I lay upon the Table—

P. S. VAN DER MER WE, Deputy Chairman of Committees.

E. R. C. OOSTHUIZEN, Chief Committee Clerk.

Examiners.

Committee Rooms, House of Assembly, 9th February, 1972.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Bill read a First Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in recommending this motion to hon. members on both sides of the House. I do not want to repeat what I said in the no-confidence debate, but I have no hesitation in recommending to Parliament that the time has come for Parliament to take cognizance of the objects of these organizations, of their activities, of their financing, of the matters related with these and of the subsidiary companies or organizations connected with them. It is my duty to tell the House that I have received telegrams from three of these organizations, and it is my duty to submit their representations to the House on this occasion. Firstly, as regards the S.A. Institute of Race Relations, their telegram reads as follows—

The assertion is made in this telegram that hon. members of this House, who were elected by the people to lead the people in all matters and to pass legislation on all matters—this body which can make war and peace, which is the highest council in the country—are not competent to institute a fact-finding inquiry—this is what I am asking the House to undertake—to see what the inside of this organization looks like. This is all I am asking of the House; I made it very clear when last I spoke and I want to make it clear again today. In my humble opinion—and I am not saying this on behalf of my side of the House alone, but I am saying it on behalf of all hon. members, those who are sitting on this side of the House as well as those on that side of the House—it borders very closely on contempt of Parliament and most certainly contempt of hon. members sitting in this Parliament to make the assertion that hon. members who would serve on such a Select Committee are not competent to institute such a fact-finding inquiry. But I leave it at that, Mr. Speaker.

The Christian Institute sent me the following telegram (translation)—

I find it interesting that the words “possible contravention of law” are mentioned in the telegram. I did not mention that, Sir. Nobody mentioned that. Why is the Christian Institute suddenly sensitive about this matter? It is not a question of contraventions of the law having to be investigated. I want to repeat once again: It is a question of our wanting to see what these organizations look like. This House is most certainly concerned with the entire objective of any organization; this House is not only concerned with contraventions of the law, for reasons I shall mention later on.

From Nusas we received the following telegram—

Sir, I have told you that I believe the time has come for Parliament to take stock of these organizations. I want to repeat, with all the responsibility which I possess, that according to information which the competent authorities have at their disposal there is most certainly a prima facie case. I therefore come to Parliament in the knowledge that this is so and that Parliament itself should look into these organizations.

Just take the case of Nusas. I have said many things about them in my time. I am not the only one, however, to have expressed myself on them. The Secretary of the United Party, Senator Horak, has said on occasion that “Nusas stinks”. Parliament does not know whether this is so. Let Parliament see whether it stinks. If it does not stink, Parliament will know that it does not, and if it does stink, Sir, then Parliament will know how little or how much it stinks. Then it is up to Parliament to do the necessary, if it is necessary, or to do nothing if it is not necessary to do anything in this connection. I want to refer to statements which have been made, things which have been revealed in the past, and knowledge which is not only at my disposal on this side of the House, but also at the disposal of hon. members on the other side of the House. As far as leaders of Nusas are concerned, I need only refer to the Leftwich and other incidents. One need only refer to statements and to collaboration with South Africa’s enemies, as it appears on the face of it. This compels me to say that these organizations must be looked into. Especially as far as Nusas is concerned, it strikes me that they are asking for a judicial commission of inquiry. I recall that there were problems at the university in Grahamstown. The hon. member for Albany will know much more about it than I do. Those problems were investigated by a commission, the chairman of which was a Judge. Another member was an honourable and senior attorney. Another member was an English-speaking lady who had been in education for 40 years and who was principal of a girls’ school. The fourth member of the commission was a distinguished academic, Prof. Hobart Houghton. That committee conducted an inquiry; the chairman was a Judge and, Sir, you will remember from the Press reports on the inquiry with what contempt, with what venom and with what rudeness that commission was treated by Nusas. The hon. member for Albany knows much more about it than I do, because he is from Grahamstown itself. Now it does not become those people to appeal to a judicial commission of inquiry at this stage. I shall argue this point on its merits later on.

The times in which we are living—I need not enlarge on this; every hon. member here is thoroughly aware of it—compel us, as far as these organizations are concerned, to see what their objects are, most certainly to see with whom they have liaison, most certainly to ascertain what the motives of these organizations are, most certainly to ascertain by whom they are financed and, what is even more important to me, most certainly to ascertain whom they finance in their turn. In other words, as far as my request to Parliament is concerned, my case is a simple one. Here we have four organizations moving in this delicate sphere. Here we have four organizations which have caused eyebrows to be lifted, not only by members on this side of the House, but also by hon. members on the other side of the House. Here we have a student organization which has caused many parents in this country endless anxiety, because they do not know where their children are being led by this organization. Can Parliament just shrug its shoulders and say that it is not concerned with this? No, Sir, my case is simply that Parliament has a responsibility in this regard to see what the insides of these organizations look like.

I am not putting these organizations in the dock by this motion of mine. I want to make this very clear. I am not laying a charge of contravening the law or of anything whatever against these organizations.

But you have information?

Yes, I have information, and I shall make that information available to the Committee; it is my duty. But I am not the only one to have information—I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that. Hon. members on the other side have information. After all, there is not one of them who does not have information. The hon. member for Yeoville himself has spoken about this matter. I have said that I am not putting anyone in the dock. If it is true that these people have nothing to hide and that they are innocent organizations, from whom can they get a better testimonial of their innocence than from this Parliament, the highest body in the country? I do not have the slightest doubt that if they are innocent, this Parliament will give them that certificate of innocence. Then they can parade that certificate, and if any person attacks them, they will have every right to say: “But Parliament, the highest body in this country, has given us a clean certificate.”

Consequently I cannot with the best will in the world see that there can be any objection to an inquiry being held. But these organizations themselves are not asking that no inquiry should be held. No, they have asked to be investigated by a judicial commission. In fact, there have been several challenges in the past that investigations be held. The only question is by whom the investigation is to be instituted. If charges had been laid, we could have understood that they could with some justification have demanded a judicial inquiry. But I want to repeat once again—and further than that we cannot take the matter, and that is why I was very glad to see in the Cape Times of Saturday morning that my friend the hon. the Leader of the Opposition agrees—so I inferred—with the idea of a Select Committee …

Where did you see that?

I am sorry. I read it in the Cape Times on Saturday morning. Ask the hon. member for Yeoville. He will tell you.

What were the exact words he used?

Sir, I am saying that I inferred it from what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had said, and if he did not say so, then he must tell us. Then he can tell us. I do not happen to have it with me, because I did not think the hon. members would make an issue of it now and back down from what was stated in the Cape Times. [Interjections.] But that is beside the point at the moment. It is for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say what he said on Saturday and what he wants to say at other times. That is his affair. I say that Parliament is not only the highest body in the country, but that if something goes wrong here in the field of security in South Africa, the people of South Africa will be fully justified in pointing a finger at Parliament and saying: “What did you do about that matter; did you take note of the things that were going on?” Is Parliament then to shrug its shoulders and say: “No, we simply let it take its course; it is not our business: we are not concerned with it.” It is my business, Sir, and if hon. members on the other side want to disagree with me they are fully entitled to do so. I say that Parliament, as the guardian of the liberties of this country and of this people, has a positive duty in this regard. What am I asking Parliament to appoint? I am asking Parliament to appoint a fact-finding body, to acquaint itself with the facts concerning these organizations, and I do not think I am putting an unreasonable request to Parliament. I think it is a good thing that I am putting this request to Parliament. I believe that it is pre-eminently the duty of Parliament to agree to such a Select Committee being appointed and to give such terms of reference to the Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has indicated that in his view there is a prima facie case for investigation and that the best body to do the investigating is a Select Committee of Parliament because, he says, what could be better for an organization of this kind than to have a certificate from the Select Committee of Parliament and from Parliament itself that it is not guilty.

I never said “not guilty”. [Interjections.]

Not guilty, or innocent, if the hon. the Prime Minister likes that better, or what? What is the charge that is brought against these organizations? [Interjections.] This motion is so vaguely phrased that neither would the Select Committee know what it has to investigate, nor would any organization know what case it has to answer.

That is more important still.

It is probably more important. This is a most interesting proposal from the hon. the Prime Minister, because he is asking for an investigation not in respect of anything that may be unlawful or illegal. He said expressly he is not suggesting there is anything unlawful or illegal. He is asking for something else. He is asking for an investigation into the objects and activities of an organization which he tacitly admits is guilty of nothing illegal or unlawful. [Interjections.]

Order!

If one considers what he said today in relation to what he said during the no-confidence debate, it is clear that what he has in view is the safety and well-being of the State and possible undermining, possible subversion of race relations in South Africa. Well, why does he not say so in his terms of reference to the Select Committee? If that is what he wants investigated, why not say so? AH he is asking now is that the Select Committee be on a fact-finding mission. That is what he says. What facts are they to find? Here is a copy of the last annual report of the Institute of Race Relations and there is just about everything in it he can want. [Interjections.] He can read it himself. What is it the hon. gentleman is looking for; what does he want that Select Committee to do? [Interjections.]

You see, Mr. Speaker, if that is the inquiry, whether these organizations are innocent or not, then I ask—innocent of what? Innocent of lawbreaking? That is not what he is looking for. Innocent of doing anything illegal? That is not what the hon. gentleman is looking for. I believe when you tie it to what he said originally, it concerns possible subversion of the security, the safety or well-being of the State and possible subversion of harmonious race relations in South Africa. If that is the scope of the inquiry, it calls for a very nice, very balanced judgment and a great deal of experience in sifting facts and drawing conclusions from them.

The hon. the Prime Minister says that three of the organizations concerned have requested a judicial commission. I see no reason why he should not have granted their request. I see no reason at all. I believe that that would be a better body than a Select Committee of this Parliament to investigate matters of this kind. I have no hesitation in saying so.

Why?

Why? For the very simple reason that everyone who serves on a Select Committee is a politician of one kind or another and every politician has his own ideas about the solution to our race relations problem and every politician thinks that the ideas of everybody else are likely to subvert harmonious race relations.

Hear, hear!

We have had gentlemen on that side of the House saying that we were assisting in a communist plot in South Africa. Hon. members know that it is absolute nonsense. Hon. members know that we on this side of the House have said that the best way to attack Communism is to get rid of the causes which enable it to flourish. We believe that that side of the House is responsible for creating some of those causes. We are politicians, but are we the people to go and form a nice balanced judgment as to the innocence or otherwise of the activities of organizations of that kind?

Are you saying that politicians cannot use their discretion?

I am saying that they certainly can use their discretion, but I know in what direction they use it. I have seen them doing it for years in this House, and that includes that hon. member. As far as I am concerned, I believe that not only would a judicial commission be a better body for an investigation of this kind, but also that the public would have more confidence in it. It is clear that the organizations concerned will have more confidence in it. In a matter of this kind it is not only sufficient that justice must be done, but that justice must be seen to be done. Of course there are certain procedural advantages attached to a judicial commission as opposed to a Select Committee. Hon. members who have appeared before both in the course of their work or who have been members of one and who have appeared before another know that cross-examination before a Select Committee is difficult. Questions have to go through the Chair, while in a cross-examination in a court of law, which is the procedure adopted for a judicial commission, the cross-examiner gets a much better opportunity than in a Select Committee. Hon. members also know that it is easier for counsel to operate before a judicial commission. It is a forum with which he is familiar, and counsel leading evidence can sift the evidence that is to be given to the commission concerned. Nobody will deny that judges have more experience in sifting and weighing up evidence than have ordinary members of Parliament who have never sat on a Bench in their lives. There is something else. Before a judicial commission a witness has certain rights and he need not answer incriminating questions. Before a Select Committee there is no such protection for the witness. As far as I am concerned, I believe that a judicial commission should be the right body to enter into an inquiry of this kind. I go further. I believe that if it has to be a successful inquiry, the objectives of that inquiry have to be much more clearly stated. When the former Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, appointed a commission to go into the activities of certain secret societies, he set out the terms of reference very carefully indeed. I have these terms before me. He instructed that commission to inquire in respect of anything which renders such an organization guilty of—

1. (a) any form of treason or intrigue, or of attempts to obtain for itself domination of, or of harmful or unlawful influencing of, or of subversive activities against, the people or the State or any of its organs such as the Central Government, the Provincial Authorities or the administration of Justice;
2. (b) anything which may weaken the determination and will of the people of South Africa to fight for their survival …

He went on from (a) to (i) setting out the terms of reference of what exactly he wanted that commission to do. Where is there any suggestion of that kind in the motion which this hon. Prime Minister has put before this House? Have hon. members ever thought what the effect will be outside South Africa of certain of these organizations, well-known outside the country, being investigated not by a judicial commission but by a Select Committee consisting of Parliamentarians? Sir, I have no hesitation in saying that there will be a very much better judgment on those matters outside South Africa if the investigation is by a judicial commission and not by a Select Committee of Parliament. Certain of these organizations are very well-known outside of Parliament. Here is the last annual report of the Institute of Race Relations. I see that the Royal African Society’s medal for service in Africa was presented by the British Ambassador to one of the leading lights of the Institute of Race Relations. There I see that in the symposium they arranged on Coloured education they did not only have the attendance of the Commissioner for Coloured Affairs, but also of the Director of Coloured Education, I would assume with the approval of their Minister. One could go on indicating how well-known certain of these organizations are outside South Africa.

I believe there is something else which makes it undesirable for us to have this examined by a Select Committee. Our judgment as politicians as to what is subversive of race relations, what is subversive of the well-being of the State, subversive of matters which are not illegal, not unlawful, not crimes, tends to be very subjective indeed. I believe that in an inquiry of this kind, it is vitally important that there should be every appearance of complete impartiality and the bringing of trained minds in the legal profession to bear upon the evidence which comes before them. For that reason I want to move an amendment to the hon. the Prime Minister’s motion. My amendment reads as follows—

I believe a body with these terms of reference and constituted in this manner, is the right body for a job of this kind.

May I say something else? The hon. the Prime Minister has suggested that I have indicated that I was in favour of a Select Committee. I have difficulty in understanding how he reached that conclusion from anything I might have said. I was in fact asked the following question: “If the Prime Minister appoints a Select Committee, will you serve on it?” I replied: “The Prime Minister has a majority in Parliament; he can appoint a Select Committee. If he does, I believe it is our duty to serve.” This is very different from what the hon. the Prime Minister has said. [Interjections.] My reasons for that I have given elsewhere, but there is no doubt whatever that as far as I am concerned, a judicial commission is much the more desirable body for an investigation of this kind.

Then I am worried about something else. The hon. the Prime Minister is asking for an inquiry in a new field in South Africa. He is asking for an inquiry in a field not covered by the criminal law or any other law. It is almost as though he is asking for an inquiry as to whether these bodies are innocent or guilty of un-South African activities. He does not say it, but that is the sort of inquiry which will be conducted. I would have thought that in making out a case for an inquiry of that kind, there would have been far more prima facie evidence placed before Parliament. What is the case for the inquiry? The hon. the Prime Minister says he has prima facie evidence. Well, Sir, we accept that. However, I think he owes it to the House and to the country to give us a much clearer statement of what his fears and what his suspicions may be and what his reason is for this new departure in our public life in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the argument put forward by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition constitutes a motion of no confidence in this Parliament and casts a reflection on the integrity of every member in this House. I repeat: It is a motion of no confidence in this Parliament and casts a reflection on the integrity of every member in this House. What did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say? He said that every member who might serve on this Committee was a politician and could not form an objective judgment. Is that not a reflection on the integrity of hon. members? He said that no politician could give a balanced judgment and that the public would have much more confidence in a judicial commission than in a Select Committee. [Interjections.] In other words, the public would have much more confidence in a judicial commission than in those hon. members of the House sitting on the opposite side. It is a reflection on them and it is a very serious reflection which is being cast on them.

What has our past experience been? I have been sitting in this House much longer than any hon. member opposite, and Select Committees have repeatedly been appointed to investigate the most delicate of matters.

Like the High Court of Parliament.

