the principles and the objects thereof, I should like to indicate as well as emphasize most strongly that in order to put the actions in connection with the postponement of the 1969 general registration and the coming into operation of the supplementary lists beyond any doubt, it is absolutely essential to do the following—

1. (a) to confirm the withdrawal by the State President of his Proclamation No. 264 of 1969, published in Gazette No. 2531 of 3rd October, 1969, by his Proclamation No. 316 of 1969, published in Gazette No. 2569 of 28th November, 1969;
2. (b) to provide that the proposed amendment—clause 1 (a)—with regard to the postponement of the general registration comes into operation with retrospective effect as from 6th March, 1968, i.e. the date of commencement of the 1968 Amendment Act, which provided that a general registration had to take place in 1969; and
3. (c) to provide that the proposed amendment in connection with the coming into operation of supplementary lists of voters —clause 1 (b)—comes into operation with retrospective effect as from 1st September, 1969.

This is being done in clauses 8 and 9.

Mr. Speaker, I now proceed to deal with the said amendments of the principles in detail, and I am doing so in order that this may be very clear to all hon. members. In terms of the present provisions of section 8 (1) of the Electoral Laws a general registration of voters had to take place during 1969. The lists which would have been prepared after this registration of voters, would have come into operation, in terms of the provisions of section 8 (3), not later than 180 days after the commencement of the general registration of voters. In terms of section 8 (4), however, another supplementary registration of voters had to take place after the coming into operation of these lists and only from the date of the coming into operation of these supplementary lists, would those lists and the lists prepared after the general registration of voters, be the valid voters’ lists for the respective electoral divisions. As you know, Sir, 13th October, 1969, was initially designated as the day on which the general registration of voters would have commenced. That would have had the effect that the lists prepared subsequently to that would have had to come into operation not later than 13th April, 1970, and would have become valid for an election on 12th August, 1970, the date on which the supplementary lists prepared after the supplementary registration on 1st June, 1970, would have come into operation. On 18th September, 1969, I announced that as a result of the decision to hold a general election of members of the House of Assembly early in 1970, the date of commencement of the general registration of voters had been postponed from 13th October, 1969, to 17th November, 1969, in order to make it possible to have a supplementary registration take place in respect of applications for registration as voters received not later than 4 p.m. on 31st October, 1969. I did this in view of the fact that section 8 (5) (a) provides that no supplementary registration may take place during the period from the commencement of a general registration to the date on which the lists prepared subsequent to that come into operation (a period not exceeding 180 days).

It was clear that even if the provision in terms of which a supplementary registration first had to take place after a general registration, i.e. section 8 (4), were to be deleted, the new lists prepared after the general registration might still not be ready in time for a general election early in 1970, especially if regard is had to the provisions of section 25, which provides that voters’ lists shall be printed not later than one month before every general election. However, the biggest fly in the ointment was the fact that it would not have been possible still to have had a supplementary registration after the general registration. We all know from experience that such a supplementary registration is something absolutely essential for filling the gaps left by a general registration, particularly in view of the fact that supplementary registrations afford the political parties in particular, the opportunity to see to it that the names of voters comes on the voters’ lists.

Consequently it was decided to afford the political parties the opportunity to fire, with the so-called October supplementary list, the first shots in the general election. That the large political parties did, in fact, avail themselves of this opportunity, is evident from the fact that more than 750,000 applications for registration as voters were received for consideration. In some cases electoral Officers received more than three times the number of applications received immediately prior to the referendum. Statistics are not available at this stage to show how many applications came from voters whose names were not on the voters’ lists, because the electoral staff is still extremely busy with more important work in order to make the election run as smoothly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, where errors occur on an application form for registration as a voter, the practice is for the electoral Officer to contact the applicant in an attempt to ascertain the correct information, and if the applicant replies to the query the position is rectified. However, I gave an undertaking in the Other Place, and I repeat it now—as a matter of fact, I have already issued the necessary instructions to my Department—that endeavours would be made to rectify minor errors. Applicants will be contacted in order to obtain missing information so that people will not be kept from the voters’ list as a result of slight and bona fide errors.

Because of the intensive supplementary registration up to 31st October, 1969, a general registration shortly afterwards would have had few advantages, and considerable expenditure and manpower would be saved if it did not take place. It is estimated that the saving amounts to at least R600,000, whereas direct expenditure on the general registration amounts to approximately R1,380 at this stage. After consultation with the official Opposition, it was decided to cancel the general registration concerned, and, for reasons which I shall explain in a moment, to substitute for the period of 42 days which has to elapse after the closing of a supplementary registration before the supplementary lists prepared subsequently to such a registration come into operation, a period of two months, as the position was prior to the 1969 amendment of the Electoral Laws, and to ask Parliament by means of the necessary legislation, as I am doing now, to consider these decisions this session.

But the question arose when the most suitable time would be to have the next general registration of voters. The last delimitation of electoral divisions took place in 1965, and in terms of section 42 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1961, delimitations have to take place at intervals of not less than five years and not more than 10 years. As the next general election of members of the House of Assembly in the normal course of events will have to be held during 1975, it is reasonable to expect that the next delimitation will take place during 1974, so that a fresh division of voters into electoral divisions will be available for that election. As it is essential for any delimitation to me made on fresh statistics regarding voters, a general registration of voters will therefore most probably have to be held in 1973 in order to make it possible to furnish the required fresh statistics to the Delimitation Commission during 1974. For these reasons I consequently want to propose, as is indicated in clause I (a) of this Bill, that the next general registration of voters be held during 1973.

The second principle which I mentioned at the beginning and to which I have just referred again, concerns the period which has to expire between the supplementary registrations of voters which, in terms of section 8 (5), have to take place three times per year on the first days of March, July and November, and the date on which the supplementary voters’ lists concerned come into operation.

As we all know, this period used to be two months up to the last session of Parliament when it was decided that this period should be shortened to 42 days. In this Bill, in clause 1 (b), it is being proposed, after consultation, as has been pointed out—and I am ref-eating this—with the official Opposition, that the period should again be extended to two months and that the lists concerned should again come into operation on the first day of May, September and January, respectively. The main reasons for this proposal are, firstly, that the electoral Officers cannot complete the necessary work in the period of 42 days and make a good job of it, especially if an intensive supplementary registration takes place prior to a general election or even prior to a by-election. This is an accepted fact. The past supplementary registration was the most intensive in living memory, and, as the hon. members who are in close contact with the electoral Officers know, the electoral Officers are working virtually day and night with temporary staff, staff seconded from other departments and staff who only come to work after hours.

This is not only an extremely expensive process, but the opportunity for errors is virtually unavoidable under such circumstances. It cannot be expected that these people—whose assistance is appreciated very highly—should always be conversant with the finer aspects of the work, with the result that the permanent staff has to perform a virtually super-human task. Therefore I should like to thank, as I have already done in the Other Place, all the officials for their fine effort. We may rightly be proud of what they have achieved under difficult circumstances.

The second reason is that on 1st March, 1970, there will again be a supplementary registration, and if we retain the period of 42 days, those supplementary lists will come into operation on Monday, 13th April, 1970, i.e. approximately seven working days prior to the proposed polling day. Under present circumstances it will simply not be possible to have those lists prepared in time, even if there is only a normal supplementary registration, which is, however, too much to ask shortly before a general election and especially before this particular general election. Surely this is logical. Therefore, if we revert to the period of two months the March lists will only come into operation after the election, in fact, on 1st May, 1970.

A further reason is that serious problems may arise in connection with special and postal votes if voters and political parties do not have precise information regarding the electoral divisions in which voters are registered, immediately at the beginning of the period during which they may record their votes in this way.

Mr. Speaker, when the procedure of special votes was introduced into our electoral laws during 1965, it was laid down that voters entitled to vote in this way might do so from the 21st day prior to polling day, i.e. the same day on which returning Officers commenced issuing postal ballot papers.

During the previous session it was decided, however, to allow special voters to record their votes from the day following nomination day. This amendment was made, as you will remember, Sir, on the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Electoral Laws Amendment Act, 1969, but although I and my Department accept this, I clearly pointed out in my Second Reading speeches in the Senate and in the House of Assembly that we, in view of experience gained over many years, did not feel very happy about that.

I mentioned that we would see after the first election, i.e. that of the members of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, whether the problems that were foreseen, which I personally conveyed also to the chairman of the committee, could be overcome and added that if insurmountable problems were to arise, the position would be reviewed. During the past election of members of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, it did, in fact, become very evident that, as had been anticipated, returning Officers required more time for making their arrangements so as to carry this provision into effect.

On nomination day they, inter alia, have to hold the nomination court and subsequently telegraph the names of the nominated candidates to the chief electoral Officers, as well as make the appointments of presiding Officers for absent votes at the request of candidates, or where no candidate has been nominated by a political party, at the request of an authorized representative of that political party. The result is that many returning Officers cannot give any attention to the establishment of polling stations before the next day. The practice is that returning Officers, although there is no obligation on them to do so, consult candidates as to the most suitable places for the establishment of such polling stations, so that the election in his division may run smoothly, and so as to make it possible for voters to record their votes with the least possible inconvenience.

Now we all know that candidates often hold different views as to which place would really be the most suitable for polling stations, viewed from the angle of the largest number of voters, and that it sometimes takes days before all the polling stations have been established. The establishment of polling stations is of importance in the matter of special votes, because in terms of section 71ter (b) a special voter has to make a declaration that he has reason to believe that he will throughout the hours of polling on polling day be outside the division for which he is enrolled and not within 10 miles of the nearest polling station within that division by the nearest practicable route.Consequently such a declaration is impossible in many cases when the polling stations have not yet been established.