If the hon. member would stop being ridiculous and silly, he would also learn something. As I have said, Select Commtitees have been appointed to investigate the most delicate of matters. Experience has shown that the members of those Select Committees acted objectively; they did not allow their own personal points of view to prevail or their political affiliations to outweigh or influence their judgment. I can mention a few examples: Do hon. members remember the Denk case, when very serious accusations were levelled at the late Dr. Malan by Mr. Lawrence? Moreover, this was during the war years, when feelings were running very high. A Select Committee was appointed under the chairmanship of, I think, Mr. Trollip. The unanimous recommendation of that committee was that Dr. Malan was not guilty of the charges made by Mr. Lawrence. Did they not judge objectively? Were they prejudiced, as the hon. member wants to suggest? In addition, I refer to the Select Committee of 1967 in respect of Mrs. Waring. She had made certain statements to which hon. members opposite objected most strongly. They called for the appointment of a Select Committee. What was the finding of the Committee? It was a unanimous finding of both parties in this House by members who had judged completely objectively and who set such store by their integrity that they were not prepared to choose one side or the other. Now the hon. member says that the members of this House have no integrity because they cannot judge objectively. I think it is a disgrace that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has made such an allegation and cast such a reflection on hon. members of this House, and I think he should be ashamed of himself. He is casting that reflection on both sides of this House. What I find so strange is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is now acting as the patron of these organizations. [Interjections.] What is even stranger is that when the hon. the Prime Minister made the announcement last Friday, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said nothing about it when he subsequently replied to the Prime Minister’s speech. Why not? He was first waiting for guidance from the English newspapers before he could act. [Interjections.] Has one ever seen a more pathetic figure in this House than the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? He cannot form a judgment or give a decision on his own. He must wait until he has received guidance from the English newspapers before he adopts a standpoint. He waited until the English newspapers had said it should not be a Select Committee, but a judicial commission. Today he then advocated here what the English newspapers had proposed. The hon. the Leader is really a pathetic figure. I do not want to refer back to his journey to Joel. Here we have an alternative Prime Minister, a man who knocks on the door of an editor and begs him not to attack his party so much. It has been proved time and again that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition waits for guidance from the English newspapers before saying some thing. What is the actual objection to a Select Committee? The hon. the Prime Minister said he was levelling no accusations.

But he has information.

He has information which he will make available to the committee. He said he was not placing those organizations in the dock. All he asked was that this House, the highest body in the country, should investigate their activities and lay them bare. Then the entire country would know what was going on, what they were doing and where they obtained their money. Why do hon. members have objections to this? If these organizations have nothing to hide, why should they object? Why should they object to appearing before a Select Committee of this Parliament, a committee on which both sides of this House would be represented? Surely they cannot object if they have nothing to hide. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition now comes forward with the ridiculous argument of what the outside world would say. Can one imagine—“what the outside world would say if this Parliament appointed a Select Committee to investigate the activities of certain organizations!” Could the hon. the Leader not have produced a better argument? Does he think we should crawl before the outside world? Does he expect us to be too scared of the outside world to do something like this? I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that we have never crawled and are not prepared to crawl before the outside world. This Parliament is sovereign and can decide what it wants to do. Furthermore, I just want to point out that investigations of matters of this nature by Parliaments are nothing srtange. The American Parliament, i.e. the House of Representatives and the Senate, have repeatedly appointed committees to investigate various matters. Does the hon. member

Col. 737:

Lines 39, 41 and 43: For “sneers”, read “smears”.

still remember the committee that was appointed by the American Senate in connection with “un-American activities”?

Is that the example you want to follow?

Admittedly, their constitutional set-up is different from ours, but something like this is nothing unusual. They have also appointed Senate Committees to investigate monopolies, for example. They have also appointed committees to investigate the Mafia, gangsterism and many other matters. There has never been any objection to that. This is nothing new, therefore, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is objecting because this Parliament, the highest body in the country, wants to investigate the activities of these organizations. I am really surprised that he comes forward with such arguments and asks for a judicial commission. He is implying that hon. members of this House are not competent enough even to carry out a cross-examination. He is of the opinion that they are not competent enough to investigate these organizations. In addition, he is implying that they are not honourable enough and that they would be so influenced by their political affiliations that they would not be impartial in their investigation. I think this is a scandalous allegation by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and I think he should be ashamed of himself for having made it.

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose replying to the hon. Leader of the House because his speech can be described as consisting principally of personal insults, sneers and half-truths.

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

I withdraw the word “sneers”, Sir.

And “half-truths”.

I withdraw the word “half-truths”, Sir.

Then there is nothing left!

Order!

Mr. Speaker, nothing has confirmed in my mind the true object of this motion more than the speech by the hon. the Prime Minister when he concluded the no-confidence debate last week— when he first raised this matter—as well as the speech which he made this afternoon purporting to give reasons for the appointment of this Select Committee. That is to say, nothing has confirmed more the realization which many of us have had ever since this announcement was first made that it was intended, firstly, to catch the Press headlines on Saturday morning, and secondly, to act as a red herring to draw the attention of the electorate away from the true troubles of this country. Why do I say that? The hon. gentleman comes here, not to ask for a Select Committee to inquire into illegal behaviour, a desired aim which we all could have understood and for which, if that were the intention, one would have required very little motivation from the hon. gentleman for the appointment of such a Select Committee. He has on two occasions this afternoon disclaimed the intention of alleging illegalities or unlawful behaviour of any kind in respect of these bodies. Sir, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said, what is he then intending the Select Committee to inquire into? If the intention of the hon. gentleman is as ill-defined as that, that we are to inquire into these bodies apparently simply because we wish to see “hoe lyk hulle binnegoed”, whatever that may mean, to see who finances them, to see with whom they work and to look at their organization, we would have expected the fullest, most careful and most persuasive motivation from the hon. gentleman as to what his prima facie evidence is against these four organizations. If one is going to have a Select Committee, not because of any illegality, but because one dislikes or disapproves of the organization in question, then what a wide variety of bodies we can have Select Committees inquiring into! I have heard the hon. the Prime Minister use far stronger language against the Herstigte Nasionale Party than I have heard him use against Nusas, not outside but inside this very House. Never, I believe, has this House heard evidence and allegations made more strongly against any body than the hon. gentleman made against the H.N.P. Now, Sir, is it proposed to have a Select Committee of inquiry into the “binnegoed” of the H.N.P.? I have heard the hon. gentleman use against the Progressive Party, and many others as well, language and allege motives which were indeed far stronger than against any of the organizations which have been dealt with this afternoon. Is it proposed to hold a Select Committee inquiry into the organization of that political party? Indeed, Sir, in the country in times of general elections many hon. members opposite have made against this party of which I am a member far worse allegations than he has made this afternoon against these bodies.

The next point is this: What type of inquiry should one have if there is a body of which one disapproves or of whose actions or motives one disapproves? I think, Sir, it is settled opinion in this country that a Select Committee is the right body to inquire into the activities of an individual related to this House. For example, one which I recall, and which the hon. the Leader of the House was careful not to mention, is the inquiry into allegations against Dr. Albert Hertzog in Another Place. Where the honour or the activities of a member are concerned—and most of the other examples he gave were of that type—then quite clearly a Select Committee is the right body to investigate. Possibly where an illegal act or some unlawful behaviour is involved, a Select Committee might—I do not put it any higher—be the right body to inquire into it. But, Sir, if one wishes to inquire into a body merely to air things so that the public can judge for itself what that particular body is doing, then quite clearly a Select Committee is not the sort of body which is likely to convince the public outside that its findings should be accepted. They would far better follow the recommendations of a judicial commission of inquiry where the object of the inquiry is merely to ventilate the activities of that particular body, and that seems to be what the hon. the Prime Minister has in mind. Sir, what did the hon. gentleman do this afternoon? He did precisely what those of us who know him expected him to do. He never said one word against the Institute of Race Relations, apart from mentioning its name; he never said one word about the Christian Institute; he never said one word about the University Christian Movement, although I expected him to do so. He dwelt solely on Nusas. Why did he do that? He did it because Nusas is led by a group of young men who are largely out of favour, politically, with the bulk of ordinary people in this country, and I make so bold as to say, if I may express my own view and if I may adopt that happy phrase which the Prime Minister used with such great relish —I would not have used it otherwise—that it is a body which in many people’s minds stinks. I know that phrase was used by another, but there was no need for the Prime Minister this afternoon to use it. Sir, what is the point at issue here? I strongly disapprove of the activities of the young men who lead Nusas. I, as an individual, strongly disapprove of those young men, as I strongly disapprove of many other young men in the country and many old men as well.

They must get out.

Sir, there are those of us in this country who have conservative viewpoints on things; there are those of us who have less conservative viewpoints on things. There are those of us, like many hon. members opposite, who have radical viewpoints on things, particularly when it comes to the political future of this country—radical viewpoints, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon. If we are going to have Select Committees of Inquiry into bodies in politics or on the periphery of politics merely because we disapprove of the methods which they adopt and the sentiments they express, not because—to use the Prime Minister’s phrase—they do things which you can say positively are subversive of good race relations, but— judging by his speech at the end of the no-confidence debate—because (to use his words, which he emphasized) they might possibly be subversive of good race relations, if that is the point of view, Sir, then the hon. gentleman ought to be very wary, because it is so easy to say that the National Party itself, with the ultimate aim of its policy, and coupled with the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister to that magazine To The Point …

Order!

… is itself subversive of good race relations in South Africa.

Hear, Hear!

And are we to have a Select Committee to enquire into the National Party as well? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the amendment moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I believe that if you wish to get to the bottom of a situation or an organization which you believe is undesirable, and in some ways harmful, with the view not to this House passing legislation—because that is not suggested— but with a view to the body itself reforming, or those outside seeing the disadvantages of that particular body and bringing pressure to bear on it so that it is reformed, or the Committee of Principals of the universities passing resolutions in regard to Nusas, or matters of that kind, then quite clearly the body to make the investigation is a judicial commission of inquiry, such as the Leader of the Opposition has suggested.

The practical aspects of the matter have been dealt with by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and I shall not deal with them here, save to say one thing. Contrary to the popular belief, parliamentarians are extremely busy men. One of the greatest disadvantages which a Select Committee of this House suffers under is that the time is not available and these inquiries take an inordinate length of time to fulfil their work. Almost every one in existence at the present time has necessarily been converted into a commission so that it can sit during the recess. One need mention only one, viz. the committee investigating the Bell case, Which has been sitting for four years … [Interjections.] Everything points to the desirability of a commission of inquiry and I believe that if the hon. the Prime Minister genuinely wished to find out the things which he has spoken of here this afternoon, he would have asked not for a Select Committee but for a judicial commission of inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Zululand says that the hon. the Prime Minister raised this matter merely in order to hit the headlines in the press, I want to say to him that I cast that insinuation back in his teeth with the contempt it deserves. No one in this House would ever suggest that the Prime Minister is merely trying to hit the headlines for the simple reason that it is not necessary for the hon. the Prime Minister to do this; he hits the headlines by virtue of the contents of his speeches. [Interjections.] A second aspect is that there is talk of a red herring. I am afraid, Sir, that as far as red herrings are concerned, that hon. member is a past master at dragging red herrings across the floor of this House. He should not make that ridiculous sort of statement in this House. In reply to his request that the Prime Minister should tell us what the prima facie evidence is, I want to say to him that he is anticipating the Select Committee. If the evidence is to be submitted here, we may investigate the matter here in this House. In that case it would not be necessary to appoint a Select Committee. The hon. the Prime Minister simply said that there was a prima facie case which should be referred to a Select Committee so that the members of the House of Assembly may acquaint themselves with what is taking place in the four organizations mentioned. I must honestly say that the hon. member for Zululand apparently does not have the vaguest notion of the true objects and aspirations of a member of Parliament.

†I think it may be apposite this afternoon just to outline one or two fundamental principles or tenets which I believe are shared by all the members of this House. The one is this, that all men, inside Parliament and outside Parliament, have two lives. One life belongs exclusively and solely to himself. It is his exclusive right as an individual. That includes his rights to his privacy, his dignity as a human being, his right to freedom of movement, his right to free speech, etc. But he also has another life, and the group that he belongs to also has another life. That is the life in which he is part and parcel of an ordered community, the State. This is the part of his life that he was voluntarily, albeit tacitly, given up. He gives up a portion of his individual freedom for the common good. I will try to give a simple example to illustrate the point. It is a man’s right to move freely from one place to another, but if all men wanted to move at the same time they give up their right to the local authority which then regulates their movements. When the robot says “stop” it means that men have to stop.

Why do you not stop now?

And this is apposite to this particular case. I believe that one of the fundamental rights of a man is the right to critize the government; I think it is the duty of a man to make a reasoned and proper criticism of a government or of the bodies involved in it, but it is also the duty of an individual to see that his criticism does not amount to an overt act of instigation to violence and disruption of law and order. There is therefore a dividing line between the rights of individuals and the rights of the State. This dividing line is not a straight line, but a tenuous one depending on the exigencies of the time and of the historical moment. In times of peace and prosperity the rights of the individual are at their maximum. In times of stress and danger they are often curbed. This is what I think the hon. member for Zululand has not understood, this dividing line. It is this dividing line between the rights of the individual and the rights of the State that exercises the minds of the legislators, and although it is the duty of the State to protect the rights of individuals, it is also the duty of the individual to give unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is quite clear that when the Prime Minister said there was a prima facie case to be made out for investigating the affairs of the bodies mentioned, he did not refer to a prima facie case in the criminal law sense, namely that there was enough information of unlawful activity to put these organizations on their defence. It was quite clear to everybody when he said it, and he made it quite clear, that there was enough information to warrant an inquiry by parliamentarians to go into the activities of these bodies to find out for themselves whether these people have infringed the rights of the State or whether they were still within their own rights. Sir, in my experience of Select Committees, some of them dealing with difficult questions, I have found that members on both sides of the House have a keen sense of justice and of fairness and are well able to deal with the situation which has arisen here, with the necessary objectivity. I am not going to criticize the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he lauds the abilities of the Judges. I concede that. We never said in this House that Judges could not do this job as well as or even better than we can, but what we do say is that this particular job is our job and that we can be just as objective as anybody else. We believe that members of this House are just as able to do the job that they would have to do. When the hon. member for Zululand says that Parliamentarians are busy people and do not have the time to sit on a Select Committee of this nature, I am afraid he does not know how much a Judge works. They too are busy people. It does not matter how much time we have to spend on this Select Committee. If it is our job to do it, it is a job that has to done. I have the fullest faith, not only in my side of the House, but also in members of the opposite side, to say that this job should be done and that it can be done, and if the hon. the Prime Minister gives us the prima facie evidence, this job will be done to the satisfaction of the whole country.

Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise to the hon. member for Prinshof to hear that I disagree with practically every word that he uttered, even with his little philosophical discourse which divided man into two parts. He left out an important third part, a part of which the hon. member is probably the best example that I can think of, and that is the party political side of every member in this House. I can think of no better example than the hon. member himself. For him to come here like a guru and give us the benefit of all his philosophical thoughts, I would say does not carry us very much further.

I want to come back to the motion which the hon. the Prime Minister has moved. I believe that it docs not require any keen political insight to see through the hon. the Prime Minister’s objective in moving the motion for the investigation of the four organizations. The clue, I believe, was supplied by the hon. the Prime Minister both by the manner in which, and the timing of the moment when he first told us of his intention to move this motion. He did it at the end of his speech in the no-confidence debate, at the end of a long and, if I may say so, rather tedious speech, the speech of a politician rather than that of a statesman. [Interjections.]

Order!

It was delivered as a sort of “kragdadige” finishing touch to the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech. It was the coupe de grâce of that speech; it was a good old K.O. for everybody on the other side of this House. In other words, what he really said was: Have confidence in us, your Government; big daddy is looking after you; we will protect you …

What about mamma?

… we will protect you from all the dissident students, from the questioning clerics, from the do-gooders, from the liberals and, of course, from the communists, because the hon. the Prime Minister, just before he told us of his intention to move this motion, gave us a long speech about the dangers of communism in South Africa. The implication was clear, i.e. that he was going to appoint this Select Committee in order to investigate organizations which he in his mind could link with Communism. I believe that the whole exercise is transparently obvious. The reason for it is to distract attention from all the urgent problems that are adding to the ground swell of dissatisfaction with this incompetent Government. It is a diversionary exercise and one of the most transparent which it has ever been my pleasure to observe, that is the first objective.

There are of course other objectives. There is the objective to intimidate critics of the Government, to intimidate them into a submissive silence, which is always what this Government wants despite the philosophical words of the hon. member for Prinshof about it being the right of every member to criticize in this House.

The Government hates criticism. It hates criticism from inside this House and it hates criticism even more from outside this House. [Interjections.] The objective is to smear everybody who is outspoken in criticism with allegations of subversion. To frighten off supporters of these organizations is another very important objective. All right, leave those bodies to one side; the danger is that they will be gaining support. So intimidate and frighten off the supporters. Here is the sort of crude device which was very successful in the United States of America in the 1950’s, the McCarthy device—the ugly era of McCarthyism when the lives of so many good citizens in the United States were ruined by allegations of subversion and of communistic activities. By agreeing to appoint this Select Committee I believe that the House will be going a long way towards setting up an un-South African Activities Committee, on the lines of McCarthy’s un-American Activities Committee and I believe that one day the stage will be reached when protests and criticism, questioning, research and assessment—all of which I believe to be healthy ingredients of a democratic society—will be equated with subversion and lack of patriotism.