In order to give hon. members a further illustration of exactly what the problem of returning Officers are in connection with the furnishing of lists of candidates in the Republic as well as in countries abroad, I should like to quote the following for general information: Section 71 bis—as amended by section 22 of Act No. 99 of 1969—provides as follows in subsection (1)—

1. (1) Prior to the day immediately following the nomination day the chief electoral Officer shall furnish every presiding Officer for votes of special voters with—
   1. (a) forms of application to vote as special voters;
   2. (b) either ballot papers, without the name, address and occupation of candidates, the name … etc.
   3. (c) … …
   4. (d) … …

And then I should like to bring the following to your attention—

Section 71sept provides, inter alia, as follows—

And this is the part on which I want you to give your attention, i.e. “after reference to the list referred to in paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of section 71bis”, i.e. the list of candidates—

(a) on the front of any ballot paper referred to in paragraph (b) of that section … the surnames, arranged in alphabetical order, … of all the duly nominated candidates.

Therefore, you can think for yourself, Sir, what the position would be if someone who was intent on being wilful were to insist on this—on the provisions I have just quoted— when he wanted to record his vote as a special voter on the day immediately following nomination day and the returning Officer were not able to furnish the necessary information. No, Sir, this will definitely not work.

During the election of the members of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council cases occurred where magistrates, in spite of the publication of the names of candidates in the Press and possibly also by radio announcements, were not in possession of the names concerned, as a result of which voters had to wait until they had received the official list of candidates. Therefore, under all these circumstances, it seems not only desirable but also decidedly necessary to have polling by means of the special votes commence only on the seventh day after nomination day in order to eliminate all these possibilities of confusion I have mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, next I want to deal with the proposal contained in clause 5, i.e. the deletion of section 71quat. When the procedure of special votes was introduced into our polling system by Act No. 84 of 1965, it was laid down, inter alia, in section 71 quat that not less than one presiding Officer for votes of special voters and his assistants should be on duty at every magistrate’s Office and at the Office of every electoral Officer and every returning Officer at all times during the hours from 7 o’clock in the forenoon to 9 o’clock in the afternoon of every day (except a Sunday or a public holiday mentioned in the Second Schedule to the Public Holidays Act, 1952), during the period from the 21st day before polling day up to and including the second day immediately preceding polling day, in order to enable voters to vote by means of the special vote during general elections.

In a proviso it was laid down that at times of by-elections presiding Officers for votes of special voters in magisterial districts other than the magisterial districts in the areas of which the division in which the poll is held, is situated, shall not be obliged to remain on duty outside their hours of duty for the purpose of special votes.

Experience gained during the general election of members of the House of Assembly in 1966 showed that many cases occurred, especially in the remote rural areas, when presiding Officers and their assistants remained on duty, during which time not a single special voter ever presented himself. The result of this was very high expenditure on allowances which had to be paid to these Officers. It was then decided to amend these provisions in such a way by section 3 of Act No. 2 of 1968 that all presiding Officers for votes of special voters had to enable every special voter to vote forthwith during the ordinary hours of duty of such presiding Officer for votes of special voters, and that only such Officers as had been determined by the chief electoral Officer (through the electoral Officer concerned), or the electoral Officer concerned after consultation with the authorized White representatives of every political party, had to enable special voters to vote during other hours than the ordinary hours of duty of such presiding Officers for votes of special voters.

In terms of these provisions it was also possible to make suitable arrangements for by-elections without Officers having to remain on duty, at great expense, after their hours of duty for every by-election throughout the country, while most of them never handled a single special vote.

During the 1969 session section 24 of Act No. 99 of 1969 added a subsection (3), which provides that for the purposes of special votes at least one presiding Officer for votes of special voters shall be on duty in every division and in every magisterial district on every day of the week, except Sundays and public holidays, from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. but on any such day he need not necessarily be the same presiding Officer or at the same place. Now we have the problem, in the first place, that at by-elections such Officers also have to be on duty after their hours of duty in every magisterial district and division in the country at great expense whereas they do not handle a single vote during that entire period. During all elections we are saddled with various other problems. In areas such as the complexes of Pretoria, Johannesburg, Durban, Cape Town, etc., it is found that more than one electoral division is situated in one magisterial district, and that Officers consequently had to be stationed in every electoral division as presiding Officers for a period exceeding one month.