That has been said for 25 years!

These are the main things and I shall go on saying them for another 25 years, long after the hon. the Minister of Community Development has disappeared from the political scene. [Interjections.] I say there is also the tendency to equate any organization that has any contact with international bodies, however innocent, as subversive and unpatriotic. I want to take a look at the four organizations named in this purge—it is the only word for it that I can think of.

You will hit the headlines.

I always do.

You are always looking for it.

No. I must give the hon. the Minister of Sport the same little piece of advice that I have given hon. members of this House last year. He may not have been here. I want to tell the hon. Minister to say something worthwhile and then he will hit the headlines too. It is as simple as that. However, it is very unlikely that he will.

Let us look at these four organizations, the Christian Institute, the University Christian Movement, Nusas and the Institute of Race Relations. I have been pondering over the question of what they have in common. Why did the hon. the Prime Minister pick these four organizations? He tells us about the prima facie case, but he has not told us what it is. I would like to know what the common denominators are that link these four organizations in his mind. I discern three. The first is that they are all outspokenly critical of the Government’s racial policy. The second one is that they are multi-racial, and the third is that they receive financial support from abroad. I do not know that any one of those things … [Interjections.] They receive financial …

From whom?

Of course they receive financial assistance and they make no secret of it. There is one organization that I know very well because I belong to it and I have belonged to it for over 25 years. I think there are other members on the Opposition side who too are members, one even a member of the Executive Committee, of the Institute of Race Relations. I happen to be a member of the Southern Transvaal Regional Council of the Institute and I have been a member of it for years. I used to be a member of the Executive Council before, alas, I got swallowed up in politics. The Institute of Race Relations report, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition has said, is published annually and it is available to everybody. I will send a copy to any member of the Government side who wants it. There are audited accounts in this book and it mentions that the Ford Foundation makes a grant for research and for publication …

For research?

Yes, research. The Institute of Race Relations happens to be primarily concerned with research and with issuing publications which are fact-finding pamphlets and books. These are very authoritative and are not only read at universities in South Africa, but also in universities in practically every country in the Western world. They are accepted as authoritative documents, and there is no secret about them. There is no secret about the list of office bearers either. If the hon. the Prime Minister wants to know who is an office bearer of the Institute of Race Relations, he need only look at the back of the book. Everybody is listed, including myself, so there is no mystery about this at all. This organization has absolutely nothing to hide and the reason why it has asked for a judicial commission is not that it thinks it has anything that needs to be investigated but because it knows that it has nothing that could be found incriminating at such an investigation. That is the one reason. The same applies to the other two bodies which have sent him telegrams. I want to tell him another reason why the telegrams asking for the judicial commission of inquiry were sent. It is because they know the hon. the Prime Minister. They know exactly how obstinate he is. They know how stubborn he is and they know how “kragdadig” he is. They know perfectly well that once he has stated publicly that he is going to appoint a Select Committee in this House, nothing is going to budge him. That is why, knowing the hon. the Prime Minister as well as they do, they said if you are going to have an investigation, let us have a judicial commission of inquiry. That is all and not because they believe that there is something that requires to be investigated. Really, that is a very naïve conclusion for the hon. the Prime Minister to have come to. I do not know the other organizations as intimately as I happen to know the Institute of Race Relations. I will say that I have taken the trouble to learn a little about them. The Christian Institute was established in 1963 by some 280 foundation members belonging to the majority of the established Christian churches in South Africa, among whom were men who were prominent in Afrikaans churches. Its main aim is to translate Christian beliefs into practice, which, I should have thought, is an aim to which every member of this House subscribes. It believes in social justice and it takes very seriously the commandment “Love thy neighbour as thyself”. The Prime Minister has said that he wants no confrontation with the churches. I want to warn the hon. the Prime Minister that this sort of action is exactly the sort of thing which will hasten confrontation with the churches. He must not underestimate the sincerity of these people. They arc not easily frightened and they will not easily be frightened by the hon. the Prime Minister’s appointment of committees of investigation.

The finances of the Christian Institute are audited. They are open to inspection at any time. They make no secret of the fact that they get money from overseas. They do not in fact get it from the World Council of Churches and they never have. They are not even a member of the World Council of Churches. But they do get money from overseas. Where do they get it from? They get it from those branches of the churches overseas that are most closely linked by theological beliefs with the Dutch Reformed Church in this country. They get it from the Lutheran Church in Germany and they get it from the churches in Holland. That is where they get their money from.

Are you a member of one of the churches? [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister wants to know whether I am a member of one of these churches. The answer is no, I am not a member of one of these churches. I am a member of the Wolmarans Street Synagogue in Johannesburg. Does that answer the hon. the Minister’s question? However, this does not mean that I am unable to read documents which express the aims and objectives of church organizations, be they Christian or otherwise.

Let us come to the two university organizations. They have done things in the past that I do not happen to agree with. They have done some irresponsible things. Of course they have. I do not deny that. But I will say that there is no gainsaying the fact that the young people at our English-speaking universities who belong to Nusas have a passionate attachment to social justice and academic freedom. Even if they sometimes do irresponsible things, I believe we should encourage a questioning youth, a youth that wishes to question the conventional wisdom and premises of the older generation. I believe there is nothing more deadly to the development of a country than to have a submissive youth which is not prepared to question the premises of the older generation. The sort of philosophy which wants a submissive younger generation belongs to authoritarian countries behind the Iron Curtain. It does not belong to democratic countries. This does not mean to say that I am condoning any unlawful actions which may have been taken in the past. The hon. the Prime Minister always brings that up. He is constantly reminding everybody about Leftwich & Co. Those things took place in 1963 and 1964. The present leaders have not done anything unlawful. [Interjections.] Well, if they have, may I ask the hon. the Prime Minister why the Security Branch has not acted against these people? Why have they not been brought before the Court? I accuse the hon. the Prime Minister of negligence in that case. He keeps on doing this. He harps back to what happened in the sixties. I say that it is just as unfair as it would be for anybody here to be harping back to the subversive, unlawful actions which were perpetrated by the members of the hon. the Prime Minister’s party in the war years, to put the responsibility for actions of people at that time on the heads of the present leaders and members of the Nationalist Party in this House. I say that it is just as unfair.

I want to know—and I agree here with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—what the Select Committee will investigate? From what the hon. the Prime Minister has said and from what I was able to sift out from the philosophical mutterings of the hon. member for Prinshof, I assume that the Select Committee is not going to investigate the legality or otherwise of these organizations. That is what I assume, because I believe—and I am sure that I am right—that that is a job for the Police. It is not a job for a Select Committee of Parliament. If these organizations are guilty of any illegality, surely the Police should know about it? I want to point out to the House that every one of these four organizations, if I am not mistaken, was raided last year. Every one of them had one of those charming visits from the Special Branch, where they turn everything upside down and rush off with a lot of documents and finally manage to find a couple of extracts from a pamphlet of a banned organization—this is the sum total of what they have been doing. To the best of my knowledge, they have raided all four of these organizations. If there was anything illegal about them, I have sufficient confidence in the Police and, more particularly, in the Security Branch to know that action would have followed. I thought that the hon. member for Prinshof had complete confidence in the Special Branch; he told us so in this House not so long ago. I, personally, have enough confidence—I do not have complete confidence —in the Special Branch to believe that, if they had found anything illegal about any one of those four organizations, they would have hauled them into court long ago.

What is going to be investigated? Is it the patriotism of these organizations that is going to come under the scrutiny of this House, or is the desirability of their continued existence to be considered, or is the Select Committee going to consider redrafting the law so that, in fact, the activities of these organizations become unlawful? I think we are entitled to know about that. We have not heard a single thing from the hon. the Prime Minister; we have certainly heard nothing from the hon. the Minister of Transport, and we have heard very little indeed from the hon. member for Prinshof. These then are the points I wanted to raise.

I want to say a little more about the Select Committee in a moment.

I want to say at once that I do not believe that these organizations require a judicial commission either. However, if an investigation is to take place, I agree with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in that I would rather it were done by a judicial commission than by a Select Committee of this House. I agree with all the objections raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition concerning the appointment of this Select Committee. What I cannot understand is why he and his party have agreed to serve on the Select Committee. I simply cannot understand this—and especially so after listening to his speech.

Orders from the Sunday Times.

I do not know who told him to do it or not to do it. I, for one, think it is wrong. I think they are making a parlous mistake and I am going to tell them why. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, in his statement to the Cape Times, that they will serve on the committee in order to see that justice is done. On his own argument, it is very difficult to see exactly how the Select Committee is going to operate and how justice will be done since, by his own argument, the Select Committee will not sit in public, it will not hear all the evidence from every witness who asks to be heard—it need not, anyway; it need not publish all the evidence and, indeed, the Standing Orders of this House actually preclude it from publishing a minority report, though I do agree that there are ways and means of getting around that. However, initially there can certainly be no minority report published by a Select Committee.

The other point I want to make is that the Government always has a majority of members on a Select Committee. Although the hon. the Minister of Transport has pointed out to us that, in two Committees he can think of, there was a unanimous vote concerning the persons being investigated by the Select Committee, these were personal matters and very different from the real party-political issues which are going to be investigated here. I am prepared to take a small bet with the hon. the Minister of Transport that every single Government member on the Select Committee will vote one way.

They are not going to vote. Why should they vote?

Select Committees vote on all sorts of resolutions.

This is only an inquiry.

But a Select Committee votes on all sorts of resolutions. Honestly, the hon. the Minister has been in the House long enough to know how a Select Committee of this House functions. There are resolutions that are voted on. He knows that—or should know it! Perhaps he is now so elevated that he does not know how a Select Committee functions any more. What also worries me is that so many members who may very well be appointed to the Select Committee have already committed themselves in advance on their views on these organizations. At least one of them has. The hon. the Prime Minister mentioned statements that have been made about Nusas by an hon. Senator in the Other Place, Senator Horak. He quoted him at length over and over again; I say “at length”, but it was only three words, two words in fact. Anyway, he mentioned them over and over again. The two words were “Nusas stinks”. I must say that that is an elegant and charming remark and it is elegant of the hon. the Prime Minister to dwell on it in the House over and over again this afternoon. But what about his own members who have committed themselves on Nusas over and over again? Not only did the Prime Minister commit himself but, much more recently, so did the hon. member for Prinshof. I have been very careful and I can quote his words.

Quote my words.

Just let me finish. I will come back and give them to the hon. member. He certainly indicated that he thought it was a very unpatriotic organization. Other hon. members on that side also said words to that effect, and I have the list here. We had the Minister of Police in his famous “some of my best friends are Jews” speech. That speech was directed against Nusas. He has committed himself. He warned the parents of Jewish students to be very careful about letting their children have anything to do with Nusas. If that is not being already committed on the subject of Nusas, I would like to know what is. I could mention their names, one after the other. The Minister of Community Development, who is looking so pensive, has asked that Nusas be banned.

But I will not sit on that Committee.

Well, you said it anyway. There are also members on this side of the House, not only the hon. Senator, who are committed on this issue. The hon. member for Albany is one of them. I want to say unequivocally that I want no part of this Select Committee. In the unlikely event of my being invited to serve on it, I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that my answer will be “no”. I will not serve on this Select Committee. [Interjections.] I say again that I believe the official Opposition is making a parlous mistake in agreeing to serve on this Select Committee. It is not its duty to serve on this Select Committee. I believe that we ought to leave it to the Nats to sit on this Select Committee, communing with themselves like yogi’s, contemplating their navels. That will make it clear to the entire country just what a farce the whole thing is going to be. I do not believe the Opposition should collaborate by sitting on the Select Committee. I think it is foolishly allowing itself to be co-opted by the Nationalists if it does agree to sit on the Committee. I also think it will be lending respectability to the whole idea of this farcical investigation into these four organizations. I want to remind the whole House of the wise words of Ralph Kilpin in his book Parliamentary Procedure in South Africa where he discusses parliamentary Select Committees. On page 113 he says the following—

I think the House ought to remember that. Kilpin knew what he was talking about when he wrote his book on parliamentary procedure. If the hon. the Prime Minister is dying to have some Select Committees I can give him many subjects which would form very valuable subjects of study. They would be in-depth investigations which Select Committees of this House could carry out. He could investigate the short age of housing for all races in this country; he could investigate the break-up of family life and the dire social consequences to Africans of the migratory labour system; he could investigate the growing bitterness and frustration amongst the non-White peoples generally. I believe that these types of in-depth investigations would be something from which this House would learn a lot. But to waste the time and the money of this country and of this House with this transparent, and what I believe to be a crude device, is a scandal. Finally I wish to repeat that I for one will have no part of that Select Committee whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that the hon. member for Houghton only quoted a single sentence from Ralph Kilpin and not the whole paragraph. I shall now read to her the introduction to that same paragraph—

That is precisely the reason why the hon. the Prime Minister proposed that a Select Committee should investigate some aspect. One can well understand why the hon. member for Houghton made a subjective, emotional speech here. She was, of course, lodging a plea for her friends and also for organizations to which she belongs. But, Sir, in her typical manner, which has already become stereotyped in this House, she made the insinuation of a charge. She gave evidence and has already found the organizations innocent. She has also judged how certain members of the Select Committee are going to vote. In addition I just want to tell her—and there I shall have done with her—that we reject with contempt words such as those to the effect that the Minister’s actions in this case are only a “diversionary exercise”.

I have already quoted here what Ralph Kilpin said about the duties, aims and reasons why a Select Committee is appointed. Against the background of this authority I therefore want to differ very strongly with the hon. member for Zululand, who professed here that a Select Committee is only appointed if there must be an investigation of matters relating to a member of Parliament. That is not so. The hon. member for Zululand, who is a legal man, ought to know that our rules of procedure are such that there is a much wider interpretation than that indicated by him. Our Prime Minister is the person primarily responsible for our State security. If in anxious days such as those in which we live he comes along to this House and says that there is prima facie evidence that certain organizations must be investigated, it is necessary for this House, apart from our political affiliations, that matters do receive investigation. He is now only asking for what Kilpin stated, i.e. a Select Committee about a serious matter to assist and inform Parliament. He requests a Select Committee composed of responsible people. I am certain that legal men will also serve on that Select Committee. We have legal men of note on both sides of the House, and it will be those people’s duty to look at the whole anatomy of these four organizations. Sir, it is a good thing for such a Committee to consist of members of a democratically elected Parliament, because politicians in particular know the delicate difference between bona fide political opposition and subtle undermining.

I want to emphasize further what has already been acknowledged in this House, i.e. that the hon. the Prime Minister made no charge. In that specifically lies the admirability of the Prime Minister’s motion, for the simple reason that no stigma is being attached to organizations beforehand. And the inquiry by a Select Committee has irrefutable benefits for witnesses. I speak under correction, but I think that the relevant Act, amended a few years ago, provides that if witnesses give satisfactory evidence, the chairman of such a Select Committee can issue a certificate that secures that witness against civil and criminal proceedings that could result from their evidence before such a Select Committee. It also goes without saying, surely, that the evidence before such a Select Committee is published for general public scrutiny after the investigation. In addition, if there were to be eventual prosecutions as a result of such an inquiry, it goes without saying, of course, that this will be done in a properly constituted court where the parties will have every right to proper defence.

Sir, there have been many insinuations here that members on both sides of the House are not able to pass judgment in matters such as these. But members on both sides of the House, i.e. legal men, express judgment daily in legislation about judicial and quasi-judicial cases. Why can they not express judgment in this case, where judicial and ordinary factual matters are perhaps at issue? To tell the truth, I can well remember myself serving on a Select Committee that rejected an Act put forward by the Law Revision Committee. If in the one case they have the knowledge not to pass legislation recommended by the Law Revision Committee, why can they not in this case also pass judgment on quasi-judicial and judicial matters? Under those circumstances, Sir, I consider it a justified proposal as made by the hon. the Prime Minister, and the country will be grateful to him for it.

I have listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Bethlehem. He made the point that there was no need, or that it was undesirable, to specify the grounds for the investigation, because the moment one specified those grounds there would in essence be a charge which would cast a stigma upon the organization concerned. Sir, I do not follow his reasoning, because I am sure he does not believe for one moment that any stigma attaches to the Sons of England or the Freemasons as the result of the detailed and specified inquiry which was conducted some years ago. But, Sir, I want to go further and say that the hon. the Prime Minister himself in his speech indicated what was really worrying him, and I wish to quote what he said—

He then proceeded to say that because of this responsibility of Parliament, Parliament must investigate these four organizations. Is he not suggesting there that there is some subversive activity which must be investigated? That was the whole motivation of his speech. Sir, let me say this: I do not believe that we should this afternoon, as the hon. member for Houghton has attempted to do, put up a case for the defence or for the prosecution. I want to say candidly and firmly to the hon. member for Houghton that if she is not prepared to serve on a Select Committee which may, in the wisdom of this House, be appointed, then she is failing in her duty as a member of this House, and I am certain that neither she nor those who put her in Parliament would like us to sit back and leave the Government, with so many members with a clear, unbiased mind, to sit in seclusion and bring out a report for Parliament. I believe that we should be represented on that Select Committee if it is appointed.

What we have heard this afternoon from the hon. member for Prinshof and the hon. member for Houghton, amongst others, indicates to my mind how wise is the request which we make to the hon. the Prime Minister, that this is a matter for a judicial inquiry and not for a Parliamentary Select Committee. Let us look at the motion which is before us. It is no simple issue which is to be investigated. There is no single issue, and there is no restricted field of inquiry. Its complexity is apparent from the very quotation which the hon. the Prime Minister read us from Churchill’s writings, and which covered the whole vista of political activity. Here is an example of what the Prime Minister said. He quoted from Churchill, inter alia, as follows—

I trust that this does not mean that because the hon. the Prime Minister has used that quotation, we must take up the attitude that these essential qualities of good government, viz. tolerance, conciliation and goodwill, must now be regarded as no longer having a place in good government. The Prime Minister himself made a statement in this regard when talking of race relations in this country, and we cannot complain about nor do we contest that statement. This is what he said—

We believe that that is right, and we on this side of the House stand behind him when he says “opswepers en agitators moet aan bande gelê word”. But, Sir, he says all that in the context of a Select Committee, which he is asking to be appointed. With this reluctance on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister and other hon. members opposite, to appoint a judicial committee, are they not attempting to stifle legitimate comment and criticism of the policies of political parties? That is the effect of an omnibus motion of this sort, which is before us. I say this because I believe it is true, that one is now finding an attitude of mind amongst certain politicians of “Think as I do, or do not think at all”. I see the hon. the Minister of Information shaking his head. Sir, I hope we shall never come to that, but when you have a vague accusation and a vague motivation … [Interjections.]

That is an unworthy and silly insinuation.

Sir, I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister then to tell us what the accusation is. What must be investigated of these bodies?

I have told you.

Is it to be just a vague fishing expedition, a fact-finding mission, at large and unlimited? Is this to be a fact-finding mission into any sphere of the activities of these bodies, after they have been raided, and after every opportunity is available to the hon. the Prime Minister, through the Security Police and the Police Force, to ascertain whether there are any illegal activities, any unlawful actions?

It looks as though you have a guilty conscience.

I said that there should be freedom of thought, and now that member from South-West says that I have a guilty conscience because I say that we want something definite. Sir, it is important also that we do not stifle political thought. The hon. the Prime Minister said it was unworthy that I should even suggest that, but let me read, if I may, a considered opinion in regard to students and student politics, which I believe is apposite—

This article, a review of student politics, goes on further to say this—

Now, if that is the attitude, and I believe it is a correct attitude, why is it now that the whole aspect of students’ interest in politics should be brought under suspicion as being subversive, without any allegation of that particular charge against them? That quotation is from a leading article in Die Burger which was published on 20th July, 1965, when there was the “bohaai” about Nusas in 1965. Sir, here is the very point that Die Burger warned about then, that in our attempts to see that people like Leftwich and the others who were involved are brought to trial, we do not stifle political thought and cause our young people at the universities not to think. Sir, I believe that this motion, being of the nature it is, in its wide aspect, is going to do just that. It will be understood as such by the layman outside Parliament.

I want to make one further point in regard to what I believe to be the necessity for this inquiry to be a judicial inquiry instead of a Select Committee inquiry. One only has to look through the newspaper reports to see how many Members of Parliament have expressed their opinions publicly in regard to the activities of these various organizations, both for and against, apologizing for what they are doing, or accusing them. Now, what is this Select Committee going to mean to the outside public? When counsel for the prosecution have been heard and have made their allegations and counsel for the defence have been heard and made their statements, they are put on the Bench and they become the Judges in a matter which they have debated in public over the years.

I believe that that will be undesirable in the interests of Parliament and it will be undesirable if we are to obtain a true picture of what we want to know; that is whether these organizations are in any way subversive of the interests of South Africa —not whether they are subversive of the interests of any political party’s policy and philosophy, but whether they are subversive of the interests of South Africa, or in other words whether their actions are illegal.

I hope the Prime Minister will accept the suggestions put forward by my hon. Leader. The words used in the amendment moved by my hon. Leader are the very words used by the hon. the Prime Minister in his speech in the no-confidence debate, namely that there should be an investigation as to whether these bodies are or have been engaged in activities which are subversive of the safety, security or well-being of the State, or of harmonious race relations in the Republic. That is what we ask. I do not believe it is unreasonable to ask that this investigation should be brought within those confines, and that this investigation should be done by the members of the Judiciary and not by a Select Committee of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I must begin by saying at once that seldom in my life have I encountered such a contradiction between words and deeds as I have this afternoon, because if we now analytically examine the arguments of all the hon. members opposite, we find that each of them tried in his own way to make out a case for why no inquiry should take place. If we look at the motion of the hon. the Prime Minister we find in its essence two important facets about which clarity must be obtained. The one is whether any evidence exists at all that justifies an inquiry. The second is that if it does exist, what nature and form must such an inquiry take, and who will be responsible for it.

The hon. member for Green Point began by saying that the participation of students in politics is as old as history. That is true. With reference to Nusas itself, he referred to the 1965 episode. I now ask the hon. member how he can reconcile his standpoint and reference to the relevant incidents with support for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s motion. In the first place I ask this in respect of the principle of an inquiry, because what does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition request in his amendment to the motion? The hon. the Leader requests that these relevant organizations under review be investigated with respect to certain facets, i.e. to what extent they are undermining the security and the welfare of the State.

That is precisely the same thing the Prime Minister proposes.

Mr. Speaker, I am not arguing about the hon. the Prime Minister’s motion; I am arguing with the hon. members of the Opposition about the fact that all members opposite, who took part, advanced reasons, as far as the principle is concerned, why an inquiry must not take place. The hon. members said they reject the hon. the Prime Minister’s motion because he had not made out a prima facie case for an inquiry, because he could not furnish evidence that could convince them an inquiry should take place. However, they make certain allegations in pontifical terms. That is what the hon. member for Green Point did. He said that this Government—he links this to the hon. the Prime Minister’s motion—wants everyone to think as we do or not think at all. It is interesting, by the way, that the forces wanting to destroy the world only allow people to propagate thoughts that have been approved. Perhaps that was unconsciously the reason why he referred to this.

Let us look at the amendment. What does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition have in mind when he moved this amendment? What evidence did he advance to give substance to his request for an inquiry into the possible undermining of State security by these four organizations? I now challenge any hon. member on the other side to tell me what evidence the hon. members advanced in their speeches on which to base this motion. I say, on the contrary, that each speech militated against the concept of any inquiry at all.

Is it not perhaps possible that with the formulation of his amendment the hon. the Leader of the Opposition took into account that South African society is characterized by a tremendously great conflict potential and that in it all the divisionary factors exist that could cause conflict; that this exists in the diversity of races, peoples, religious convictions, ethnicism, national endeavours and sentiments? Did he not perhaps think that organizations with lovely names, elevated aims and respectable members in their ranks, could possibly undermine this safety and security of our State? If he did not have this in mind, one of the hon. members on the other side must come and tell us what he did have in mind. I think the best motivation for the acceptance of the hon. the Prime Minister’s motion is specifically to be found in the amendment of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

In this amendment the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, although he speaks in different terms, expresses serious concern about the very safety, the security and the prosperity of South Africa and retraces all this to these four relevant organizations. There is consequently no better evidence in favour of the acceptance of the Prime Minister’s motion than specifically the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s amendment. For the sake or argument let us accept that the involvement of these organizations in the safety or otherwise of the State is being questioned. According to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s amendment they are, in fact, being questioned. Which is the authority primarily responsible for the security and order in any country, including our own? In our political set-up it goes without saying that the primary responsibility for the security and internal order in our country rests firstly and finally with this House and this Parliament. This is so because in our democratic set-up Parliament is the foremost and highest authority. It is inherently its sphere of authority, and not only this, also its fundamental responsibility to cast a final and decisive judgment concerning the security of the State. Why do hon. members opposite want to avoid a government’s responsibility? Why do hon. members on the other side of the House want to take from it the most important function entrusted to this Parliament? Do they want to do so on the basis of the fact that they cannot, as they put it, give a balanced judgment? I want to agree that I frequently do have serious doubts about the balance of their judgment. As a result of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s amendment I want to allege that if this is the matter to be investigated, and it is possibly so in terms of the motion itself, then it is surely Parliament’s function to express a final judgment, not a judgment about the fact that someone is guilty of an offence, because this is a judicial function, but about whether any action, be it individual or collective, falls within the framework of constitutional or extra-constitutional action. Who can dispute that in our country and in the particular circumstances in which we live and interact, the boundaries between constitutional and extra-constitutional action are tremendously difficult to determine and to define? Who can deny that the boundaries of legitimate criticism—which we are all entitled to—or legitimate opposition in a constitutional manner, which we are all entitled to as well, cannot be exceeded? Is it not true that those who want to undermine specifically make use of this frequently confused situation because this clear definition does not exist? That is why I say that it is Parliament’s function to determine in the first place what constitutional action is. This is not a judicial question that must be answered. It is in the first place a constitutional question that must be answered by those people who have the political insight to pass judgment in that connection. I want to emphasize that if it could be alleged that hon. members of this House do not have the competence or the ability to judge in these circumstances, those hon. members who do not comply with these norms ought not to be sitting in this Parliament.

Are you going to resign?

Mr. Speaker, I want to go further and retrace the matter to the amendment of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who restricts himself to one facet, i.e. the safety, security, and welfare of the State, and who wants an inquiry on those grounds. Who is the highest security official of this Parliament? No-one would contradict me if I alleged that this is the hon. the Prime Minister of our country. He is responsible for the security set-up to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred. He owes it to this Parliament to carry out the responsibilities resultant upon this office.

But he must do it well.

And you do not want to assist me.

It is part of the hon. the Prime Minister’s responsibility to inform this House whether there is prima facie evidence for an inquiry. If there were prima facie evidence of a contravention of the law, this matter would not have been discussed here; then the Attorney-General would have decided whether there was a prima facie case for criminal prosecution. But we as hon. members of this House have a corresponding responsibility, i.e. to accept that the highest security official of this House would not lightly take a decision and tell us that there is a prima facie case for an inquiry. Since we apparently agree about the principle of investigation, perhaps for different reasons, and since the hon. Opposition on the other side, although they speak out against the motion, nevertheless formulated a motion which specifically relates to the activities of the relevant organizations with respect to a possible threat or undermining of the State’s security and safety, I say that the authority that must judge this is the authority that is finally responsible for the very security about which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, i.e. a Select Committee of this Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the future will show that parliamentary historians and constitutional lawyers will regard this motion, which is presently before the House, as one of the most curious ever introduced in the Parliament of South Africa. I say this for several reasons. Firstly, because in introducing the motion and in asking the House to pass this motion, the hon. the Prime Minister tells this House that he has information which leads him to believe that there is a prima facie case which these organizations have to meet. He does not disclose the information to this House; he does not mention what the prima facie case is that they have to meet; he then introduces his motion and does not state what the objective of this Select Committee is, but merely states that the Select Committee must inquire into the objects, organization, activities, financing and related matters of these bodies, without saying with what object they should do so. What is it they must endeavour to establish in regard to the objects, the organization, the activities, the financing and the related matters?

Then we heard speeches such as the one by the hon. member for False Bay who, in trying to motivate this motion, devoted the whole of his speech to matters relating to the safety and security of the State.

But that is your amendment.

I will come to that. The hon. member for False Bay did not relate his references to the security and safety of the State only to criticism of our amendment; he used them also in order to motivate and justify the motion introduced by the hon. the Prime Minister. I hope that the hon. the Prime Minister, in replying, will make it clear to the House why he is asking this House to pass his motion. Is the prima facie case, which he alleges against these bodies, a prima facie case of subversion of the safety and the security of the State? If that is so …

What is your evidence?

The hon. member for False Bay has had his opportunity to speak. Perhaps he could show me the courtesy of listening to what I have to say. If the hon. the Prime Minister’s case is in accordance with the argument of the hon. member for False Bay and the hon. member for Kroonstad, namely that there is something suspicious about these organizations, relating to the safety and security of the State, I think he ought to say so. That ought then to be specifically mentioned in the terms of reference of the Select Committee so that the Select Committee will know that it is to this aim that they must direct their attention.

We heard another curious statement, this time from the hon. member for Prinshof. We were told that this is not a prima facie case in the legal sense, but a prima facie case in the ordinary sense.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, not at this stage. I believe that the hon. member for Prinshof said that this is not a prima facie case in the legal sense, but a prima facie case in the ordinary sense.

Why do you not argue for your leader’s amendment? Why do you argue against it?

If the hon. member for Waterkloof is so anxious to speak, perhaps he could arrange with his Whip to allow him into the debate. I would like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister pertinently to state in his reply, if in fact he agrees with the hon. member for Prinshof that this is a prima facie case not in the legal sense but only in the ordinary sense, what the difference is between a prima facie case in the legal sense and one in the ordinary sense. Perhaps he could explain to us, too, in what respect the information he has causes him to come to the conclusion that it is a prima facie case only in the ordinary sense and not in the legal sense. I think the House is entitled to enlightenment on this, because one of the chief speakers on that side of the House used this very argument.

We on this side of the House have no doubt whatsoever that this Parliament, which is the highest legislative body in the land, has the right to investigate what it believes to require investigation. However, I believe that that presupposes that the House is told what it is that requires investigation in the case of bodies against which no legal charge is made. The Prime Minister has emphasized that he is not accusing them of contraventions of the law or of unlawful conduct. If that is his attitude, surely the House is then entitled to know why he considers that they should be subjected to some investigation.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No I am not answering questions now. I know that the hon. the Prime Minister has said that he would place the information he has before the Select Committee, but that is not good enough. This House before passing the motion is entitled to have that information.

Are we not entitled to hear evidence?

I would like to tell hon. members on the other side that the whole motivation, the basis for this motion by the Prime Minister is that he has information which leads him to believe that these organizations have a prima facie case to answer. But to answer what? He does not say. Are hon. members opposite satisfied to go along with him and to grant him a Select Committee on this basis? As I have said, we have no doubt that this House being the highest legislative body in the country, has a right to require investigations in a proper case. I believe that something like this must be properly motivated …

You tell us what your case is.

The hon. member for Waterkloof is becoming a continual interjector. I have already suggested to him that if he is so anxious to speak in this debate, let him ask his Whips for the opportunity. The whole crux of this debate, in the light of the amendment moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, is what the nature of this investigation is. What should be the nature of this investigation? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has accepted the Prime Minister’s statement that he has information which leads him to believe that there is a prima facie case for these organizations to meet. The Leader of the Opposition has accepted this information, because he is not in a position to challenge a statement of this sort. He has asked the Prime Minister to give the House this information. He has said to the Prime Minister that if he has information which leads him to believe that there is a prima facie case, he and the other members on this side of the House believe that the proper body to make this investigation was not a Select Committee of Parliament, but a judicial commission of inquiry. The hon. member for False Bay said that we had not given any reasons for making this alternative suggestion. Of course we did. If he listened carefully to the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, he would have heard several reasons given by him as motivation for this alternative proposition. There is no doubt about it that hon. members on that side of the House know very well—they are all experienced Parliamentarians—the disadvantages of a Select Committee in a field of this sort. They also know very well the advantages of a judicial commission of inquiry to make a proper investigation of this sort. I would like to ask hon. members on that side, including the hon. the Leader of the House, one question. I see that the Leader of the House has unfortunately not seen fit to remain to hear the rest of the debate, although he was anxious to speak earlier on. He came into this debate and made some very castigatory remarks against this side of the House. The thing he failed to tell us was why Dr. Verwoerd chose a judicial commission of inquiry for the investigation of the Broederbond and other bodies, if Dr. Verwoerd in fact thought that a Select Committee was a better body to investigate the activities of bodies who were conducting affairs of one sort or another in South Africa. The hon. Leader of the House was a member of Dr. Verwoerd’s Cabinet, and this House is entitled to expect that in justifying the present attitude of the Government he would have told the House why it was that, whereas Dr. Verwoerd chose a judicial commission of inquiry for the investigation of the Broederbond, this Cabinet is now aksing the House to choose a Select Committee in preference. I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will tell us in his reply, and I hope he will not simply slide over it by suggesting that there was a charge against the Broederbond, whereas there is no charge being made against these organizations. Of course there is a charge against these bodies, if they are asked to come and justify themselves before a Select Committee. Of course there is a charge against them if one bears in mind the context in which the hon. the Prime Minister gave notice to this House at the end of the no-confidence debate that he intended to move for a Seelct Committee to investigate these bodies.