In most electoral divisions there is no government Office, except perhaps a police station, and because of this it is necessary, in the first place, to find Office accommodation for the Officers, and, in the second place, for Officers to be withdrawn on a large scale from their normal duties for that period to be stationed away from their normal premises in order to sit and wait for special voters, who, in many cases, find it convenient to record their votes at other presiding Officers, such as electoral Officers and returning Officers, who can be reached more easily by means of municipal transport or who are available on the voters’ routes to and from their places of employment or the shops, at premises where the voters know these Officers are available. As an example I should like to explain to you the situation in the Pretoria complex. In this complex, i.e. the Pretoria complex, 11 electoral divisions are wholly situated within one magisterial district, whereas a 12th electoral division is also partly situated within the magisterial district of Pretoria. It is not an unusual phenomenon that the Offices of the returning Officers for most of these electoral divisions, if not all of them, are situated in a central part of the city at the Offices where the Officers appointed as returning Officers are normally employed. Thus there are quite a few returning Officers in the same building. During the 1966 general election of members of the House of Assembly their addresses were as follows: The address of the returning Officer in the electoral division of Hercules was in the magistrate’s Office, Pretoria, situated in the electoral division of Pretoria Central. The returning Officer of the electoral division of Gezina was also in the magistrate’s Office, Pretoria, which, as I have just said, is situated in the electoral division of Pretoria Central. The returning Officer of Innesdal was in the Veritas Building, Pretoria, and this building, too, is situated in the electoral division of Pretoria Central; the same position obtained in the case of the returning Officers of the electoral divisions of Koedoespoort and Pretoria District. The returning Officers of Pretoria Central were in the building of the Department of the Interior, Pretoria, which is situated in the electoral division of Prinshof. The returning Officers of Pretoria West were also in the Veritas Building, Pretoria, which is situated in the electoral division of Pretoria Central. The returning Officer of Prinshof was in the magistrate’s Office, Pretoria, which is situated in the electoral division of Pretoria Central. The returning Officer of Rissik was in the building of the Department of the Interior, which is situated in the electoral division of Prinshof. The returning Officer of the electoral division of Sunnyside was in the Gen. Piet Joubert Building, which is situated in the electoral division of Pretoria Central. Finally, the returning Officer of the electoral division of Waterkloof was also in the Veritas Building, Pretoria, which is situated in the electoral division of Pretoria Central. You will notice, Sir, that not one of these Officers were situated within their electoral divisions.

Is that not the whole object of the exercise?

This just shows hon. members that when we were at liberty to do what was the best and what was the most convenient, we did not station them within the electoral divisions where they belonged. Now this provision obliges me to station them within the electoral division, however inconvenient that may be. To station these Officers inside their electoral divisions is not always the most beneficial thing for the election, even if accommodation were, in fact, available.

It is clear that the provision proposed to be deleted, seeks to make use of the Police. Although the Police is always prepared to assist wherever assistance is required, I must draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that major responsibilities, especially in the cities, rest on the shoulders of the Police Force and that the Police Force is also faced with serious staff problems. If subsection (3) is deleted, the provisions of section l1quat(1) will still stand and arrangements can always be made with electoral Officers and, if need be, with the chief electoral Officer to establish the best facilities in any area, according to the distinctive requirements of that area, for the recording of votes by special voters. If absolutely necessary, use may also be made of police Officers if other suitable arrangements cannot be made, but in those cases electoral Officers and other interested parties will have to satisfy the Commissioner of Police, and, if need be, myself, of the necessity for that. I am satisfied that with this arrangement and with the necessary consultation between Officers and the representatives of the political parties in every electoral division, it will be possible to establish the most effective facilities for every electoral division to enable special voters to record their votes. I may just add that in respect of the presiding Officers I shall give this House an undertaking, as I have, in fact, done in the Other Place, and that is that we shall station them at the most convenient places for the voters. The necessary instructions in this connection have also been issued to my Department, and hon. members may rest assured that there will be liaison with the authorized representatives of all political parties. However, it is also their duty to liaise with the officials of my Department, otherwise we shall not be aware of their problems. But I do not want tc place myself and my Department in a crush-pen such as the Act provides for at present. The provisions of the Act are placing us in a crush-pen; we have to station the presiding Officers at certain specific places or within certain restricted areas.

I should like to deal briefly with the technical aspect, or rather the practical aspect, of this matter. This section which we are now deleting makes provision for a man to be stationed in every magisterial district and in every electoral division. It goes further than that, however, by providing that that Officer need not necessarily be the same man, nor need he necessarily be at the same place; but let us just examine the practical operation of this thing or, to be more specific, of this absurd thing. What worth does that man have if I do not inform you where he will be? In other words, that part which provides that he need not necessarily live at the same place, means, in fact, that the outcome of the matter is that I will have to station a man at a specific place and that I will at least have to inform the political parties and all voters that he will be stationed there. I cannot have him stationed at one place to-day and at a different place that afternoon, so that the voters do not know where he is stationed that afternoon.

But you are not obliged to do so.

But will the parties be asleep?

This clause, which I should like to remove, makes specific provision for that. I say that I cannot have him stationed at one place in the morning and at another place in the afternoon, without the voters being informed of that. This is not a question which merely concerns the political parties. The hon. members only give thought to the political parties, but the important person is the voter.

But the clause does not require that.

No, the clause does not require that, but the very reason for that is that it was realized at the time when this clause was introduced that that was unpractical. For that reason ways and means were sought to make this easier and more practicable. For that reason this concession was introduced. In the light of these circumstances, the section as it stands, is not practical. I should like to give hon. members the assurance that what they would have been given under this section, if it were not to be deleted, they will still be given and perhaps even more, after negotiations between the officials of the Department and the various political parties have been conducted concerning the places where and the times when the presiding Officers will be on duty. We shall endeavour to establish a better and more convenient system for everyone.