As regards the job of Parliamentarians, the hon. member for Prinshof said that we Parliamentarians are just as able as judges to investigate a matter of this sort. He said he did not criticize judges, that he was not suggesting anything of the sort.

I did not compare at all.

He said that the members of Parliament were equally able to investigate a matter of this sort. Even if that is so, the hon. member for Prinshof will surely concede that a detailed investigation is what is being asked for here. It is an investigation into “objects, organization, activities, financing and related matters”, and not only in relation to the four organizations, but also in relation to their subsidiary or associated organizations. This is an extremely wide field, covering, four main organizations plus other bodies. Do the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Prinshof seriously suggest that members of Parliament have the time during a busy session of Parliament, or even during a recess, having regard to their other duties, to give proper attention to a detailed investigation of this sort?

They can make time.

The hon. member for Prinshof has suggested that judges are also busy people. Of course they are busy people, but the difference is that when a Judge or two or three Judges are put on a judicial commission of this sort, they are freed of their other duties so that they can devote their full time and attention to such an investigation. Does the hon. the Prime Minister suggest that Parliamentarians who serve on the Select Committee are going to be able to devote their full attention to this investigation? Of course they cannot. They have their other parliamentary duties to attend to. They have requests from their constituents. Even if the hon. the Prime Minister wished to release them from their other duties, they have approaches from their constituents and there are various matters which they must attend to even if they could be released from their duties in this House. Sir, even if the hon. the Prime Minister were to suggest that he would make it as easy as possible for members of the Select Committee, they still have an interest in the other matters which are debated in this House during the parliamentary session. They have a right to take part in the debates, if they wish to do so; they have a duty to take part in the debates and it is unreasonable to curb their normal parliamentary activities to the extent that they are burdened with an enormous investigation of this sort. I believe that it cuts across the very basis and foundation of Parliament to expect Parliamentarians to undertake, and to do justice to such a full investigation. Mr. Speaker, we have no doubt that the only satisfactory body to carry out this investigation, if indeed the hon. the Prime Minister believes that an investigation is necessary, is a judicial commission.

Sir, I do not wish to be long, but there are a couple of other matters with which I wish to deal. The hon. the Prime Minister, in justifying this motion, said that he did not want to accuse these bodies. In fact, the hon. the Leader of the House went so far as to say that there would be no vote in the Select Committee; that the Select Committee would simply examine the objects, organization, etc., of these bodies; and then the Prime Minister went on to say, “and it will be for the public to judge what they are or are not doing”. That is what the Prime Minister said, Sir. I would say this to him: If in fact this is really his motive for preferring a Select Committee to a judicial commission of inquiry, then I suggest to him that that motive or object cannot be achieved because the Select Committee carries out its work without access to the public; there is no day-to-day report in the papers about the evidence presented before the Select Committee, and one can go further and say that Parliament is not even obliged to make public the record of the Select Committee. How can the Prime Minister suggest that the public is going to be in a position to judge for itself what these bodies are doing or are not doing if this investigation is carried out by a Select Committee?

Sir, I wish to conclude on this note and to appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister once again to accept the amendment of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to refer this matter, if he feels that there must be an investigation, to a judicial commission of inquiry. I believe that it is important, as has been stated by the Leader of the Opposition that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done, and it is also important that there must be an appearance of complete impartiality. Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister believes that a Select Committee can be just as impartial, but I believe that he ought not to look at the position from his point of view or the point of view of his side of the House. I believe it is possibly more important that the bodies concerned should feel satisfied that they have had a fair and impartial investigation, and clearly they themselves do not feel that that would be the case of a Select Committee investigated them. Mr. Speaker, I think this is an extremely important point. [Interjections.] Even if the Prime Minister believes that there is no substance in that argument, I think he must concede that there are many people who would regard a judicial commission of inquiry as a better body to carry out such an investigation. In the interests of impartiality, in the interests of fairness, in the interests of our image in the outside world, I believe it is important that you should accede to that request of these bodies. After all, they have not said that they will not subject themselves to an inquiry. They have all said that they consider that they have nothing to hide. They are prepared to have their affairs investigated, but they ask that those affairs be investigated by a judicial commission of inquiry instead of a Select Committee. Surely that is a fair request? As I have said, even if the hon. the Prime Minister feels that there is no substance in their motivation for this request, at least by granting that request he will satisfy them and they will feel that they are being given an impartial and completely just hearing. I believe that this is important not only for these bodies, but that it is important also for the South African public generally and that it is in the interests of our image overseas.

Mr. Speaker, it is all very well our having discussed this afternoon an inquiry into these four bodies, but I still think the hon. member who has just resumed his seat should perhaps begin on a fifth inquiry, and that is a self-examination of himself. If one can go so far as to move what is in fact a motion of no confidence in yourself, and to cast doubts on your own ability, then I think it is high time a few of those members undertook a self-examination. Sir, I do not take it amiss of the hon. member for not having been able to make any further contribution to this debate. The debate is wearing thin and virtually all the arguments which could have been mentioned, have been mentioned. However, I want to refer to one or two points raised by the hon. member for Musgrave.

Th hon. member insisted that the Prime Minister should inform the House this afternoon already of the evidence and the exhibits he has. Sir, if we had been able to discuss that evidence this afternoon and if we were subsequently to serve on a Select Committee in regard to this matter, there would have been the possibility that some of the members could have been prejudiced because they would have heard evidence in advance which they should not have heard. Therefore, the correct procedure, and entirely lawful procedure as well, is surely that this evidence should be referred to a Select Committee, where it can be analysed objectively, item by item. The members of the committee can then make up their own minds in regard to the matter. We cannot take over the task and the work of the Select Committee this afternoon; that only comes later.

A further point mentioned by the hon. member is this: He said there a Select Committee had its disadvantages, but he did not mention any. On the other hand, this side of the House has already mentioned quite a number of advantages in referring this matter to a Select Committee. Perhaps I should also mention to the hon. member that there are many other advantages as well. Apart from the advantages from a constitutional and a democratic point of view, which were discussed here this afternoon, there are other advantages as well, advantages which may be delegated to the Select Committee by this House. After all, the Select Committee is nothing but a body whose powers have been delegated to it by this House. In the same way this House can say to the Select Committee: We are giving you further powers to co-opt persons who have expert knowledge of these matters to the Select Committee in a solely advisory capacity, and in no other capacity. The Select Committee may even be granted further powers to send someone to institute an investigation in loco and then report back to the Committee. This House, as the supreme body in the country, can issue that Select Committee with any instructions. Therefore, that argument that a judicial commission will have all the expertize and the power simply does not hold water. A previous speaker, I think it was the hon. member for Zululand, mentioned that we are calling for a Select Committee because we want to distract the attention of the electorate from the actual problems of the country. But then this argument could surely have been used in regard to every previous Select Committee or commission of inquiry. Surely that is not, by this time, still a valid argument. What is more, Sir, you will recall that during the past year or two, or three, reference was on various occasions made to these four organizations through the newspapers, and they were told: “Be careful, you are going too far; you may get into trouble.” I think an hon. Minister also referred to this on one occasion. Those people have not been condemned; they are not being accused; no charge has been made against them. They were simply given a friendly warning, but despite that they continued their activities and went on with their tasks as they saw fit.

Are you expecting trouble?

I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said that these organizations were “well known organizations” overseas. Is that not perhaps one of the reasons why we should analyse these organizations, because they are perhaps too well known overseas?

You people are also very well known overseas.

Perhaps they are getting some of their funds from overseas, and perhaps there is outside influence, from overseas, influence which may steer them on to a course we would not like them to adopt. That is why one sometimes feels that these people are perhaps too well known overseas. Let us look into this matter a little and see whether this is not actually the case.

But to go further in regard to the amendment moved here this afternoon by the hon. the Leader of Opposition, what has he actually done? Absolutely nothing! That amendment he moved has already been covered fully by the motion itself, and even more than that. The motion goes even further than that. The motion requests an inquiry into the objects, organization and activities and all those things the Opposition now wants to toss in here. Those activities are already covered by the motion. That is why one feels that that amendment is merely a blind to deceive the country. The Opposition felt that a motion had been introduced here which had caught them napping. But the motion was introduced at the right time and they had to put up some kind of display for the country, and what kind of display were they able to put up? They have now come forward with this ridiculous argument that the inquiry should rather have been institued by a judicial commission. Talking about judicial commissions, it was very interesting this afternoon to listen to the telegrams the hon. the Prime Minister received from these three organizations. The first asks for a judicial commission, because Members of Parliament do not have the “professional training” and ability to decide on this matter. I do not want to repeat the argument. I think the hon. member for False Bay and some of the other members have emphasized sufficiently the reasons why we do have this “professional training” and ability, but that is the only argument these people advance, and it is an argument of no value, as other hon. members have already indicated here this afternoon.

The other organization also asks for a three-man judicial commission to investigate the possibility of any infringements of the law. Sir, we did not insinuate that there had been any infringement of the law; no such mention was made from this side of the House. We do not want to institute an inquiry into any infringements of the law which have already occurred or any possible infringements of the law. After all, that is what the Police are there for. They will do their work, if that should become necessary. These arguments of these people—the only arguments advanced—fall quite flat—and they are after all the people involved in this motion before the House.

Another interesting feature of the debate this afternoon was that the Opposition, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in particular, emphasized that what this Select Committee really wants to do is to institute an inquiry into the difference which exists between these organizations and the Government in regard to race relations. Surely that is absolute nonsense. It is not only race relations which are involved, for then we would surely have included the Opposition among the four organizations. After all, we also differ with them as far as race relations are concerned. They want non-White representatives in the White Parliament and we differ vehemently with them in that regard. There are many matters in regard to race relations in respect of which we differ with them. Surely we would then have included them as well. This matter is not concerned solely with race relations.

If one has studied the newspapers over the past few years—one could include the entire decade of the sixties—one would often have wondered—in fact people asked this of one and many people put this specific question to me—why steps were not taken against these organizations, considering everything that had been written in the newspapers. They went on protest marches, and wherever they marched in processions they sang communist songs, these people said. But then we told these people that that was the kind of stuff the newspapers wrote; it was not the Nationalist Party or the Government that wrote things like that.

I am emphasizing this to point out the insinuation which was made on the part of the public, and it is no more than right that an inquiry should at this juncture be instituted into these four organizations so that an analysis of them can be made.

This afternoon some of the constitutions or publications of these organizations were presented to us as examples. It is a very good thing to present them to us here. We do not want to read about the objectives of these organizations in their constitutions. That is very easily obtainable; anyone can read them. However, there are frequently organizations whose objectives are obscured and in this regard I want specifically to mention organizations such as the African National Congress and the Communist Party. When one reads their objectives in their constitutions, they sound very laudable. They are there for peace and security and prosperity in the world. But is that really the way they act? What are the obscure objectives behind those organizations. Insinuations on the part of the public and the newspapers have also been made against these four organizations. We are simply asking now that we look into this matter a little to see whether or not they really do have such motives as well. If not, we will provide them, as the hon. the Prime Minister made it clear, with a certificate to the effect that there is nothing wrong with their organizations.

After all, this entire matter is as clear as can be. The fact remains that this Parliament is in fact the body which has to decide on its own privileges. This is the body in the country which has to take decisions in regard to financial and monetary matters affecting the entire administration of the country and its future. This is after all the body which has to make the laws for the entire country and which has to ensure that this country remains an orderly and peaceful one. One of these tasks, the making of laws guaranteeing peace and orderliness for the inhabitants of this country, weighs heavily on this Parliament, and it is a matter which requires continual scrutiny. It is one of the two primary tasks of this Parliament. Let us therefore see what the purpose and activities of all organizations and bodies in this country are, particularly if these things have been brought to your attention by the citizens of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to say a few words in regard to the second aspect of the amendment moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. But before I come to that I want to refer to the points, raised by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, in regard to the position of Parliament as far as this inquiry is concerned, and also to what the hon. Prime Minister had to say about it. He read out telegrams from three of the organizations, asking that there should be a judicial committee rather than a Select Committee of Parliament. What he and other speakers concluded from that was that there was a reflection here on the competence of Parliament; that this was virtually a motion of no confidence in Parliament. It is in no way a question of whether Parliament is competent to fulfil its own functions, otherwise there would not have been any courts, there would not have been any Judges. There are Judges and there are courts because they have a specific function which is different from that of Parliament. It is not a motion of no confidence in anyone if a matter is heard by Judges instead of by a Select Committee of Parliament. Therefore the request made by these organizations does not in any way mean that they regard Parliament as being incompetent. What is involved here is the nature of a Select Committee and not its competence. I think any reasonable member will admit that Parliament is a party-political body, and that a Select Committee is part of the party-political body. The last thing that can be said of such a committee is that it is a party-politically objective body. That is the crux of the matter. The Leader of the House, the Minister of Transport, mentioned the example of the Waring Committee and also of the earlier Select Committee on the Denk matter. It is general knowledge that if a member of this House is heard in regard to a matter involving his honour, he is heard by his own members. That is tradition: “He must be heard by his Peers.” Inquiries of that kind do not involve party-political matters, and the hon. the Prime Minister will have to admit that the proposed inquiry will be an inquiry into a party-political matter. The Prime Minister emphasized this afternoon that the inquiry is intended to be an inquiry into the facts. That is what he said this afternoon, but on Friday he emphasized the point that he “would be neglecting his duty if he did not tell Parliament that the information indicated that there was a prima facie case here which needed to be investigated”. He left it at that and we were satisfied to have him do so at that stage, for we took it for granted that when he came to Parliament with the formal request, as was done this afternoon, he would submit the prima facie case to us. We can understand that people sitting on that side as members of the Party behind the Prime Minister will be satisfied with any motion the Prime Minister moves, and that they will defend it. But can Parliament and this side in all honesty be expected to accept a motion from the Government side without its being motivated in any way? There was no motivation on the part of the Prime Minister, no indication as to why this Committee should be appointed. My request to the hon. the Prime Minister is that he consider telling us, before the afternoon is out, in what respect there is a prima facie case. Is it in respect of the security of the country? Is there communist infiltration of these organizations? Is that the information he has? Are they deliberately trying to fan racial discord? I do not think we can be expected to accept the motion just as it is, without any proper motivation. We find the situation as it is at present quite unsatisfactory. Not only is the motivation of the hon. Prime Minister unsatisfactory, his motion as it appears on the Order Paper is also unsatisfactory.

An inquiry must surely have a purpose. It must surely be stated what the purpose of the inquiry is. Against what norms must one measure these organizations? It is the intention that the Select Committee should not make any recommendations? I think the hon. the Prime Minister has left a very serious hiatus in his motion, by saying, as his motion expresses it, that we should merely examine the object, activities and financing of the organizations. This is merely another way of saying that the organizations must be investigated. Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member for Potgietersrus is correct when he states that these words in the motion are the motivation, for an organization is not a book. If one refers to an organization one is obviously referring to a body which is functioning, which has certain funds at its disposal and which seeks to achieve certain objectives. In other words, these words in the motion introduced by the hon. the Prime Minister are merely another way of saying that these organizations must be investigated for what they are. The terms of reference to the effect that the objects and the activities of these four organizations should be investigated, amount to nothing but that we should look into what these organizations are. It does not in any way explain what the purpose of the inquiry is or should be. I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that if he persists in not stating what the purpose is, and not setting out in the motion the purpose of the inquiry; if he persists in rejecting the last part of the amendment of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—where the leader asks for a clear norm to be laid down, for a clear purpose to be defined— there will continue to be misgivings in the country about the motives of this motion moved by the Prime Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister and members opposite will realize that in the eyes of the public we are dealing here with an inquiry into four organizations which are not only lawful organizations, but which are known and respected in many circles both at home and abroad. Whether hon. members like it or not, these organizations, such as the Christian Institute, are highly respected in very extensive church circles in the world. The Government is known for not having been slow in the past, nor hesitant about banning organizations if it believed that those organizations were prejudicial to the country. There is a long list of organizations which have been banned in this country because the Government regarded them as being prejudicial to the country. [Interjections.] Yes. I am not dealing with that now, nor do I deny it now. But the fact that this Government is known for not being slow to ban an organization if it believes that that organization is prejudicial to the country, makes it all the more strange that we are dealing here with four organizations which have up to now been left entirely untouched by the Government. They have been left entirely untouched. The Government took action against certain individuals, and certain court cases proved that this had been justified. But action against individual members of an organization does not prove that there is something wrong with the organization. That is precisely the argument the hon. the Prime Minister uses from time to time, i.e. that if he takes action against a clergyman, as is continually being done, it is no action against the church to which that clergyman belongs. Surely the same argument ought to apply in this case as well. He had to take action, and action has in the past been taken against individuals, but is not a double standard being applied now? The fact that these specific organizations have so far been left untouched by a Government which is never slow to act when activities take place which are, to its way of thinking, prejudicial to the country, will result in suspicion arising here, there and everywhere with regard to the motives lurking behind this specific motion. If the hon. the Prime Minister fails to motivate this motion properly, it will, as surely as we are sitting here, be seen both at home and abroad as nothing but a political witch-hunt, a political scapegoat search, an operation scapegoat, on the part of the political majority against the political minority in this country. It will be felt, as is already the case, that the matter will not end with this inquiry which the Prime Minister has proposed, and that we can prepare ourselves for other organizations also being given a hard time of it as part of the Government’s witch-hunt—taking into consideration the fact that the Government does not see its way clear to regarding them as prejudicial to the country and that there is no evidence that they are in fact prejudicial to the country.

The Government must remember that it is not entirely blameless in regard to the reactions to elements in its race policy. Over the years the Government has, with the unfair elements which exists in its policy of apartheid, caused certain emotional reactions to arise in the country, reactions which have from time to time turned into militant resistance. The impression the Government creates is that now that the country is beginning to reap what the Government has sown the Government is still not prepared to investigate its own actions but places all the blame on the reactions which have been elicited. The time has also come when, if the Government is sincere in regard to the inquiry it is proposing, it should not only investigate reactions to the situation; it must go back to the action which in many cases gave rise to the reactions in the first place. If there is one Select Committee whose appointment should have been discussed here this afternoon, it is a Select Committee to inquire into the unfortunate consequences the colour policy of the Government has over the years had on human relations. As the motion of the hon. Minister stands it is going to contribute nothing whatsoever to eliminating the suspicions which have arisen that we are dealing here with a “smelling out” and a scapegoat hunt. To tell the truth, the fact that there has up to now been a consistent refusal to appoint a judicial committee and that the inquiry has to be instituted by a political body will not help in any way to counteract the unfavourable suspicions which exist. Therefore I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that, if it is his standpoint that he should proceed with a Select Committee instead of a judicial committee, I want to make an earnest request to him that he should at least accept at the end of his motion the amendment moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—I have the English text here—that the inquiry shall be:

In addition I just want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that, if he is convinced, as he has already stated here on many occasions, that in an organization like Nusas, which has a tremendously large membership which is not active, the ordinary members are not always aware of what their leaders are getting up to, it is all the more the duty of the hon. the Prime Minister, if he wants to convince those people that they should look at their organization with new eyes, to ensure that the inquiry is instituted by a body which will be regarded as being impartial. Should he fail to do so I am sorry to have to tell him that the good work which could be done among the ordinary members of a specific organization will be lost because of their suspicion that it is not entirely impartial. For that reason I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will furnish us with a specific reply, after he has dealt with the question of a Select Committee or a judicial commission, as to why he does not see his way clear to incorporating in his motion the objects, the reason and the motivation for the inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, the Whip system on this side of the House is something I have never really understood, but the Whip system on that side of the House is completely incomprehensible to me. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition moves an amendment, and one would then assume that it will have the wholehearted support, not only of the voters of the party, but also of the speakers of that party in the debate which follows. One then has the astonishing phenomenon of front-benchers such as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout speaking against his Leader’s amendment and eventually introducing a twist of his own and virtually moving his own amendment. In principle the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is opposed to any inquiry. I want to state categorically that if the hon. the Prime Minister had moved that a judicial commission of inquiry be appointed to inquire into the activities of these organizations, the hon. member for Houghton and the rest of the Opposition would have reacted in precisely the same way they reacted today. Then they would perhaps have told us that we should rather appoint a Select Committee of Parliament, because members of Parliament are better able to do this. Then they would simply have reversed their arguments. I simply do not know—and this is my question to them—whom the hon. Opposition are going to appoint or recommend as their members to serve on this Select Committee. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Zululand, the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Musgrave, have already found that they are not qualified and competent to serve on this Select Committee. It will not be possible to appoint them as members of the Select Committee. Not only have they found and declared themselves to be unqualified and incompetent, but they have reflected on the ability of every hon. member in this House to free himself intellectually from his own prejudices and his own political views and to form an objective opinion as a member of a judicial body on a matter which has been brought before him.

That has already been said. Come up with something new.

I say it, too, because I have had legal training. I also want to say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Zululand and the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Musgrave, reflected on themselves, not as politicians, but as people with legal training. They reflected on their own profession and on the law schools at which they received their training. They also reflected on themselves as members of the House of Assembly by saying, that they are unqualified and incompetent to fulfil the task entrusted to them. This indicates to me the malady that side of the House is suffering from. I wanted to use the word “decadent”, but I am afraid you may perhaps order me to withdraw it. It indicates their indifference, aloofness and perhaps hostility to the image presented abroad by South Africa, this Parliament and the Government of South Africa. The hon. member for Musgrave and all the other speakers before him actually cast it at the feet of the Press hostile to South Africa, both at home and abroad, by saying in advance that the body which will be appointed to investigate this matter, is unqualified, incompetent, and politically prejudiced. The Opposition states that one can even at this early stage say what its findings may be expected to be. That is disgraceful.

I just want to deal with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout for a moment. I think his suggestion that this motion moved by the hon. the Prime Minister should have been much more widely defined and that it should also have contained a directive to report back and make recommendations, was unnecessary. I think it is unnecessary to give a Select Committee of this House instructions in regard to every jot and tittle of its task. It is included in the terms of reference that it shall report back, and that, if it makes findings which justify recommendations, it should make such recommendations. Let us consider the motion moved by the hon. the Prime Minister. According to the motion the objects, organization, activities, financing and related matters in regard to four organizations shall be inquired into and reported upon. That is all. The motion of the hon. the Prime Minister does not imply that there is anything wrong with these organizations or that everything is not as it should be. His motion does not imply that he has already judged, condemned and found them guilty.

It is a pity this motion could not have gone through without a debate. Unfortunately, the Opposition has already in this debate been guilty, irrespective of whoever they are going to appoint to this Select Committee, of having actually given a premature judgment to the effect that there is nothing wrong with these organizations. The Prime Minister’s motion does not incline to one side or the other. This debate, which should in fact have lasted a half-hour earlier today, should actually have dealt only with the question of whether Parliament ought to institute an inquiry into these organizations, as the hon. the Prime Minister had moved. That is all. To that the reply is a clear and unequivocal “yes”; for this Parliament is a body capable of instituting such an inquiry, as is also apparent from the hon. the Prime Minister’s motion. Now the Opposition are asking for reasons. The Argus has already announced this afternoon that the Opposition are going to demand the reasons for this inquiry. How naïve do they think we or the people are, or how naïve are they themselves if this is a sincere statement on their part? How rusty and inflexible is their procedural thinking, Mr. Speaker! Any reason which the hon. the Prime Minister had given for this inquiry would have been seized upon in this debate, mulled over, dissected, sniffed at, questioned and ultimately, no matter how good the reason of the hon. the Prime Minister had been, they would have rejected it as a well-grounded reason for an inquiry. But, Mr. Speaker, any reason which he would probably have given would in any case either have been evidence for the Select Committee or would in fact have anticipated the findings of the Select Committee. Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister is the Leader of the party to which I belong, and as a result of that I accord him my special esteem. But he is also the head of the Government of the Republic of South Africa, and he comes to this House of Assembly of the Republic of South Africa as Prime Minister and as head of the Government of the Republic of South Africa, as a man invested with the responsibilities attached to his office, as a man who has proved that he is worthy of holding that office and of bearing the attendant responsibilities, and he says to the House of Assembly: “I propose that such an inquiry be made because an adequate, prima facie reason has been made out, according to the information I have at my disposal, for such an inquiry”.

What do you mean by “prima facie"?

If the hon. member does not know what it means, he ought not to be sitting in the House of Assembly.

He thinks it is a kind of disease.

Sir, I was saying that the hon. the Prime Minister came to Parliament and said that he had sufficient prima facie evidence that an investigation by a Select Committee into the activities of these organizations was necessary, and because he as Prime Minister said that, it is enough for me to say that such a Select Committee should be appointed. That is enough for me, and what is more, it is enough for the people of South Africa.

It astonishes me that the hon. member for Waterkloof can still use the argument that our plea for the appointment of a judicial commission allegedly constituted a reflection on the abilities of hon. members. Did his own party, his own Government, not appoint numerous commissions in the past? Was the Press Commission under a Judge any reflection on the talents of hon. members on this side of the House? Was the Broederbond Commission a reflection on members of this House? Of course not. There is the instrument of a Select Committee and there is the instrument of a judicial commission and in this case a judicial commission is the obvious body.

†His argument is almost as foolish as that of the hon. the Minister of Transport, who tried to bring in the example of America where, granted, committees have been appointed to investigate many activities such as drugs traffic, crime, etc. But the difference between America and South Africa is this: A decision taken by a committee of the American Senate or of the House of Representatives by no means has the power of law and cannot be translated into law unless it has been approved by both Houses and unless the President has approved of it. There still remains the remedy which is available to the American citizen, and that is that he can take a law passed by the American Congress to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality. There sovereignty is divided between the three bodies. But, Sir, in this case, if this House accepts the motion to appoint a Select Committee, we are making the Select Committee, the majority of whose members will be members on that side, the accusers, the judges and the executors of the judgment, and that is why I believe that it will be unfair to appoint a Select Committee.

*In this respect, Sir, I want to quote a few words from the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech in the no-confidence debate last week. He said—

I want to quote the full sentence so that it will not be said that I have taken it from its context.

As usual.

The hon. the Prime Minister said—

Sir, I agree with the hon. the Prime Minister that we should make no mistake in this regard, and if there were, in fact, to be subversive activities which could be subversive to the safety of the State, it would be well for Parliament to know this and it would be a good thing to take suitable steps, but we repeat that this method of a Select Committee is not the correct one in this connection. He rightly said in this regard that we must make no mistake, but there is another mistake which we can make in this regard, and that is to have the investigation made by a body whose impartiality may possibly be questioned, rightly or wrongly, whereas the findings of a judicial commission will not be questioned. The appointment of a Select Committee is contrary to the principle that the judgment should be impartial or should seem to be so.

Sir, let us be honest with each other. What are our M.P.s here today? We are essentially partial people. On that side and on this side. We are members of a political party. We come here to implement a specific political policy laid down for us. We cannot hold an independent view. We are people who have to propagate a certain direction and who have to think in a certain direction. Personally I am of the opinion that this House would have been reduced to chaos if, instead of hon. members on that side and on this side, we were to have had Judges and magistrates on these benches. But, Sir, this is not criticism of those people’s efficiency and impartiality. At the same time I believe in the party system and I believe that it works well here in South Africa, but under one’s party system in terms of which people are committed to taking up a certain standpoint, it is not right in such a case to appoint a Select Committee of inquiry.

What is wrong with a judicial commission? This we have not yet heard from that side of this House. Why would the decision of a judicial commission be less impartial and less correct than a decision of a Select Committee? I repeat: What is wrong with such a commission? This we have not yet heard from the opposite side.

Have you no confidence in yourself?

But I go further, Sir. I say that many hon. members on the other side, both in this Parliament, outside on the public hustings, at their congresses and in their writings, have openly condemned, very often with bell, book and candle, one or more of these societies. Surely then they have prejudged the issue. I think I am entirely fair in asking whether there is any hon. member on the other side who has not, either in this House, at a congress, in writing, or on the public hustings, condemned one or more of these bodies. Is there one, is there, is there? No, there is not a single one. Sir, they are prejudging the issue. You are putting people on a Select Committee who have already, to a large extent, prejudged this issue.

Sir, I was very interested in a small aside, while the hon. member for Houghton was speaking, from the hon. member for Prinshof. He must correct me if I am wrong, but I think he said that he has never prejudged Nusas or any of these other bodies. He told the hon. member for Houghton that she must be careful in what she says.

I told her to quote the speech.

Did the hon. member not know that he had said it before?

I may or may not have.

Sir, may I refresh the memory of the hon. member for Prinshof. Let us remember that at the present moment he is the chairman of that party’s Justice Group. In all probability he will be asked to serve on this Select Committee. Now, Sir let us hear what he said. As long ago as 1966, six years ago, he spoke in this House when the question of Ian Robertson was discussed, and Nusas too. Then he spoke about an international communist publication called The Student and he said, as reported at Hansard, column 5278 of 14th October, 1966, that that paper was published by the International Student Conference and that it was the mouthpiece of the local Nusas movement abroad. At that time already he had accused Nusas of being the mouthpiece of an international communist paper. [Interjections.] So you are not prepared to listen to evidence on that at all? But I want to go further. This is significant. This is what he said (col. 4279)—

That is the communist movement, as he indicated—

Now, Sir, I am not saying that this is right or that this is wrong, but I do say that the hon. member for Prinshof has prejudged the issue in this speech of his.

He should recuse himself from the committee.

Yes, he should certainly recuse himself from serving on this committee if it is appointed. But I go further in regard to the hon. member for Prinshof. He is now supporting the idea of having a committee of inquiry. What did he say in that same speech? While he was speaking there was an interjection from a member on this side of the House. That interjection was: “Why then do you not call for an inquiry into Nusas”? Does his memory serve him well? Does he know what he replied? Here are his words, Sir—

Six years ago he already thought that there was sufficient evidence to condemn Nusas wholly, so why then should he now want an inquiry? He already has enough evidence. Of course he should not serve on the committee. [Interjections.]

I want to come back to the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister during the no-confidence debate. During that debate, a part of his motivation for this committee was a quotation from a speech by Sir Winston Churchill. In that speech Sir Winston condemned in powerful language Communism and many of its methods, such as provoking collisions attended with bloodshed, or where martyrs are to be manufactured. He spoke of an organization which carries the mask of hatred and is guilty of lethal violence and private assasination and which believes that at some time or another opponents have to be extinguished by death. Those are the words of Sir Winston Churchill. Those strong words of condemnation of Communism are shared by all freedom-loving South Africans, including members on this side of the House. But I want to know: “Why use a quotation which is against Communism and against Communism only as a motivation for this particular inquiry? Surely the hon. the Prime Minister, although he did not say so directly, was hinting that all four of these organizations may be associated with this communist organization which Sir Winston Churchill condemned. After all, the hon. the Prime Minister himself in the sentence I read earlier said—

*Surely these are trends, communistic trends, bodies associated therewith.

†The hon. the Prime Minister was not so entirely innocent in saying that all we want to know are the facts of the case. He has himself stated and delimited in his motivation during the no-confidence debate what the actual reasons are. I am afraid that when we appoint such a Select Committee, the thinking of the members, as is the case in regard to all political parties in the world, may be such that the members may be guilty of faulty logic, which I fear might come from such a Select Committee; the faulty logic of trying to find guilt by association where actual guilt might not exist. I will not go further than to say that it “might” not exist. In mathematics if you say A is equal to B and C is equal to B then you can say A is equal to C. That is just ordinary arithmetic, but you cannot say that in logic. Let me take an example. It is the policy of Communism that the State should own the factors of production. It is the policy of the Nationalist Government and of the United Party that the State should own those means of production known as the Railways and the Electricity Commission. A is equal to B, and C is equal to B, but that does not mean that that Government or this Opposition is a communist party or cell in any way. That is the type of thinking that can come from a Select Committee, the type of thinking of which a trained Judge will not be guilty. This is the ordinary fallacy of the undistributed middle which we often find in faulty logic. Guilt by association would be wrong, but if these organizations are guilty and they are found guilty by a judicial commission, I would support all necessary steps which have to be taken in that connection.

The S.A. Institute of Race Relations comes to mind. Sir, I am not ashamed to say that I am a member of the S.A. Institute of Race Relations and I have been for many years. There are also several other hon. members on this side who are members. So too, I believe, are some Government Departments and Government institutions who are associate members of the S.A. Institute of Race Relations. Why is that? For the simple reason that that body sends out some of the best research material on the racial situation in South Africa that is obtainable. If, say, a communist or a leftist sympathizer is a member of the S.A. Institute of Race Relations, then, contrary to the same argument of guilt by association, it does not mean that I or other members are guilty of extravagant leftist sympathies. My hon. Leader quoted from the Annual Report of the S.A. Institute of Race Relations to show the role played by the Department of Coloured Affairs at the last congress of the Institute, the congress held in Cape Town in January, 1971. Perhaps I should point out one thing further. Not only was the Commissioner for Coloured Affairs there, as well as the Director of Coloured Education and other senior officials of the Administration of Coloured Affairs and the Department of Coloured Relations, but the Director of Coloured Education himself read a paper before this congress of the S.A. Institute of Race Relations. I am pointing this out to show how guilt by association may take place.