I readily concede that the afore going two amendments, which I have dealt with very fully, should, as is usual, have been referred to a select committee for consideration. I trust hon. members will agree that in view of the special circumstances it has not been possible to do so. I also trust that they will see and accept my and my Department’s problems as these have been outlined. For that reason I say at this stage that it will not be necessary for the hon. members to say that this should have been referred to a select committee. I know that, but hon. members know equally well that under the present circumstances it has not been possible to refer this matter to a select committee.

By way of summary it may be said that judging from what emerged during the discussion of this Bill in the Other Place, the only two minor points on which there is some difference between this side of the House and the official Opposition on that side of the House, is the question of the seven days and the question of the presiding Officers. As far as the presiding Officers are concerned, I am inclined to ask the hon. members to judge the Department after the election, in view of the provision we have at present, which opens the door for us to provide all the efficiency it is possible to provide in practice. As regards the period concerning the special vote, I have given adequate reasons why we do not want to place ourselves in a position which might give rise to dissatisfaction on the part of people who might not be able to obtain the service they would like to have. In the light of that we feel that we should not be so overhasty in dealing with the special vote after a nomination. I am deeply convinced and I am fully confident that with these amendments we shall be able to have a better election than without them.

In order to assist political parties to get their candidates organized, we have already gone so far as to announce nomination day. It was announced in public, as you know, that that day will be Friday, 13th March, 1970.

Why Friday the 13th?

Chris Barnard also ran away from that date.

In other words, the date is earlier than hon. members had expected, and accordingly they are getting a few days extra as regards the period for recording special votes.

Mr. Speaker, only one minor point remains, and I should like to explain it in brief. It concerns the proposed amendment in clause 2, which seeks to eliminate a possible shortcoming which might give rise to obscurity and doubt. When the Act was amended in 1969, it was decided that officials in the service of the State, including the provinces and the Railways, who serve outside the Republic, may record their votes by means of special votes instead of postal votes. With the amendment of section 42 these persons were deprived of the choice between these two ways of voting, but it was not provided that they were, in fact, competent to apply for special votes, but in section liter it was only provided in what way they should apply. Section 42 makes provision not only for the choice between the two ways of voting, but also for the requirements which have to be satisfied before a choice may be exercised.

Mr. Speaker, I trust that this Bill, just as the previous Bill I introduced here, will meet with the unanimous support of this House.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. the Minister in connection with the staff of the electoral Offices, especially in view of the general registration. I want to make specific mention of the returning Officers in the Durban Office who, proportionally speaking, had the largest number of registrations. Far more than 200,000 applications were received there. That Office issued its typed lists and its cancellation lists two or three weeks before the other Offices in South Africa did so. That was an excellent effort. This necessitated the staff in that Office to work overtime throughout the Christmas season. It was only on the holidays themselves that they did not work. I think that they deserve a special word of congratulation and of gratitude for the sacrifices they made and for the results they achieved.

There is a second point on which I agree with the Minister. That is in respect of the first amendment in connection with general registration, As the hon. Minister knows, it was, in fact, the Opposition that approached him and his Department in connection with the matter of postponement. An impossible situation would have arisen if after the registration of 750,000 people we should suddenly have told the same people, “You are not registered, you now have to complete a new card”. That would simply have been an impossible state of affairs. For that reason we agreed with the Minister, and for that reason we support this specific clause.

I think, however, that it was somewhat naive of the Minister to have expressed the hope before he resumed his seat that he would have our support for the rest of the Bill. Sir, it is not we who disagree with the hon. the Minister. The entire Select Committee that recommended this legislation disagrees with him. This was a Select Committee consisting of experts of the National Party, of members of this side of the House, and the chief Officers who have knowledge of the electoral machinery. Therefore we are not the only ones who disagree with the Minister. It is the hon. the Minister who is disagreeing with his experts and with his own party’s representatives on the Select Committee. All we are doing now by expressing our opposition, is to act in the support of the Nationalist Party members of the Select Committee, and to try to defend them against the Minister’s attacks on their knowledge.

The hon. the Minister gave a lengthy and detailed explanation of this Bill. This proves beyond any doubt, however, that this election is a panic election, and that the Prime Minister has chosen a date without consulting his electoral Officers. This Bill is the result of that. It is the result of a panic election. When the Minister of Transport ordered the Prime Minister to call an election he suddenly chose a date …

Order! That is not relevant now.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, this entire Bill is the result of the fixing of the election date.

This has nothing to do with the Minister of Transport’s reputed order to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I accept that. I accept your ruling. In that case I shall only discuss the panic in the choice of a date. As a result of that we are now being asked with this Bill to side against two principles that were accepted unanimously. The hon. the Minister furnished many reasons why he now has to amend these two clauses.

In the first place, we have the date for special votes. If the Minister had not changed that period from 10 to 7 days once again, and if he had not made nomination day four days earlier, it would have meant that the special vote and the postal vote would have been on exactly the same basis. There would have been no preference for the special vote. Sir, this is a question of principle because the whole attitude of the Select Committee was that we wanted to afford the special vote a fair chance to show its worth. We on our side wanted to go further. We wanted to attach an obligatory advantage to the special vote, but in the light of our discussions and on the condition that we would now have additional time for the special vote, it was decided not to oppose this officially. At that time we accepted it as an experiment. Now we are going back on this fundamental principle, however, because we on this side of the House believe that the special vote is the correct way to vote and that the postal vote will have to disappear eventually. This amendment militates against the possibility of the postal vote disappearing.

Are you afraid of the postal vote?

No, we merely want to create the most fair and just opportunity for the absent voter to vote under circumstances as closely related as possible to the circumstances under which he would have voted on polling day itself. I do not want to discuss the merits of this, because it does not fall within the orbit of this Bill. The Minister said that we were now going to allow additional time, but we are not speaking of the election on 22nd April only. We are legislating now and this provision will remain law. The hon. the Minister knows that the very object of this vote was to afford people who, for instance, depart for overseas immediately after nomination day, an opportunity of voting before their departure. Those people would in 99.9% of the cases have voted at their own returning Officers, because they are people who are about to depart. Their own returning Officers would therefore have known who the candidates were. If such a person were to have voted for a wrong candidate, then that vote would simply have been a spoiled vote and the voter would have lost it, but now he will lose it in any event, because he will have to wait longer. Therefore he will actually lose nothing by spoiling his vote because of having had the wrong names to choose from. If such a person takes a chance with the names he chooses a few days before the publication of the official list, it is his own fault. Therefore that is no argument. The returning Officers, the parties and the voters obtained their information about whom the candidate is for a certain place through the press and the radio. If there is any mistake, that vote simply falls away. I do not see the reason why we should return to the old position contrary to the recommendation of the Select Committee. I do not want to elaborate on this for any length of time. I just want to say that we are still opposed to this. We still want to see provision being made for giving the special vote the biggest possible chance, and we shall oppose that provision.

I now come to the other important amendment, and that is that the presiding Officers for votes of special voters need not necessarily be in the electoral division concerned. In the argument he advanced here, the hon. the Minister proved the very thing we envisaged on the Select Committee. He pointed out how in Pretoria, for example, all the returning Officers were to be found in the central part of the city. Let us now take the position in Durban. The same thing could happen there. The returning Officers mostly are either in the magistrate’s Offices or in the Government building on the Esplanade. This means that voters who live at Brighton Beach or the Bluff, Umhlatuzana, Escombe—8 to 10 miles from the centre of town—have to drive all that way in heavy traffic, and when they arrive there they do not find parking space. There is no parking space in the central part of any city to-day. Now that we have the meter maids or “Boetebessies”, as they are called in Afrikaans, the position is even worse, because if one parks one’s car anywhere for only five minutes, one finds that small ticket on your car. The question of parking is a serious problem. Not all of us have Cadillacs with chauffeurs. We ourselves have to find parking space. If we break the law we are punished.

But you said you yourself would have one after 22nd April.

We are discussing what will happen before the election on 22nd April. When I get my Cadillac, I shall not take advantage of that by parking in the wrong place. If the voters of 10 electoral divisions all have to come to one central point, it simply aggravates the parking problem. I can see no reason why there cannot be only one Officer in any electoral division. That was the only thing the law laid down. In every electoral division there is always one police station or place where an Office can be established for an Officer for votes of special voters. We often used to do so by means of negotiation before this Act was placed on the Statute Book, but according to the argument of the hon. the Minister …

We can do so again.

No, the hon. the Minister himself said “Where we were under no obligation, we did what was the best”. The best, according to the hon. the Minister, was to have all the returning Officers in the central part of Pretoria. We say that this is not the best. We say there ought to be decentralization so that people will he able to reach their returning Officer for votes of special voters more easily. That is why we cannot agree with that side about this amendment. We shall oppose this provision as well.

I now come to two other points. I notice that in this Bill there is not reference to special arrangements for people who, on account of their faith, cannot vote on polling day. After the hon. the Prime Minister had chosen a holy day of a large section of our people as polling day, he told them that they could vote by special vote if it was against their faith to vote on polling day, or if it was difficult for them to vote, because the holy day ends at 6 p.m. Now I want to know in terms of which provisions they may record that special vote. This question was put to the hon. the Prime Minister and as yet we have received no reply. Could he perhaps explain in terms of what provision, either in this Bill or in the Act itself, people of the Jewish faith may apply for a special vote on the grounds of their faith? How does this fit in with the grounds laid down in the Act? I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister can explain this. We think it would have been better to have changed the date, because we all have respect for the religious beliefs of a person. Here we are doing an injustice to a large section.

Another point is the correction of errors on the application forms for registration as a voter. The hon. the Minister repeated three times that this concerned minor errors only. Could he in his reply please explain in some more detail what he regards as a “minor error”. Is it, for example, a minor error if a person gives his date of birth as 15th October, 1969, which is the date on which he has completed the form, or will that application then be rejected? The evaluation of the nature of an error may differ in some cases.