Before I go on to my next remark I think there is something I should state, something that the public should know. In reading our amendment it has been pointed out to me that we used the words that the Government should “consider the advisability of appointing a judicial commission”. I have been asked whether those words are not rather weak, and I think it is only fair to the public outside and to us on this side of the House, to say that the amendment was framed in that way owing to the excellent rule applying in all democratic parliaments, including this Parliament, the British Parliament and the Canadian Parliament, that you cannot ask directly for anything that will incur government expenditure. So if we were to have asked directly for a judicial commission, it would have meant the incurrence of government expenditure which we as an opposition are not allowed to do, while members of the Cabinet can do so. Another point which I think the public should realize is that there is not an opportunity at the present moment, as the rules stand at present for a dissenting minority on a Select Committee to bring out a minority report. That remedy does not exist. There seems to be an idea in the minds of the people, that something like that can be done. It cannot be done. However, the report of the Select Committee can come before this Parliament and there it can be discussed fully.

Here I would like to join issue with the hon. member for Houghton on her idea that we in the United Party should not take part at all in that Select Committee. I do not agree, and let me mention some practical factors. If we in the United Party should serve on that committee, we shall have access to all the evidence, for and against; we shall be able to ask questions on that evidence—some of it might be excellent, some of it might not be good, but at least we shall know what that evidence is when we come to discuss the report here in Parliament. Mr. Speaker, you know that the general rule is that such evidence is kept secret and is not permitted to be divulged outside the Select Committee itself. If United Party members come to discuss the report of the Select Committee in Parliament, we shall at least know what the background is; we shall be able to make a significant contribution. I am afraid the hon. member for Houghton will not know what all the evidence was; she will not know of the efforts which had been put into analyzing the evidence, and I think that she will actually be at a disadvantage in that respect.

If we were to stay away from its meetings, we would be making an entirely secret body of that Select Committee, a body where nobody would know what analyses were made of the evidence, and you would simply at the end be faced with a judgment. Should the decision be—I take it a lot will depend on what the hon. the Prime Minister will say in his reply—that we shall take part in that Select Committee, then I think we would only be doing our duty as members of Parliament.

I want to conclude by saying that if we really are in earnest in wanting the country to have confidence in the impartiality of a committee or a commission, if we really want to extend the benefit of full legal process to all the people who are being investigated by such a committee or commission, if we want the country to see that justice is being done openly in an open court, if we want acceptance of the judgment of a committee or commission by the country itself and also by our friends in the outside world, then it is essential that in this instance we should not have a Select Committee but a judicial commission.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat spoke in a rather pedantic way of how laws are made in America, but I think we should take a look at certain important aspects in regard to which the hon. member has his facts wrong. In the first place the hon. member and other members of the Opposition make the big mistake of arraigning these associations and organizations prematurely. The hon. member for Orange Grove has just said: “If they are found guilty by a judicial commission”, he will have confidence in the decision. It is not the task of this Committee, which is to be appointed, to find these organizations guilty or not guilty.

You should listen to your Prime Minister.

It is not in any way the task of this Committee to find these organizations guilty or not guilty; it is not the task of the Committee to investigate a charge sheet—that is where the hon. members make a mistake; the task of this Committee is simply to institute an inquiry, to obtain the information and to place that information before Parliament. It is in fact the purpose of this Committee to act as a body of Parliament and to place the information before this Parliament. I think hon. members of the Opposition are guilty of a very serious misrepresentation when they try to take this inquiry a step further than it really is. I think we must emphasize that we are not dealing here with a process where the outcome could be “guilty” or “not guilty”. When the work of this Committee has been finalized, a report will be submitted to this Parliament. Steps may subsequently be taken if that should be necessary. We do not know whether it will be necessary to take steps. The hon. member for Orange Grove makes another mistake by saying that this parliamentary Committee will be “the accusers, the Judges and the prosecutors”. That is not true; the hon. member is making a mistake. This Committee will not be “accusers”, for they have no right, it is not their duty and it is not their task to “accuse”. Nor will they be “Judges”, for they need not judge anything in the sense of a Judge who must judge what is right and what is wrong. They will not be the “prosecutors”, but they will be persons who have to glean information, and the Opposition must begin to understand this now. This matter has been raised and debated quite a number of times now in this House, but they do not seem to be able to grasp this idea. Another, to my mind, reprehensible action on the part of the Opposition is the obvious attempt by it to create mistrust among the public in respect of that Committee.

Surely that is right.

The hon. member says it is right that members of the Opposition should create mistrust in the Select Committee of this House. This action on the part of the Opposition should be viewed in a serious light. The members of the Opposition are doing the entire Parliament, and that includes themselves, a disservice by trying to create a general public mistrust in Parliament, even before any steps have been taken. It seems to me hon. members of the Opposition are unable to judge matters in an unprejudiced way. For what other reason would they anticipate the entire matter and try to issue guidelines to the public in advance to the effect that they should not have any confidence in what Parliament is doing?

Why are you so sensitive?

The hon. member asks me: “Why are you so sensitive?” but he has every reason to be sensitive as a result of the poor leadership he has received in this connection. The hon. members, and particularly the next speaker, could just indicate to me why the Leader of the Opposition did not take up a standpoint in regard to this matter last Friday afternoon.

Because he did not know what the Prime Minister’s motives were.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition most certainly did not know, when he motivated his amendment today, any more than he knew on Friday afternoon. Now the hon. member says that he did not take up a standpoint on Friday afternoon because he did not know what the Prime Minister’s motives were. Today the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has taken up a standpoint. He prepares an amendment and a speech; he does in fact issue statements to newspapers, while nothing further has been said to him about the Prime Minister’s motives. What inspiration has he suddenly received in regard to what the Prime Minister’s motives supposedly were? That is not all. On Friday afternoon he issued a statement in the Cape Times as Leader of the Opposition in which he stated that the Prime Minister has a majority in this Parliament and that if he wants to appoint a Select Committee he may do so. In addition to that he said that they would serve on that Select Committee. That is very interesting since by Friday evening he still did not have any ideas regarding the appointment of a judicial commission. After there had obviously been mutual consultations, he issued a statement to a newspaper, although he said nothing on Friday evening about a judicial commission. Why not? If hon. members felt so strongly about a judicial commission, why did they not say this on Friday evening already? What happened between Friday evening and today when the hon. the Leader changed his standpoint and stated here that there should be a judicial commission? What inspired him, what information did he have and what new facts did he receive so that he could now come here and say that a judicial commission should be appointed instead of a Select Committee? Obviously he observed that a reaction arose outside the House, among his Press friends, an attempt to adopt an attitude which would embarrass the Government. He was guided by them to come here and ask for a judicial commission. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the hon. member who spoke of sensitivity, himself has many things to be sensitive about. He can most certainly be sensitive in regard to the uncertain leadership he has received in this connection.

Then, too, I would like to react to one or two of the remarks made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The hon. member tried to label this inquiry of the Select Committee in advance as being a political witchhunt. Mr. Speaker, is that not a defamation of the actions of the Select Committee even before it has taken any action? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout and other hon. members also said that we should be honest with one another and should admit that this is a party-political matter and that we are party-political people. The hon. member for Orange Grove said that we must remember that each one of us has to propagate a specific standpoint. Of course we have to propagate a specific standpoint. But I want to ask the hon. member since when the security of the State has become a party-political matter to him? Since when is the mere fact of our discussing the security of the State a case where the hon. member for Orange Grove is propagating one matter and this side of the House another? I am speaking now about the principle that we should maintain the security of the State. Since when is the principle of the security of the State a party-political matter. The hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Orange Grove must most definitely bear in mind that there are certain things which they should separate from their own party-political context and not play party-politics with or try to make political gain out of. One of these matters is most certainly the security of the State.

The hon. the Prime Minister said that he did not say that these people were guilty of certain actions against the security of the State. But he did say there was prima facie evidence which made it necessary to look into this matter and to see how these organizations worked.

Mr. Speaker, I think we should take a closer look at other phrases used by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The hon. member spoke of action and reaction. The hon. member said that the Government should stop considering the reaction and should consider its own action. What was the hon. member for Bezuidenhout implying in this particular case? Suppose we had been dealing here with a matter which could perhaps prejudice and affect the security of the State, directly or indirectly. What was the hon. member implying? Was he not implying that the Government is responsible for every action against the security of the State in this country? Such a vague, general statement that we should take a closer look at the action than at the reaction, is nothing but a defamation of this Government. It is nothing but making insinuations which have no foundation whatsoever.

In regard to the motion by the United Party, I want to say that we are simply unable to understand the logic of the actions of the United Party any more. Here we again have a case where the United Party receives guidance in two directions at the same time. The United Party’s actions in this connection today are nothing but an attempt to sit on two stools at the same time. On the one hand the United Party wants to satisfy those people who are completely, just like the hon. member for Houghton, opposed to this inquiry. That is why they say the kind of things they did. They want to make certain that they do not lose votes, votes which may possibly come their way; they are afraid to make an attack which would be unpopular with certain sections of the electorate; they are afraid they may perhaps lose votes to the left. That is why they say the kind of things they said on the one hand; on the other hand, they are afraid that they will lose votes to the right, the votes of people who do in fact want an inquiry of this nature to be instituted. That is why they come with a different motion so that they can at least say that they also investigated the matter. The standpoint of the United Party has two meanings. It makes no difference from what side they may be criticized, for they are buttering up to both sides. They can speak to the left and present an argument on that side for people criticizing them, and they can speak to the right and advance another argument there.

This Parliament is entitled to information; it is entitled to obtain information and to know what is going on. This Parliament is not a court of law, a prosecutor. Nor is this Parliament a judge in this matter. But this Parliament is entitled to information. It simply wants information, and information is all it will get. If it should be necessary, action can be decided on later. Perhaps it is not necessary at all. All that is involved at this stage is the obtaining of information. It is very clear that the United Party have saddled the wrong horse.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pretoria Central said many things with which we do not agree, but I should like to raise two matters in respect of which we do agree with him. In the first place, we agree with the hon. member that all of us are involved in and concerned about the safety of the State. I think that we in South Africa have become sensible enough to realize today that, as far as the safety of the State is concerned, there is no difference of opinion between the Government and the official Opposition. A sphere in which there may in fact be a difference of opinion, a quite permissible difference of opinion, is that of the methods followed in order to ensure the safety of the State. That is a matter which we shall debate and on which we shall differ. The second point of the hon. member for Pretoria Central with which we agree, is that Parliament is entitled to information. I think it will be a very sad day when this Parliament, this sovereign body, has to debate and decide without being afforded the privilege of obtaining the best information at all times. I want to emphasize “of obtaining the best information”.

In the light of those two general observations, with which we agree, I should like to make at this stage—we should like to hear the Prime Minister today, if that is possible—a serious appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister to reconsider his motion and to give very serious thought to the possibility of his accepting the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the least of which one can say—we could say much more—is that it has been moved with the right motives. I want to ask him to consider it very carefully. To do this can do no harm to what the hon. the Prime Minister seeks to achieve; it can only do good. I am saying this for many reasons, which I shold like to mention. I am sorry that one of the reasons is personal to a certain extent, but I cannot avoid it since it is my duty to mention it. I want the Prime Minister to realize that it is unfortunate for him, as a person, that he has moved this motion at this stage and in this manner. In the first instance, it is inevitable that the public outside will come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister is politically motivated in respect of this matter. [Interjections.] Hon. members should not be so hasty. The hon. the Prime Minister made this announcement, in the first instance, in what is probably the most heated political debate in the annual session of Parliament, namely the debate on the motion of no confidence. He seized that political opportunity in order to make this announcement. The inevitable conclusion is that he did so by way of creating a diversion, because he was dissatisfied with his party’s progress in that debate and because he was dissatisfied with his party’s progress outside this House. At the time he did everything in his power to find something to divert the attention of the public from the real issue in South Africa, i.e. the competence of this Government to carry on with its policy. The public will think that it is even stranger that the Prime Minister should move this motion, that he should now think all of a sudden that Parliament, through a select committee, is the proper body for investigating matters which do not concern its own privilege or that of its members.

†We can all remember the days not so long ago when the hon. the Prime Minister appointed commissions to do exactly this sort of work at the drop of a hat. We can still remember the judicial commission appointed to investigate the BOSS allegations made by a former member of this House who later became the leader of an insignificant political party. We can still remember the Land Bank Commission to investigate the Kolver affair. The Prime Minister had most unfortunate experiences with this commission and the public will think that he is again influenced by his own experiences. You will remember, Sir, that the Prime Minister did not like that judgment and he accused witnesses who are members of this House of perjury. He could not sustain these accusations, but one of his newspapers, Die Beeld, repeated the accusation outside and subsequently had to pay heavy damages and also had to apologize humbly to the two members concerned. The public will feel, and I do not want this to happen in the interests of Parliament, that the hon. the Prime Minister is influenced by his own experience of judicial commissions. Sir, it is a strange argument that the Prime Minister uses, and it is even stranger that the hon. the Minister of Transport should support the Prime Minister in his argument and that is that it is more fitting that we should have a select committee if we want information than it is to appoint a judicial commission. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister if it is the practice of the Cabinet when they seek information always to appoint select committees because they are best equipped to give them information. The hon. the Minister of Finance probably has the most important department after that of the Prime Minister. Has he not in recent years appointed the Borekenhagen and Schumann Commissions to deal with financial relations—a very difficult subject—between Parliament, the provincial councils and local authorities? Surely members of Parliament are elected to deal with these very things. It is the duty of a member to acquaint himself with these things. But the hon. the Minister of Finance did not appoint a select committee to investigate these things. He appointed a commission of outside experts who were best equipped to advise members of Parliament on that issue. Take the hon. the Minister of Transport. Both parties have Transport Groups. This House also has a Select Committee on Transport and we have special Budget debates on transport. But when the hon. the Minister wanted advice on rating, for example, he appointed the Schumann Commission. When he wanted advice on the organization of transport in South Africa generally, he did not go to any members of Parliament, he appointed Dr. Marais as chairman of a commission. That was not an insult to Parliament as the hon. the Prime Minister suggested in his speech. That was a service to Parliament, because the hon. the Minister of Transport believed quite rightly that Parliament was entitled to the best advice that was available in order to inform it on a difficult situation. I want to suggest with great respect that where Parliament requires information, as the Prime Minister believes that we do now, on a delicate matter affecting the freedom of the people where potential crimes may have to be investigated, where potential subversion has to be investigated, where evidence has to be sifted and where truthfulness has to be tested and judged upon, a judicial commission would be a better judge on the aspects on which the Prime Minister wants an investigation, just as the Schumann and Marais Commissions were better judges on railway aspects. I say with respect that I cannot understand why the Prime Minister wants to suggest that it is an insult to and contempt of Parliament if one believes, as other Ministers believe, that there are instances where outside experts—judicial experts, because in this case it is a judicial matter—like judges are best equipped to advise Parliament and to find information for Parliament.

We have all had experience of serving on select committees. I want to say at once that in the cases where I served on select committees which investigated the privilege and honour of members of this House, those select committees acted in a very fine spirit, because they were the greatest experts on Parliamentary privilege. Such a committee was the right body to use for this purpose. I know of one example only when I served on a select committee and members did not vote in accordance with what was the policy of their party, and that was the last Select Committee on the Electoral Laws Bill, when United Party members, supported by, I think the majority of Nationalist Party members on that Select Committee, voted for the abolition of the Postal Vote system, because they felt it was dishonest and capable of the most gross abuse. But what happened? When members do not vote in accordance with their political convictions, their political party does not take their advice. Then their advice is meaningless. Then they are not the experts. Then it was not an insult to disregard them, because it politically suited the Nationalist Party to retain the dishonest Postal Vote system. They ignored their own members and the majority of an important select committee.

Order!

You must withdraw that.

What am I to withdraw? I should gladly do so if I …

The hon. member must come back to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I am arguing the point at issue, namely whether we should have a select committee or a judicial commission. I want to say with great respect to all of us, and I am including my party as much as any other party, that when a select committee is appointed to investigate a matter of political dispute in this House, then by some strange psychological process, a process of rationalization in which honest men indulge, which has nothing to do with the honesty of members, in 99 cases out of 100, we divide on the select committees according to our political views. That is an experience we all have. It is not because we are dishonest, but we are very human. We are not trained as Judges, but we are well trained—you do not get to Parliament until you are well trained to be a politician. Let us face it. Let us be honest with ourselves. That is why I appeal to the Prime Minister to reconsider this suggestion. There is no prestige or anything else at stake. There will be no defeat; there will only be victory on his part if he accepts the amendment by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Then we can face South Africa and the world, saying that we are appointing a judicial commission which obviously in the nature of the matter is most suited for this purpose, and which can give us the most carefully evaluated information in the issues about which the Prime Minister is concerned, and which will be accepted throughout the world as a judicial and judicious judgment in this issue.