I do not want to prolong this debate. We are going to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill, because, as the hon. the Minister said, these are two matters of principle. If we do not vote against it now, we shall be bound at the Committee Stage. But we accept and stick to the agreement in connection with the general registration. We shall support those provisions during the Committee Stage. We hope that we shall not get a position in future where the hon. the Prime Minister will obviously not be able to distinguish between his mashie and his niblick.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban (Point) agrees with two of the four principles in this Bill, because those are the two that suit his purpose.

An agreement was reached in regard to them.

An agreement was reached in regard to all of them. He would now like to bind the Select Committee, but concedes two of the principles, because they suit his purpose. But in regard to the other two he does not want to concede. The fact of the matter is that an election has been announced. It is no use our arguing about it. This Bill was submitted to this House by a Select Committee and it was passed. But now an election has been announced and it has created new circumstances and has given rise to new problems, as a result of which the hon. member agrees with only two of the principles. He therefore realizes the problems to which the earlier election has given rise. I am very glad that the hon. member agrees as far as the registration of voters is concerned. As far as I am concerned, I have always believed that a general registration of voters is a poor registration. It takes a tremendously long time to get the voters’ lists right again. With the new methods which exist, it appears to me as if there should never really be a general registration of voters again. There are other methods by means of which voters’ lists can be brought up to date. The tri-annual method is in any case not good enough. Actually the provision in the Electoral Laws should be that there shall no longer be a general registration of voters before a delimitation. Perhaps there is an argument to be advanced for a general registration of voters. Otherwise I do not think, however, that there are arguments in favour of a general election.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) said that the Select Committee had been unanimous. That is true, but the hon. member was not telling the whole truth. He made no mention of the doubts which existed. Actually, it was there we started dividing into two camps. The United Party members of that Committee came forward with the idea that postal votes should be abolished. This was also provided in the original Bill. They were supporters of that measure, i.e. that postal votes should be abolished and that there should only be special votes. In fact, the hon. member for Durban (Point) admitted it here. We met the United Party halfway because we realized their problems. I myself, for example, have never been a supporter of the special vote. I shall explain in just a moment why I am not in favour of it. I am a supporter of the postal vote. We conceded, and most of the hon. members on this side of the House felt the same, and we met the United Party halfway. According to the evidence before that committee we said that the State could not comply with the requirements of that legislation. This is also my personal standpoint. The State does not have the manpower, and cannot possibly do it. I am now speaking of vast rural constituencies, and not of urban constituencies where there are many officials available. It has been my experience that it is very difficult to find people to do the work at the polls on election day in a rural constituency where there are many electoral districts and other smaller districts. It is not public servants who do the work there, for there are not enough public servants. The people who do the work there are town clerks and others. Any magistrate in the rural areas will testify to the fact that he does not have public servants available in the country to do the work at the polls. If the public do not help him, he cannot do it, and then it is impossible. I am opposed to special votes because I believe that fighting an election is not a function of the State. It is the task of the political parties. I appreciate the point of view of the United Party. They have been hiding behind a false premise, i.e. the so-called terrible abuses which take place in regard to postal votes. Mr. Speaker, if I have to judge from my own experience, it is just so much nonsense. Now what are the true facts? The fact of the matter to-day is that every party handles its own postal votes. Things are not as they used to be. I can tell the United Party something.

No, you cannot.

Yes, I can tell you what difficulties the National Party had in the days when the United Party was in power and was not prepared to appoint a Nationalist as justice of the peace or as a commissioner of oaths. If only I could speak about my experiences of those days! But I just want to say where abuse occurred. It occurred when a presiding Officer of another political party was dealing with my voter. This procedure is no longer being followed, and this kind of thing has been stopped. In the old days that presiding Officer simply spoiled my ballot paper and I did not receive that vote. I can talk from experience when it comes to fighting an election without people to help. We did not have those people. Truly, in the 1943 election a Nationalist justice of the peace was as scarce as snow in summer. There was just no such person. Then we had a hard time of it; then we had a struggle. But what is the position to-day? Under the present circumstances every candidate can appoint 12 agents of his own. This Government did not discriminate. Every candidate of every political party, no matter how small, can appoint 12 agents of his own. I want to make the assertion that every political party to-day is able to deal with its own people. The ordinary voter regards an election very much as he would big game hunting. It is something he looks forward to. I can testify to this fact. That is the case with the workers of the National Party; with the United Party things are different. We have many voluntary workers. They look forward to an election day, as I have said, as they would to big game hunting. The voters do not want everything to be done by a public servant. A person who goes hunting, does not want another person to shoot his buck for him. No, he wants to shoot it himself. This is also how our voters want it. I think that if the United Party were to give their people the opportunity, they would also do it. We have no problems. I do not want the State to help me in this connection. My people want to do it themselves and I want to give them the opportunity to do so. After all, we are living in a democratic country and we are fighting an election in a democratic way. I want to give them the opportunity to feel that they are the people who are fighting the election; I want them to feel that it is they who elect their candidate, not the public servants. This is how I see the question of elections and this is how I feel about it. I can understand why the United Party is concerned. It is their own fault. I shall tell hon. members where the deterioration of the United Party set in as far as its workers and its party are concerned. It set in when the United Party established that R2 million trust fund in 1952.