Mr. Speaker, the other point that I would like to deal with is the suggestion, the strange suggestion, that because our amendment may be defeated we must abdicate our responsibility as Members of Parliament and not serve on that select committee. Sir, all of us who have served on select committees know from experience, and all of us who have fought elections know from experience, that politicians are most honest—they are always honest, but they are most honest—when the one party acts as a watchdog over the other party. That is axiomatc in politics, and I believe that a select committee consisting only of Nationalist Party members or only of United Party members would be a travesty of justice.

May I ask the hon. member whether, if this is the case, he is definitely in favour of such an inquiry?

The question is not whether or not I am in favour of an inquiry, but since the hon. member has put this question to me, I shall reply to it. In the first instance, my hon. Leader announced in a Press interview, after the debate on the motion of no confidence, that since the Prime Minister controlled a majority in Parliament, he could appoint such a commission if he wishes to do so, and that if such a commission were appointed, the United Party would have to serve on it so as to assist in seeing to it, as far as possible, that justice was done. That is the first point.

But are you in favour of it?

The second point is this: The hon. the Prime Minister said he had information establishing a prima facie case against these organizations, and subsequent to that three of these organization asked of their own accord for a judicial inquiry so that, if they were not guilty, they could prove their innocence, and for the same reason I say, since the hon. the Prime Minister made that accusation here on a political occasion, in the course of the debate on the motion of no confidence, that we owe it to those organizations that they be afforded an opportunity of proving their innocence before an impartial judicial commission, and if they are not innocent, they should then take the consequences. I want to make our position very clear. After the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister that he had information establishing a prima facie case against these people, our party is in favour of the inquiry so that either these people may prove their innocence or the Prime Minister may prove their guilt. He created a new situation when he made that statement. Sir, now I just hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will leisurely and quietly consider what I have said. Eventually he will understand it.

That is very complicated.

We want to serve on that select committee because we believe that in politics it is necessary for the parties to act as watchdogs over each other, and I say this without intending insult; this is a fact.

†Secondly, we would also like to have an opportunity to judge and evaluate the evidence placed before that Select Committee, because eventually that Select Committee will report to Parliament, and I should hate to be in the position of the hon. member for Houghton, who wants to come to that debate ignorant of what happened on the Select Committee.

She would hate to be in your position.

I am sure she would. I always think that a woman has a much more interesting life than a man. Sir, we do not want the United Party to be in the position of having to come to Parliament to debate this important matter affecting a fundamental right of the people, the right to organize and to have an organization without having participated in the proceedings of the Select Committee, and possibly without even knowing what the evidence was. We feel that we want to do our duty as Members of Parliament when that issue has to be decided. We want to come here informed for the purpose of the debate, and for that reason we shall serve on the Committee. We want to have the opportunity, which is our right, to suggest the names of witnesses who should be called to give evidence before the Select Committee. If the United Party does not serve on the Select Committee, the selection of witnesses may be left completely to a Nationalist Party majority. We do not believe, without any reflections on the members concerned, that that would serve the ends of justice as administered by this Parliament. Mr. Speaker, I think, with respect, that any Member of Parliament who refuses to serve on such a Select Committee, if the Prime Minister will not listen to the reasoned arguments put to him today and does not accept the amendment of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, any Member of Parliament who does not serve on that Committee, is doing a disservice to the objects of justice.

I want to come back to the fact that there is a suspicion in the public mind, reflected in the Press outside, among the people concerned and associated with this problem, that the whole suggestion has a political motive. There is a suggestion, a fear amongst the people that we are seeing a revival in South Africa, an attempt to introduce into South Africa the tactics of Senator McCarthy of the United States of America, a person who derived great political advantage from witch-hunts and from fishing expeditions against American citizens, and who at one time, before he became thoroughly discredited, according to public opinion polls had 50 per cent of the American people behind him and 20 per cent undecided about him, and only 30 per cent against him. I am afraid that we may be embarking upon a course that will bring the evils of McCarthyism to South Africa. And the greatest danger which can arise from this type of tactics, of seeing a communist bogey in everything, instead of dealing with individuals, for which the Government has ample powers, to generalize about whole organizations on flimsy evidence, and not before the best courts for the purpose, is that we may do South Africa a disservice. It is interesting to note that experts who studied McCarthyism say that his activities had an influence upon the American people, some of which was good and some of which was bad, and that some of the bad influences are still evident in the U.S.A. Here is a book on McCarthy, written by Richard Rovere, which is looked upon by many men as a prejudiced book, but a book which is not criticized on the facts. Some of the opinions and interpretations contained in it are criticized, but not the facts. This is what this man concludes about one of the bad effects that this type of witchhunt has had upon American public life, and unfortunately it is completely relevant to the Prime Minister’s suggestion that on this type of subject there should be a parliamentary commission to usurp the functions of the Judiciary. He writes as follows:

That is witnesses, Sir, who thought that they might be found guilty of some crime—

Then he points out that it is only with difficulty that even honest members of Parliament can go and plead—he wrote the book in 1957—in the United States of America on merit a case for recognizing, say, communist China, because as the result of McCarthy they faced the political penalty of being tarred with the communist brush. Sir, I am perturbed about it and I think all democrats are worried about it, and the hon. the Prime Minister, with this communist bogey which is brought forward, because this followed, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Orange Grove, on a political occasion and in a political speech and a prolonged quotation concerning Communism—we are concerned that they will do the same—and eventually the people and the representatives of the people will be scared to pass a fair judgment on matters communistic, because no politician can survive the taint of Communism. In this regard let me say in passing that one of the saddest things I have read is the pamphlet issued by the Nationalist Party candidate in Gezina, where the United Party is not even fighting, wherein he deliberately tries to associate the United Party with furtherance of the causes of Communism. It would be sad if we come to that, and that is why I plead with the Prime Minister to accept my Leader’s amendment. If we once come to that—that is why I am worried about this procedure and that is why I plead with the hon. the Prime Minister to accept my hon. Leader’s amendment—we can debase the quality of debate, the quality of judgment of our whole democratic procedure in South Africa. I appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister.

One other thought: What is interesting in this book too is that once you start this communist bogey in this fashion, where you generalize, where you should act against individuals but then tar every organization to which some individuals might have belonged or may belong, many institutions will lose their will to resistance. In this book there is a whole number of them listed—public institutions, public organizations, public associations, sections of the Public Service; they become so nervous as a result of this dastardly practice of McCarthyism of painting everybody with a communist brush, whether it was justified or not, by using deductive arguments based on a few individual cases, that they become afraid to resist. It is interesting that this man mentions that there were exceptions and these exceptions were the most hated of all organizations by the McCarthyites’ of the United States, and which were these organizations? Rovere said—

That is the trade union—

He mentions Walter Lippmann and a whole lot of others.

Mr. Speaker, are we not running that danger too because of our obsession with Communism? I am on record in this House over 23 years that I am not backward in condemning or in fighting Communism, but do not let us take it too far; do not let us make a party political weapon of this terrible danger; do not let us play the fool with it, because then more and more the Nationalist Party will find itself hating the churches, hating the free Press, hating independent journalists, hating the trade unions. It will find itself isolated from the courageous in our society.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell the hon. member for Yeoville at once that the unworthy insinuations he made in the course of his speech will most certainly receive no attention at all from my side, and as far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, I think it has in no way caused the hon. member to rise in the estimation of this House.

On Friday, in the first debate of the year, I gave hon. members notice across the floor of this House that I would move a motion such as this. The most ridiculous of all ridiculous arguments I have ever heard in my life is that I should now drop this motion because I mentioned it in the debate on the motion of no confidence.

Not only am I surprised at actions of hon. members opposite, but I also find it quite a study; I find it an absolute study. The one thing I find particularly striking, however, is the way in which hon. members have been falling over one another all afternoon in an attempt to shake off their responsibilities. Since the hon. member for Yeoville made a very pious and transparent appeal to me to drop my motion in favour of that of his Leader so that he could evade his responsibility in this connection, I want to tell him straightaway that I am not prepared to do that. As I have said, I made this proposal across the floor of the House on Friday, and if it was such a palpably wrong proposal, if it was such an obviously absurd proposal, what must I think of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? The hon. the Leader received the compliment from one of the political commentators that he had the gift of being able to think on his feet. On Friday I said across the floor of the House that I was going to move such a motion, and I specifically added that it would be a Select Committee on which both sides of the House could be represented. I also stated the purpose of the investigation and what organizations would be investigated. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition subsequently spoke for an hour and a quarter, but he, the man who can think on his feet, did not even refer to that. He did not even say whether they agreed with it or not; he said nothing. After the debate, after the hon. the Leader had had opportunity upon opportunity of thinking on his feet, the newspapers naturally came to ask the hon. the Leader about the matter. I shall quote to hon. members what the Cape Times stated in that connection. It surprises me to see that hon. members on the other side are astonished at my thinking they agreed with this motion. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had such objections to it, why did he not tell us across the floor on Friday? Why not?

He knew there would be a special debate.

Surely that is the most arrant nonsense in the world. If this is such absolute nonsense, as the hon. member for Yeoville now wants to make out, surely the hon. the Leader should have said so on Friday. Furthermore, the Cape Times asked the hon. the Leader what he was going to do and what his standpoint was. The hon. the Leader said—

Surely the proper thing for the hon. the Leader to have said then, was that he did not agree with a Select Committee being appointed. Surely he could have said that he thought the Prime Minister was wrong and that he should not appoint such a committee, but a judicial commission of inquiry. Why did he not say this on Friday? Those hon. members are getting hot under the collar now; they have spoken all afternoon about the folly of our appointing a Select Committee, but it did not occur to the hon. the Leader, the man who can think on his feet, to tell them on Friday that it should not be a Select Committee. As usual the United Party’s attitude is to run with the hare and hunt with hte hounds. This is the attitude that has been reflected by the hon. members opposite. Only yesterday the newspapers were still asking the hon. member what their standpoint in this connection was. Then they could still not explain what it was.

We could, but we did not want to. [Interjections.]

My friend affords us much amusement on many occasions. This statement will most certainly be recorded in history: My friends opposite “can, but they do not want to”. Let me now tell my hon. friend what the true position is: They did not want to, but they have to. That is the true position.

Let us see what kind of arguments were advanced here as reasons why there should not be a Select Committee. There were different arguments why there should not be such a committee. Believe it or not, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition actually put forward the argument that we would place witnesses in an impossible position because they could be incriminated if they gave evidence before the Select Committee.

Who said it was an incriminating position?

You did. As one of the reasons why a judicial commission and not a Select Committee should be appointed, the hon. the Leader advanced the argument that before a judicial commission “they need not answer incriminating questions”.

Right.

But the same rule applies to the Select Committee. Here it is in section 22 of the Privileges Act, which reads as follows—

You know there has been a dispute about that.

Mr. Speaker, surely there can be no dispute about something which is so clear. [Interjections.] But the hon. member knows that a person can have recourse to the fact that it would incriminate him if he gave evidence.

And you are very well aware of it.

Hon. members opposite advanced various arguments for the sole purpose of evading their responsibility in this connection. But what has the position been in the past? On countless occasions in the past hon. members have reproached us, when we took action against organizations or individuals, with not taking hon. members and Parliament into our confidence. We were allegedly so arrogant that we were governing outside of Parliament and that we did not want to take Parliament into our confidence. I now want to take Parliament into my confidence; I, as the person responsible, now want to come to Parliament and say that I have certain evidence at my disposal. Naturally I cannot take Parliament as a whole into my confidence, because that would take days and months. I now come forward and ask Parliament to give me a Select Committee so that I may take that Select Committee into my confidence on behalf of the whole of Parliament. Hon. members opposite have argued all afternoon that I should not take Parliament into my confidence, and that after they repeatedly reproached me with not wanting to trust Parliament. [Interjections.] But what is more, what reproaches have been made by hon. members opposite as far as the Security Police and the members of the Bureau for State Security are concerned? “They are a law unto themselves; they work in the dark and we do not know what they are doing!” I want to bring those Security Polcie and the members of the Bureau for State Security before hon. members. I shall see to it that they appear before hon. members so that hon. members may question them. Hon. members are so quick to make accusations against these gentlemen. I now want to give them the opportunity of questioning these people. Hon. members have been pleading all afternoon not to be afforded that opportunity of meeting the people whom hon. members have been accusing behind their backs, in order to question those people in connection with these matters.

I want to deal with the argument advanced by the hon. member for Houghton, but before I come to that there is just another matter I want to refer to. The hon. members for Green Point and Bezuidenhout accused me of asking Parliament for the impossible because I am not motivating my request, because I am not giving particulars. I have deliberately not given particulars. I have many particulars and I could speak about this matter in this House for days. But why have I not divulged them?

You do not want to.

For the simple reason that if I divulged them [Interjections.] I shall furnish them to the Select Committee. But if I now placed evidence before hon. members in the House, what would hon. members say then? They would say that I had already formed a judgment on the matter; they would say that I had already disposed of the matter and that the Select Committee was merely a rubber stamp to confirm what Vorster or the Government had stated in Parliament. That is why I am not giving particulars now. But I am standing here as a responsible person and I am saying there is prima facie evidence I want to lay before a Select Committee, and hon. members do not want it to be received by a Select Committee. Just take the evidence that has come to the light here. As far as my information goes, the Institute of Race Relations is the least dangerous of all these organizations. The hon. member for Houghton mentioned an example here of their having received money from the Ford Foundation—and what better example could we get, even as far as that organization is concerned?

They make no secret of it.

We know that. I want to say at once that the Ford Foundation has nothing whatsoever to do with the Ford Motor Company. I am saying this to be fair. But the Ford Foundation has provided aid to the terrorists in Tanzania. If I served on such a Select Committee I would want to know from such an organization, now that the hon. member has mentioned this how it comes about that they too receive money from an organization which is helping the terrorists as well and what the connection is. I am not saying there is any connection, but …

McCarthy.

It is for the Select Committee to determine whether there is any connection or not. I would do the same with anyone receiving money from an organization that financially supports and helps the terrorists against South Africa. If in respect of this case hon. members want to reproach me with being like McCarthy, I am willing to bear those reproaches.

May I ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question?

The hon. member may ask me a question after I have concluded my argument. The hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Green Point say that I have given no motivation and that therefore, inter alia, they cannot vote for a Select Committee. Then the hon. members cannot vote for a judicial commission either; if there is no motivation for a Select Committee, there is much less motivation for a judicial inquiry. The Select Committee is of Parliament. I said that I wanted to inform Parliament, but hon. members say that I cannot inform Parliament because I have given them no motivation of why Parliament should be informed. However, I must appoint a judicial commission without any motivation, because then it is good enough! This again shows me that hon. members opposite want to evade their responsibility in this way.

Now the hon. member for Houghton may ask me the question.

I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister what evidence he has that the Ford Foundation gives money to terrorists.

It so happens that I discussed this matter and this money with Mr. Henry Ford personally. I discussed it with him personally in my office in this Parliament and I expressed my displeasure to him at this being the position. He told me that his motor company had nothing whatsoever to do with the Ford Foundation, and therefore I am saying this in all fairness to the Ford Motor Company. What is more, there was a whole article about it in the Press, and people reacted to it; I am surprised that the hon. member did not hear about it herself when she was visiting her friends in Tanzania.

I have heard many arguments why one should or should not take some particular step. But for hon. members to say, as was unfortunately said by a hard-working, good member, i.e. the hon. member for Zululand, that there is no time for members of the House of Assembly to concern themselves with this matter, is surely no argument. After all, we cannot shake off our responsibility by saying that we have no time to listen to such a matter. I want to tell hon. members that I regard this matter in so serious a light that, even if there is no time, Parliament ought to make time to listen to these matters. As far as I am concerned, a positive duty rests on every one of us to make time to hear what there is to hear in this connection. If my friend says that hon. members on both sides of the House—of course, he knows his hon. members better than I do—“cannot form a nice, balanced judgment” in connection with facts, in connection with security and in connection with organizations that are venturing into a very delicate political sphere and whose actions we have had reason to be familiar with in the past, it simply does not hold good as far as I am concerned. When it is said of all members of the House of Assembly that we should appoint a judicial commission, in the words of one hon. member opposite “so that there can be fairness and impartiality”, I reject it on behalf of Parliament and all members with the contempt it deserves.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.