Order! The hon. member is going much too far now. He must return to the subject.

Mr. Speaker, you are correct. But to show you how right the hon. the Minister was with his two principles which the hon. member for Durban (Point) is opposing to such an extent, I had to take it up there, otherwise you and the United Party would not have believed me.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill has several aspects which are of importance, but there are two aspects which I think are of particular significance. In the first place, I think, the introduction of this Bill is an admission on the part of the Government that it has failed to comply with the provisions of the 1968 Act, because that Act requires that a general registration of voters should have been held during the year 1969. Now, it is a fact that during the Second Reading debate of that Bill on 12th February, 1968, the hon. the Minister of the Interior made it very clear that it was extremely necessary that the voters’ lists at any election should be as up to date as possible. He also said, inter alia, the following (Hansard, 12th February, 1968, column 388)-—

That is to say, voters’ list which would have been only two years old at that time. He continued and said—

Later in the debate he stated it even more emphatically (Hansard, column 393)—

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the voters’ lists according to which the coming general election must take place, can be called ancient. If a voters’ list which is two years old can be regarded as an old voters’ list, then a voters’ list which is five years old is two and a half times as old, and therefore I say without hesitation that it must be regarded as ancient. If what the hon. the Minister said had been true, and I accept it as such, and I think we all agree that it is necessary for the voters’ list at a general election to be as recent as possible, then it is of as much significance and force for the coming election as it would have been in any other election. I want to say very clearly that what the hon. the Minister said in 1968, and that was only two years ago, still has the same validity and force which it had then. He cannot have it both ways by saying one year that a voters’ list which is two years old, is too old, and then saying this year that a supplementary voters’ list or a voters’ list which is more than six years old, will do. The list is more than six years old, because according to the quotation which I took from Hansard the last general registration took place in 1963.

The Government had the whole of 1969 at their disposal in which to allow the general registration to take place. The year did not extend only from 13th October to 17th November. The year began on 1st January, 1969. In the whole of the first nine months of the year nothing was done to carry into effect that statutory provision which had been passed by this Parliament. Only later in the year was a start made to carry into effect the requirements of the Act that a general registration should take place in 1969. Arising from this, because such a late start had been made in having this general registration take place, and because there had, in the meantime, been an announcement to the effect that an early general election would take place, the Minister simply tried to cover up his negligence in not having that statutory provision implemented by the fact that the general election had been announced. I want to make it very clear that this was done by the Government in disregard of the statutory requirements. It was done in disregard of an Act of this Parliament. The specific provision of that Act, i.e. that there must be a general registration of voters in 1969, was simply brushed aside. Now the question must pose itself to anyone, i.e. what does an Act of Parliament mean if the Minister can brush aside the provisions of an Act in this way. It does not matter that the Opposition told the Minister concerned beforehand that they were facing a problem; the Opposition and the Ministers are both responsible for the passing of that Act, and the Minister is responsible for the implementation of that Act. He cannot hide behind the fact that the Opposition told him they were finding themselves in difficulties, or that his Department was finding itself in difficulties in connection with that provision. An Act is passed by Parliament in order to be implemented. We all sit in this House as elected representatives, and when Parliament passes an Act which requires a general election to take place in 1969, it is the right of every member of this Parliament to expect that it be implemented by the Minister. That other hon. Minister can kick up as much of a fuss as he wants to, but it is the right of every member to expect an Act to be implemented by the Minister. There is no occasion for a Minister, nor has he the authority to say that he has decided not to implement a statutory provision.

After all, you cculd have gone to court.

My friend says that I could have gone to court. The Minister could have gone to court, if that was what he preferred, but he did not go to court. He did not go to court, but he went to the Opposition. Does he approve of this?

He said you could have gone to court.

But that is not true.

It is what the Minister himself said. [Interjections.] Whether the Minister had gone to the Opposition or whether the Opposition had gone to him, makes no jot of difference whatsoever. I am quite prepared to accept that the Opposition had gone to him, but that makes no difference whatsoever to the principle of the matter. All the arrangements had been made to have the general registration commence on the 13th October 1969. Then an announcement of an earlier election was made. On 18th September, the date on which the general registration was to have commenced, i.e. 13th October, was postponed to 17th November, 1969.

Happy is going to have a fit I tell you.

Why was the general registration postponed then, after the Government had not made use of nine months of the year which had already passed, in order to give effect to the statutory provisions? The date was brought forward again and it then became really impossible for the Government to give effect to that provision, which had been passed by this Parliament. When he postponed it to 17th November it was of course impossible to have the registration take place, lot then it would have had to cover the whole period of the Christmas holidays, and who on earth in South Africa could ever think of holding a registration of voters from 16th December to 31st December. Practically, therefore, the possibility of that provision being carried into effect was excluded.